Hyping It Up
Let me start this post by saying that at no time, in any way, am I belittling the accident that occurred with the Costa Concordia, nor the circumstances surrounding what happen to the ship nor the people.
That said, would people please get a grip, and engage that thing buried deep, deep inside your skull, and stop comparing this ship falling over to the Titanic! And for the love of all things boat-like, we don't need to know that "the anniversary of the Titanic sinking is in X months" because the ONLY similarity between the two, is that they both count as ships.
That's IT.
One hit an iceberg and sank. The other hit the sea floor and landed on its side.
One was a disaster that killed over 1500 people. The other is an accident that may have killed less than 50.
Yes, don't get me wrong, the Costa Concordia sinking - if you can even call it that - is a bad thing to happen to anyone, and the deaths of passengers and crew is truly sad, but to compare it to one of the worst maritime accidents ever is just wrong. The fact that it is now very apparent that the captain is a bit of a cock and was showing off means this was a wholly avoidable accident. Instead of being 400 yards off the coast, he should have been several MILES off the coast.
I've heard people ranting that "Oooh but he saved so many MORE lives by getting the ship closer to shore" but I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. That's like me torching an orphanage, then running in to save some of the kids.
Wholly Avoidable.
Yes, I hear you cry, it could have been worse. Much worse. And the passengers are saying conditions were crap with the evacuation and that the angle of the boat meant they couldn't launch life rafts and so on and so on... It could have been worse, however, had the Captain done what he was supposed to have been doing - IE, sailing in deep water, not waving at an island - then it wouldn't have happened.
I don't get why they have to compare it to the Titanic. Why not, say, The Herald of Free Enterprise, back in the 80s? That killed almost 200 people. Or how about the one - also in the 80s - that killed over 4000 people when a ferry and a tanker collided? I just don't get why the media need to hype stuff up. Is it to make things seem worse than they are? It is what it is, an accident in it's own right. I just wish the news would stop trying to fluff the story into stupid levels.
Cruises do NOT appeal to me. The thought of being in the middle of the ocean, on board something the size of a small village that is floating... No thanks. Yes, all the amenities might be on hand, but then, they are on hand pretty much where ever you go for holidays.
I am hoping that the events that transpired up to and during the accident are covered quickly, and the appropriate legal sentences are handed out to those responsible. The salvage operation should be interesting, but remember, it's a shipping accident in it's own right, and has nothing to do with the Titanic.
That is all.
That said, would people please get a grip, and engage that thing buried deep, deep inside your skull, and stop comparing this ship falling over to the Titanic! And for the love of all things boat-like, we don't need to know that "the anniversary of the Titanic sinking is in X months" because the ONLY similarity between the two, is that they both count as ships.
That's IT.
One hit an iceberg and sank. The other hit the sea floor and landed on its side.
One was a disaster that killed over 1500 people. The other is an accident that may have killed less than 50.
Yes, don't get me wrong, the Costa Concordia sinking - if you can even call it that - is a bad thing to happen to anyone, and the deaths of passengers and crew is truly sad, but to compare it to one of the worst maritime accidents ever is just wrong. The fact that it is now very apparent that the captain is a bit of a cock and was showing off means this was a wholly avoidable accident. Instead of being 400 yards off the coast, he should have been several MILES off the coast.
I've heard people ranting that "Oooh but he saved so many MORE lives by getting the ship closer to shore" but I'm sorry, that doesn't cut it. That's like me torching an orphanage, then running in to save some of the kids.
Wholly Avoidable.
Yes, I hear you cry, it could have been worse. Much worse. And the passengers are saying conditions were crap with the evacuation and that the angle of the boat meant they couldn't launch life rafts and so on and so on... It could have been worse, however, had the Captain done what he was supposed to have been doing - IE, sailing in deep water, not waving at an island - then it wouldn't have happened.
I don't get why they have to compare it to the Titanic. Why not, say, The Herald of Free Enterprise, back in the 80s? That killed almost 200 people. Or how about the one - also in the 80s - that killed over 4000 people when a ferry and a tanker collided? I just don't get why the media need to hype stuff up. Is it to make things seem worse than they are? It is what it is, an accident in it's own right. I just wish the news would stop trying to fluff the story into stupid levels.
Cruises do NOT appeal to me. The thought of being in the middle of the ocean, on board something the size of a small village that is floating... No thanks. Yes, all the amenities might be on hand, but then, they are on hand pretty much where ever you go for holidays.
I am hoping that the events that transpired up to and during the accident are covered quickly, and the appropriate legal sentences are handed out to those responsible. The salvage operation should be interesting, but remember, it's a shipping accident in it's own right, and has nothing to do with the Titanic.
That is all.
2 Responses to “Hyping It Up”
Well said Dan, I totally agree. Mimi
Couldn't have said it better myself.
Post a Comment