Fiery plane crash at Madrid airport kills 153

digg Share this on Facebook Huffpost - Fiery plane crash at Madrid airport kills 153 stumble reddit del.ico.us RSS

HAROLD HECKLE | August 20, 2008 10:34 PM EST | AP

Compare other versions »
I Like ItI Don’t Like It
A part of the fuselage of the Spanair jet that crashed on take off at Madrid airport is lifted by a crane on Wednesday, Aug. 20, 2008. A Spanair airliner bound for the Canary Islands at the height of the vacation season crashed, burned and broke into pieces Wednesday while trying to take off from Madrid, killing 149 people on board, officials said. There were only 26 survivors in the mid-afternoon crash, said Spanish Development Minister Magdalena Alvarez, whose department is in charge of civil aviation. It was Spain's most deadly air disaster in more than 20 years. (AP Photo/EFE)

MADRID, Spain — A jetliner heading to the popular Canary Islands vacation resort crashed during takeoff Wednesday, turning a wooded area off the end of a runway into a hellish scene of charred bodies and smoldering wreckage. Some 153 were believed dead _ Spain's worst air disaster in nearly 25 years.

Only 19 people survived the midafternoon crash of the Spanair MD-82 at Madrid's Barajas International Airport, and some were in critical condition, said Development Minister Magdalena Alvarez, whose department oversees civil aviation in Spain.

The airline didn't release a death toll, but said the plane carried 172 crew members and passengers, including two babies and 20 youngsters. There was no word on how many children died.

As smoke billowed from the wreckage, dozens of fire trucks and ambulances rushed to help, lining a nearby road and filling a field next to a swath of charred vegetation. Helicopters flew over dumping water on fires.

"The scene is devastating," said Pablo Albella, an emergency rescue worker. "The fuselage is destroyed. The plane burned. I have seen a kilometer of charred land and few whole pieces of the fuselage. It is all destruction."

Rescuers rushed the few survivors to hospitals, while emergency workers shrouded the dead in white sheets. One body lay on burned grass, an arm and a leg poking out.

Later, a long convoy of black hearses rolled onto the airport grounds to carry bodies to a makeshift morgue set up at Madrid's main convention center _ the facility used for relatives to identify bodies after the 2004 Islamic terror bombings that killed 191 people on Madrid commuter trains.

A stready stream of hearses arrived at the morgue under police escort Wednesday night. Mourners went to a special waiting area, avoiding photographers and reporters.

Story continues below
advertisement

It was not immediately clear what went wrong. Alvarez said the jetliner had barely gotten airborne when it veered right, crashed and broke into pieces.

Spanair, a Spanish company wholly owned by Scandinavian Airlines, said it did not know what caused the accident. Alvarez said investigators ruled out foul play and considered the crash an accident. She said the plane's flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have been recovered.

While preparing for a first takeoff attempt, the plane's pilot reported a breakdown in a gauge that measures temperature outside the plane. The gauge was fixed, delaying the departure, said Spanair spokeswoman Susana Vergara.

It was on the second takeoff attempt that the plane crashed.

Spanair Flight JK5022 originated in Barcelona and was headed for the city of Las Palmas. It was a code-share with Flight LH255 of the German carrier Lufthansa.

In Germany, Lufthansa said it issued tickets to seven people who checked in for the flight and four of those were from Germany. It was unclear whether they were German citizens.

Sweden's Foreign Ministry said two Swedes were on the plane. It said one was at a hospital but the other was unaccounted for.

The accident was Spain's worst air disaster since 1983, when a Boeing 747 operated by the Colombian airline Avianca crashed near Madrid on landing approach, killing 181 people. In 1985, an Iberia Boeing 727 crashed near Bilbao in the Basque region, killing 148 people.

The deadliest disaster in aviation history occurred in Spain in 1977. Two fully loaded Boeing 747s collided on a runway in the Canary Islands and a total of 583 people died.

After being informed of Wednesday's crash, Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero broke off his vacation in southern Spain and rushed back to Madrid, heading straight for the airport. He expressed condolences to people who lost loved ones "in this tragedy that struck us today." Later he went to the morgue to comfort mourners.

In an expression of mourning, a soccer match in Copenhagen between the national teams of Denmark and Spain started with a minute of silence and players on both teams wore black armbands.

Sergio Allard, a Spanair spokesman, said the crashed plane passed an inspection in January and no problems had been reported since then. The plane was 15 years old and has been owned by Spanair the past nine, he said.

The DC-9/MD-80 family of twin-engine, medium-range jets enjoyed wide popularity among the world's airlines in the 1970s, '80s and '90s.

But it has had a number of fatal accidents, the deadliest of which was a crash of Slovenia's Adria Airways flight in Corsica in 1981, when all 180 people on board perished.

In Copenhagen, Mats Jansson, the chief executive of Spanair's owner, Scandinavian Airlines, said he had no information about the accident itself.

Jansson and his deputy, John Dueholm, were on their way home from the Beijing Olympics when they learned about the accident and immediately decided to fly to Madrid with a team of crisis counselors.

"We want to be on location ... there are many questions," Jansson said before heading to Spain.

Spanair has a fleet of more than 60 aircraft and runs around 600 flights daily.

Crashes during takeoff or landing are some of the most common aviation accidents.

In July 2007, 199 people were killed in Brazil's worst air disaster when an Airbus A320 belonging to TAM airlines skidded off the runway at Sao Paulo's Congonhas airport and smashed across a road into a gas station and an air cargo building.

Five people died and 65 were injured May 30 when an A320 belonging to Grupo Taca skidded off the end of the runway at Toncontin International Airport near the Honduran capital of Tegucigalpa.

___

On the Net:

Spanair: http://www.spanair.com

MADRID, Spain — A jetliner heading to the popular Canary Islands vacation resort crashed during takeoff Wednesday, turning a wooded area off the end of a runway into a hellish scene of charred b...
MADRID, Spain — A jetliner heading to the popular Canary Islands vacation resort crashed during takeoff Wednesday, turning a wooded area off the end of a runway into a hellish scene of charred b...
Filed by Dan Duray  |  Report Corrections
 
Comments
73
Pending Comments
0
iPhone App Promo

Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to

View Comments:
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
- Elrancho I'm a Fan of Elrancho 2 fans permalink

Very sad and my heart goes out to all those effected.
Seeing the first shots of the wreckage after the intense fire from a plane laden with fuel, I can't help thinking of the 'wreckage' of the 757s which we are expected to believe crashed into the Pentagon and into that field in Pensylvania. That 20 foot long hole in the field which we're told was a 757 and the unidentifyable bits and pieces at the Pentagon which bore no resemblance to a 757. The MD-80 which crashed in Madrid yesterday is a far smaller aircraft than a 757 and yet there was much more to see even after the intense fire.
Think about it. I don't know about you but I have never seen photos of an airline disaster where there have not been identifyable pieces of wreckage - except those on 9/11.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:40 AM on 08/21/2008

Here's one....Valujet crash of 1996 all aboard killed.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9605/11/plane.crash/6p/crash.site.large.jpg

The planes that crashed on 911 weren't taking off or landing, they were traveling at top speed, engines maxed out, gear up...The plane that crashed yesterday was perhaps going 200 mph vs 450 to 500 mph in the 911 attacks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:46 AM on 08/21/2008
- Elrancho I'm a Fan of Elrancho 2 fans permalink

I'm talking about crashes on dry land. Valuejet crashed into a swamp. Slightly different!

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:07 AM on 08/21/2008
- MegInPA I'm a Fan of MegInPA 6 fans permalink
photo

My heart goes out to the injured and deceased and to their friends and families. What an awful tragedy.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:41 PM on 08/20/2008

My heart goes out to those that are suffering as a result of this tragedy, but the many folks slamming Douglas airplanes are flaunting their ignorance. Douglas once had a reputation for building the most advanced, tough, and dependable airplanes in the world. The fact that they went out of business is due solely to McDonnell Douglas Corporation's lack of faith in the profit potential of commercial airplanes. I have an insider's perspective, having started woking as an aerospace engineer for Douglas in 1985, and surviving the ups and downs and eventual merger with Boeing in 1997. With 23 years of engineering experience, I'm fully confident the accident investigation will exhonerate the DC-9/MD-80/MD-90/717 family of airplanes. Undoubtedly the MD-80 is on it's way out, thanks to P&W JT8D derivative engines which are way noisier and burn way more fuel than recent alternatives. But the airplane has an enviable safety record, and it's very popular with its flight crews, with the possible exception of flight attendants, who hate having to push their service carts up that long, narrow aisle.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:27 PM on 08/20/2008
- kellygrrrl I'm a Fan of kellygrrrl 642 fans permalink
photo

condolences to the victims and their families

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:47 PM on 08/20/2008

Indeed, very sad.

Even more heartbreaking when you think that most of those people were looking forward to a few days of vacation in the Canary Islands.

R.I.P and condolences.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:29 PM on 08/20/2008

So sad.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:41 PM on 08/20/2008
- RIPRNC I'm a Fan of RIPRNC 4 fans permalink
photo

MD-Maybe

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:21 PM on 08/20/2008

I was always partial to the Douglas Death Tube.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:12 PM on 08/20/2008
- vippy I'm a Fan of vippy 74 fans permalink

those MD 80s fly daily from Killeen Gray Airport to Dallas and Houston. Seems to be
a great plane. I believe since something was faulty they should have pulled it out of
service and thoroughly check it.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 07:33 AM on 08/21/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:33 PM on 08/20/2008
- nastyvirus I'm a Fan of nastyvirus 2 fans permalink

Those MD-82's are junk, but they just keep flying them. Why? Profit.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:11 PM on 08/20/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
photo

Who's making a profit in the airline industry these days?

How do you make a small fortune in the airline business? Start with a large fortune.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 06:30 PM on 08/20/2008
- alvdh1 I'm a Fan of alvdh1 24 fans permalink

It is nice to hear the widespread speculation about the safety and reliability of an aircraft that has been flying in one version or another since the 1960's without even a hint about the cause of the crash. Most airline accidents have been the result of pilot error or a mechanical problem exacerbated by pilot error.
The Alaska Airline MD80crash off the coast of Los Angeles is a representitive example of a mechanical problem compounded by pilot error.

The prior crew noted to ground crews that the horizontal stablizer was not functioning properly. It was inspected by ground crews without any signs of trouble. The horizontal stablizer provides pitch control of the aircraft. The new crew departed from Baja California and immediately encountered pitch control problems and an inoperable auto pilot. Instead of returning to the airport, they continued their flight to San Francisco. Both pilots had a combined flight time of 15,000 hours. The plane disappeared from radar 25 miles from LAX as it headed torward the Pacific Ocean in a inverted nose dive.

Option 1: When encountering flight control problems in flight, go to the nearest airport.
Option 2: Diagnose the problem enroute to the next available airport.
Option 3: Never fly a commercial aircraft without an operable auto pilot.
They did none of these things and when the jack screw completely stripped near LAX, they ran out of all options. The mechanical problem was managable had they simply put the plane immediately back on the ground.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:01 PM on 08/20/2008
- randyjet I'm a Fan of randyjet 26 fans permalink

While I was jumpseating, I talked to a fellow jumpseater who flew for Alaska. He said that the captain on that flight wanted to land at LAX, but the dispatcher wanted him to fly it to OAK as scheduled. They made the situation worse, by trying to unjam and troubleshoot the problem while airborne. The worst part he said was that you could hear the screams from the pax on the CVR. You can fly most transport category aircraft with no autopilot, it is just a bitch and tiring. You sure cannot fly it with inoperative pitch trim and that is suicidal. Flight control problems are a mandatory NTSB report, and that alone should tell any pilot to GET ON THE GROUND NOW!

The jumpseater I spoke with was the F/O on the Alaska flight that had a .45 handgun go off in the cargo hold when bags were being loaded. He said he didn't hear a thing on his MD-80, but they went back and looked, and found the bullet hole in the overhead. He said it was funny and glad it did not hit anybody. They had to change planes of course.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 09:43 PM on 08/20/2008
- alvdh1 I'm a Fan of alvdh1 24 fans permalink

Any pilot can declare an in flight emergency and override any Air Traffic Control order. These were experienced pilots and they should have been on the ground before they reached the U.S. border.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 11:53 PM on 08/20/2008
- happycat I'm a Fan of happycat 131 fans permalink
photo

Well this story isn't going to help my fear of flying.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:33 PM on 08/20/2008
- Annette I'm a Fan of Annette 15 fans permalink

I have given it up. Flying is now an exercise in endurance. I don't need the grief. My sympathy goes out to business people who have to fly but I flew for the last time in May of this year. Learning that several airlines have avoided necessary maintainence hasn't mede me decide to fly. Now some airlines have started nickle and diming on baggage. An airline that was up front, this is the fare because of fuel costs would have been more likely to get my business than an airline that is just annoying. To be honest, I can get anywhere by another means, may take longer but in my view the trip is as important as the destination.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:26 PM on 08/20/2008
- happycat I'm a Fan of happycat 131 fans permalink
photo

You are absolutely right. Tomorrow my husband and I are taking the kids on a 4 and a half our drive to a nice resort. There is no way that we would consider flying. It is too stressful. My husband flies all the time for business. It is a necessary evil. The last thing he wants to do is to spend part of his vacation dealing with the flying stresses.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:41 PM on 08/20/2008

Did anyone else notice this?

The prime minister broke off his vacation in southern Spain and rushed back to Madrid, heading straight for the airport.

Didn't Bush stay on vacation for two additional days after Katrina hit? Must be nice to have a leader who cares about his people.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:24 PM on 08/20/2008
- Destin I'm a Fan of Destin 55 fans permalink
photo

Yah, guess that's the difference between a socialist and a capitalist. Capitalist can't be bothered to come off of vacation to care about anything but his bank account.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:31 PM on 08/20/2008

I'd be careful here...I am no fan of Bush but Zapatero, the Spanish PM is a bit of a doofus.

The banking, real estate and construction industries in Spain are in total meltdown and he gets on the TV weekly and says there is no problem...If it turns out that faulty maintenance or some other form of human error on the ground caused this accident, I would say that part of the blame rests with the government here...they are doing ZERO to alleviate a financial crisis that is crippling business. The socialist government here hates private business as much as the conservatives in Washington DC hate the New Deal.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 08:55 AM on 08/21/2008
- happycat I'm a Fan of happycat 131 fans permalink
photo

Yes, Bush couldn't be bothered.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:36 PM on 08/20/2008
- Bubba Gump I'm a Fan of Bubba Gump 229 fans permalink
photo

The correct moral action taken by the Spanish Prime Minister (to break off a vacation and return to Spain) and the woefully deficient reaction of U.S. President George W. Bush (on multiple occassions) illustrates the difference between a leader and a politician.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:25 PM on 08/20/2008

Or the difference between a leader and a petulent, spoiled five year old.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 05:51 PM on 08/20/2008

Amazing how George Bush gets mentioned in this story. BDR at it's worse.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 10:16 PM on 08/20/2008
- mairs I'm a Fan of mairs 240 fans permalink
photo

The people commenting on how bad MD-80's are. Are you all pilots or mechanics? Just interested and curious.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:03 PM on 08/20/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
photo

Military and air freight pilot.

The only thing wrong with an MD-80 is that it's a gas hog. Otherwise it has a very good safety record, as did the DC-9 it was derived from.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:12 PM on 08/20/2008

Well pretty much all planes out there commercially have good safety records. Once Tupolev and Ilyushin stopped producing, there really weren't any commercial producers left that made planes that weren't what most people would call "safe".

However, the MD's are the most "non safe" of the "safe" planes.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:47 PM on 08/20/2008
- randyjet I'm a Fan of randyjet 26 fans permalink

I don't know where you get the idea it is a safe airplane. The DC-9 had a lousy record, the MD-80 has one about the same. It is underpowered for that weight and is a marginal performer on one engine. It is also slow and I loved watching them slip behind me in my EMB-170. I flew a Jetstream which was the worst airplane I ever flew. The book figures were way off, and even being extremely conservative according to the book, I would hit V1 with all of 100' from the end of the runway on a downhill slope to boot. It sounds like the MD-82 in this probably had an engine fail, and could not remain airborne after V1 and Vr. THAT is NOT a good plane. Too bad he did not have a valley to fly down into like I did out of one airport I flew the Jetstream out of.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 04:08 PM on 08/20/2008

Airplane buff.

ALL McDonell Douglas aircraft are garbage. They've never made one worth its salt. Personally I refuse to fly on anything they make (for reasons other than safety, has more to do with comfort in my situation).

THey're the most unsafe line out there, they're gas guzzlers, and they're uncomfortable. Why any airline still utilizes them is beyond me.

(Course, domestically we use a ton of them, which is why our air carriers are struggling while international carriers are doing fine)

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:41 PM on 08/20/2008
- Destin I'm a Fan of Destin 55 fans permalink
photo

I'm a former aircraft mechanic, almost exclusively military tho, worked fighters and the cargo variety. So I can't speak for the MD-80, other than what i read in the news. And one thing that had been in the news recently, was that AA had grounded all 300 of it's MD-80 series planes to check for problems. From what I've gathered in all that I've read and heard, is a mixed bag. On the one hand, when everything is going right, it's a solid and economical plane. But it has had it's share of crashes tho. Tho most don't seem to be related to any one specific thing, aside from a landing gear problem that caused a few scary incidents and led to the grounding back in April '08. This being an MD-82, by the way, is same as pretty much all other MD-80 series planes, biggest difference between an MD-82 and the MD-80, is that the 82 has more powerful engines and a higher takeoff weight accordingly. Otherwise, largely the same design in all other respects.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:49 PM on 08/20/2008
- Quotidien I'm a Fan of Quotidien 6 fans permalink
photo

With fuel costs so high and profits nonexistent, airlines are not upgrading their fleets like they should be.

MD80 series planes should all be either in museums or junkyards. Please check the plane model when you book your flight. Going through Europe, easyjet, spanair and iberia use these planes far too often.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:36 PM on 08/20/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
photo

It's not the age of the plane so much as how well it's maintained. The Air Force is still flying Eisenhower-era B-52s and KC-135s quite safely. The cargo carriers regularly fly 1960s vintage DC-8s and 727s.

Note that this aircraft was a very modern A320.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:09 PM on 08/20/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
photo

Oops, my bad. It was an MD-80 not an Airbus.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:14 PM on 08/20/2008
- jqcitizen I'm a Fan of jqcitizen 8 fans permalink

MajorKong-

Your are correct about maintenance. The 'Gooneybird' DC-3 or C-47 is a great aircraft, if properly maintained. But, there are none used in the US commercial airline business.

Remember, Air Force 1 was a Boeing 707 until G.H.W.Bush became president.

The B-52 is not the same aircraft of 'Ikes' day either.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:32 PM on 08/20/2008
- happycat I'm a Fan of happycat 131 fans permalink
photo

I need to consult with you the next time I fly. I am a nervous wreck whenever I get on a plane.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:38 PM on 08/20/2008
- Destin I'm a Fan of Destin 55 fans permalink
photo

I see you corrected your error, hehe. But you make a good point, about how well it's maintained. And that's been a big concern among the pilot unions lately it seems, from what I've been reading. They are worried, and as a potential future passenger it worries me ALOT, is that the airlines will cut costs in areas that shouldn't be cut in order to save money and stay profitable. Meaning, if they cut back on maintenance costs, that's inevitably gonna lead to more incidents that otherwise would have been prevented. For example, and something I even saw in the military, is that if you have a worn tire on one of the landing gear. Especially if it's borderline. Well, the proper thing would be to just go ahead and replace it and err on the side of satefy as a result. However, a cash strapped airline, breathing down the necks of the managers in the field, and the quality assurance folks, might lean on them to let the plane make a few more flights before they change a borderline tire. While, technically a borderline tire isn't bad per se, lol, but all it takes is one rough landing or overuse of brakes on one landing, and that tire will need changing. Or worse, could lead to a blowout.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:57 PM on 08/20/2008
photo

My heart goes out to all and their families.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:53 PM on 08/20/2008
- jqcitizen I'm a Fan of jqcitizen 8 fans permalink

The MD-80 is a dinosaur, much like the Boeing 727, and not fit for passenger service.

CARGO/FREIGHT only for these deathtraps.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:44 PM on 08/20/2008
- springsm I'm a Fan of springsm 54 fans permalink

The 727 was a much better plane to start with however. The MD-80 was a dog at the beginning.

This is a very sad event.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:56 PM on 08/20/2008

No US majors use 727s anymore, and AFAIK only Champion used them for passenger service recently.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:26 PM on 08/20/2008
- MajorKong I'm a Fan of MajorKong 405 fans permalink
photo

I've been an engineer and a first officer on the 727. It's still a great airplane to this day. Fast (.9 mach!), handles like a fighter, able to land on a short runway, rides like a Cadillac, solidly constructed. Boeing was at the top of their game when they designed the 72'.

They're not hauling passengers today because the economics just don't work out. They have a 3-person crew and they use way too much fuel. A 757 can carry more passengers for half the fuel burn. They also can't meet modern noise regulations.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:22 PM on 08/20/2008

I get what you're saying about the 727's being solid and all (and history backs up this claim) but most people would agree that the trijet design (or any design where the engines are running off the tail) are just inferior to wing engines.

Personally, I hate the rear engine planes, won't go near em.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:52 PM on 08/20/2008

Sorry, plane crashes just aren't a significant cause of deaths worldwide. Reporting on them is sensationalism at its worst. Far more hazardous, but mundane: domestic violence, child neglect, diabetes, high blood pressure, malaria, AIDS, tuberculosis, dysentery, cigarette smoking, alcohol dependency, malnutrition, and car accidents. Reporting on plane crashes only ridiculously magnifies a tiny risk at the expense of all these other risks.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:31 PM on 08/20/2008
- springsm I'm a Fan of springsm 54 fans permalink

Well Sicko ...say that to the survivors of the victims. What a hard mind you have. Insensitive to the core?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 01:54 PM on 08/20/2008

I understand what Stan is saying. People are quick to point out the hazards of flying every time there is an incident (look at some of the comments left here already). But the statistics (as I recall seeing them in the past), show that flying is still among the safest form of travel. It's newsworthy because it affects so many at one time, however, and precisely because it is not "mundane". It would be horrible if it happened so frequently that no one cared.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 02:35 PM on 08/20/2008

No more than you are to the millions that die of the causes I listed, or do you even care?

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:27 PM on 08/20/2008
- alsm9 I'm a Fan of alsm9 15 fans permalink

It is sensationalism, I guess, but not even close to the worst kind. Plane crashes ARE sensational in a horrific way and the media has always reported stories that are out of the ordinary. I'm not really clear why you have a problem with this. Would you prefer the Huffington post did a tally of all the people who died of dysentery this week? I think you need to get down off your high horse. It was a bad event that happened and the news reported it. End of... It's certainly not like reporting on someone's salacious affair...now THAT's sensationalism at its worst.

    Favorite    Flag as abusive Posted 03:20 PM on 08/20/2008
Page: 1 2 Next › Last » (2 pages total)
Comments are closed for this entry

 You must be logged in to comment. Log in  or connect with 

Connect