Discussion in 'Disney Rumors and News' started by crazy4wdw, Mar 16, 2007.
Disney visitor collapses on water-park ride, dies
Ugh, I hate news articles written like that, he didn't die on the attraction, he was walking up a set of stairs, but it's still "the 10th involving Disney World rides and water-park attractions since late 2004."
How sad for his family...
I don't like it how it's phrased in the article saying that it is the 10th death at Disney since 2004. Everyone who passed away there, though tragic, died of a pre-exisiting condition.
I guess the media will always enjoy putting Disney down.
Log in or Sign up to hide this advert.
I don't get this story either and my questioning it has nothing to do with me being a fan of Disney and WDW. The guy was walking up a set stairs and could have collapsed any where. Why do they have to make it sound like he died going on Mission Space or something. I would question this reporter's choice of words no matter where the poor guy died.
I guess using Disney's name and highlighting the fact that the guy died in one of their theme parks will sell more papers.
Yeah, like all these hatchet jobs:
he had a heart attack, he could have been sitting on the toliet at home for goodness sakes, it is a shame but why should Disney take the blame heart disease?
I must have missed the part of the story where they blamed Disney.
i personally hope my last moments on earth do not revolve around me traversing stairs.
</bad taste>Ironically a few more stairs earlier on might have let this gentleman the inconvenience of dying on them. Th-That's terrible, I'm sorry.
Yes, very sad. I do feel very sorry for the family.
But I don't see anything in the article that puts Disney down. They were careful to explain the extenuating circumstances in each of the cases referenced.
No, if it happened on a sidewalk in Chicago, it probably wouldn't have made the news (but occasionally stories like that do get a mention), but Disney and WDW specifically are high-profile names. They get lots of publicity, period. You have to take the bad with the good.
It didn't say he was a fat guy, it said he had a pre-existing heart condition. Young fit athletes in their prime have dropped dead of such things.
I said "Might", cranky-pants.
"The death is the 10th involving Disney World rides and water-park attractions since late 2004."
The author doesn't exactly blame Disney per se, but clearly the general tone of the article did seem to go a bit out of the way to make it seem as though theres a legitmate correlation between Disney rides/attractions and 10 people dying in the last 3 years.
Disney really should be putting this on their attractions' warning signs:
PERSONS WITH AN UNDETECTED PREEXISTING HEART CONDITION OR WHO ARE TERMINALLY ILL SHOULD NOT RIDE.
Do you think that might exempt them from criticism? I know I am being sarcastic, but why does this deserve all of this press? Millions of people pass through the gates every week without incident. I suppose the reason it is news is because it is so rare, but still, the tone of the article does make it sound like Disney is not as safe as it should be. To use these events as evidence of that is silly.
I'm sorry, but it doesn't. It's a statement of fact and there is no cause/effect relationship stated or implied.
Also, they could have ended it with the sentence you quoted, but instead covered three of the examples, listing the extenuating circumstances in each.
It's hard to tell exactly what the tone of the article is, but I'm leaning towards believing that this author is trying to make something out of nothing. Stating only facts does not make a person exempt from showing a bias. There are some facts that may have been left out or even added that could change the color of the writing for better or worse.
For instance, what about a statement of fact which compares deaths at WDW to the average number of deaths at other tourist attractions? This would also be a statement of fact, but would guide the reader into understanding that while these types of deaths are rare, they will occur everywhere that millions of people visit. It's possible to state facts while still steering your reader in a particular direction--this is usually done by omition.
It's subtle, but it happens.
Extenuating circumstances aside, the author notes:
These are both moot points unless the author is trying to, as ASilmser describes, steer the reader.
Why would it matter if the man had gone down the slide already unless you were trying to suggest that there was a correlation between the ride and his death in some exaggerated way? Why describe the extreme nature of the ride unless you were hinting at such a correlation?
These examples are unnecessary to cite unless the author was deliberately trying to materialize a legitmate correlation where none exists, which he clearly has done.
They are only moot points if the author makes the assumption that the slide had nothing to do with the incident. While it appears that is the case, it would actually be irresponsible reporting to make that assumption. Just as it would be irresponsible to assume the slide DID cause the death if the man appeared to be healthy otherwise.
He reported that the family told Disney the man had a pre-existing heart condition, which he did not have to. He could have simply said they will await autopsy results before reaching any conclusions.
Sure, it happens. Just not here.
The point of the article was just this one man's death, not a comparison to industry averages. By including three examples and their extenuating circumstances, he is strengthening the position that their is no correlation to the ride(s) themselves, even thought those incidents had nothing to do with this one. That could have been easily omitted to the detriment of Disney.
As I said above, we have to remember that no matter what the family told Disney, saying there was or wasn't a correlation would be irresponsible at this time. By relaying the heresay that the man had a pre-existing condition, and by citing three examples that all had extenuating circumstances, the author is implying that there has been no correlation drawn.
Yes, he could have included industry standards and comparisons, but then he also could have included the deaths at DLR over the last 8 or so years that did not have anything to do with pre-exisitng conditions (Indy, Columbia and Big Thunder).
But then the article starts becoming a major piece, and that's not their intention at this time. If it were, we'd have posters complaining about that.
The fact is, the article is very balanced. It provided the info on the slide because there is no conclusive medical evidence about what happened. But it also includes info that indicates there is no correlation, and cites past examples where there was no correlation.
He was walking up stairs! The info provided about the slide is irrevelant. If he died climing stairs at the Mall in his home town it would not have made the papers, maybe a trip to the Gap was to intense for his ticker. You are intitled to your opinion, you think the article was balance, fine. I just think the article didn't need to be "balanced". The fact that "The death is the 10th involving Disney World rides and water-park attractions since late 2004" is only mentioned cause it makes the story juicy. Insted of focusing the story on the poor family's loss and such ironic timing, the paper chooses to focus on Disney killing people.
People use the word Disney to position themselves for law suits.....just an opinion.
So in one of the articles posted it stated that the family let Disney know the person had a heart condition. What I think would be more effective, instead of making vague refrences that could or could not lead a reader to believe it's related to a Disney attraction, would be to remind readers on what symptoms of a heart attack are. (chest pain/pressure, pain radiating down the left arm, jaw/neck pain, shortness of breath, etc) Remind people that even if they are on vacation, especially those with pre-exsisting conditions, they should still be listening to their bodies, maintaining their diet, avoiding salt, drinking enough fluids, etc.
Separate names with a comma.