Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

[Ed O'Brien]

This isn't about airplanes but it is about our male behavior and about a previous discussion on Timothy Treadwell (Grizzlyman eaten by a bear) (see previous thread titled Timothy Treadwell) and now Steve Irwin (Crock-hunter) killed today by a stingray's barb. Both men did dangerous things for fame. Both men died under ironic circumstances. Both men have detractors and admirers. No matter the participation of the animal kingdom in the tragic deaths of these men, the fatalities were quite literally
made for TV executions. Being that I'm in the TV business...I think it's a rotten way to go. Fame equals money turns into fame equals death. Theories about Television turning into the blood-sport seem ever-so-true this day. Perhaps it's no different than football player's dying on the field (I saw KC Chief Stone Johnson die in a pre-season game in Wichita) or a circus performer
taking a header from a trapese... but it doesn't seem right. That said, it may be fair. Life has so many endings. Ironic death isn't a good ending, ever.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[alwaysoar]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

Steve Irwin was the genuine article, doing what he had a passion for whether you liked him or not (I didn't much). He wasn't seeking fame, just made a career out of doing what he loved to do. Treadwell was delusional, but he paid for it. Criticism not justified.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

I think my criticism is more towards the blood sport of television. Reality television turning people into pathetically craven archetypes fits here too. Steve Irwin
had to live up to NOT his expectations but his audiences
expectations. Otherwise, he wouldn't take evermore dangerous assignments. He spent the last few years without doing new episodes. This, after complaints about putting his baby son's life in danger, or not, depending on who's arguing the point, while feading a croc... anyway, that video did his reputation damage. So he made tours of talk shows and did TV commercials to rehabilitate his image. He got what he wanted and an order for new episodes.
By the way, I thought it was a phony tear-down
but he wanted his reputation back just the same. I haven't heard the particulars about his death. I imagine he was taking chances that were designed to thrill us... and it did. You can learn every bit as much about reptiles watching David Attenborough without endangering the
protagonist for an adreniline rush. Steve Irwin was most likely good. Television is less so... I doubt you'll hear his
executive producer and prompter of high risk antics ask for forgiveness. Television never takes responsibility in this way. It leaves it to the audience's sympathies and its own commercial justifications.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[VictorBravo]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

Steve Irwin was NOT a circus side show like Jerry Springer or Morton Downey or whoever this week's side show bozo is.

Irwin was sincere, and happened to have an "over the top" personality that he used to make himself a better television subject. But his high energy antics were not the raison d'etre, they were a by product. His sincerity came through in my strong opinion, and his over-riding message was legitimate, sincere, and worthwhile.

After hearing a little about the details of his death, I came to the conclusion that he was not showboating or being a daredevil, but he was simply getting up close to an interesting subject as part of a TV shoot. It is my understanding that he died because of something fairly rare (a ray stinging him), and then a completely freak occurrence (the ray's barbed tail causing death instead of just a nasty sting). I did not get the impression that this was a case of a stupid Daredevil finally having the odds catch up to him.

I also feel that Treadwell was not doing anything worthwhile, like promoting conservationism, promoting education on wildlife, running a zoo that treated the animals well, etc.

[alwaysoar]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

Part of my defense of Irwin comes from my having stepped on a sting ray when I was ten years old living in Newport Beach, CA at a small beach on the Bay across the road from our house where we swam and fished every day. The pain was terrible, but fortunately my father knew how to treat for shock. It was an accident of course, but was I taking a risk because I knew there were dangers in the water? I had caught small sharks there, and my father had also stepped on a sting ray and wound up in the hospital.

Am I taking a risk every time I climb into my TCraft? It's 60-years-old, and there are tragic airplane crashes all the time. I understand that your criticism is about the TV industry, with good justification, but in doing what we love to do, we are taking risks that the more sedentary and less passionate in our society don't take and our accidents are fodder for TV.

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

Mr. Irwin's entire act was based on how close he could come without getting bit. He misjudged one of the distances and paid the price. My point is, like the pilot who allows himself to be bullied into flying bad weather by "the boss in the back of the plane", or the guy who flies in to the ground with "get-home-itis" in his blood... or the sleepy and most recent Lexington KY commuter pilot who unfortunately killed all of his passengers and crew -- there are terrible penalties for misjudgement. Mr. Irwin died of pilot error, so to speak -- but as in all cases of pilot error -- the story is much larger, the chain of mistakes longer, and the guilty (which might include TV executives and crew in this case) are rarely exposed. So, it's up to us, in our imaginations and through our own judgements, to sort it out, take stock of this and every other situation, and learn our lessons. My lesson is don't let TV cloud your better judgement on anything. It has not a clue about the world and wants only bigger, badder, crazier, more, more, more...
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[NY86]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

I was an avid SCUBA diver in a past life and have a reasonable amount of time cavorting with sting rays. I have been following this story intently and from what I have been able to glean, which may be incorrect, it seems that he was not interacting with the ray at the time of the incident. He was swimming over it, which is usually a safe thing to do. The water was shallow, so maybe he was closer than prudent. For some reason this ray struck and happened to hit him directly in the heart. More a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time than misjudging his distance from danger. My point is it sounds like what he was doing should not have been dangerous.

Treadwell thought that if he was nice to the bears they'd be nice to him. Sorta like Cindy Sheehan...

[Ed O'Brien]

Re: Steve Irwin v Timothy Treadwell

Not to go on too much about this sort of thing. But, Television claims another man... this one's just in critical condition.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/north_yorkshire/5365676.stm

Here in Denver we've lost 5 or 6 news helicopters and several crew in the past 15-20years. Helicopters and our thin air are not a good combination.

For those of you sticking up for the departed Mr. Irwin, and my suggestion was he was certainly worth sticking up for... my point that television kills is rather bluntly exhibited in the fact that Steve Irwin's father did the same work as Steve. Did it for much longer. Is alive today. And, mostly because he was good at what he did and DID NOT have a TV show. Television kills by slowly suplanting judgement and skill, with fame and ambition. Nasty things.
It's an exceedingly subtle thing, it seems to happen with some regularity. Today's news story is another example.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN