2006-09-04 11:51:07 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Entertainment & Music ➔ Television
Why not? He was a public figure of some fame. He did outrageous things, not the least of which was dangle his child in front of a crocodile. I'd say the was pretty reckless and irresponsible, wouldn't you?
2006-09-04 11:56:54 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 2⤋
No, absolutely not. He was a loving and talented man who was ahead of his game no matter how dangerous the situation, (ie, it wasnt a croc that killed him) so I would say he wasnt reckless. Bullfighting and racing I think are more reckless than being a conservationist to make a comparison.... the media is just doing what it does best: exaggerating the lives of famous people for dramatic value, trying to lend worth where there is none, in a futile attempt to fill the void left by the lack of quality television.
2006-09-04 12:00:05 · answer #2 · answered by Yentl 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, I don't think it's fair. It just LOOKED maybe like he was being reckless and irresponsible, when really he wasn't. People don't realize how much goes into being around animals like that. They just see what's on TV, not the whole thing.
The media is a bunch of messed-up Liberals anyway.
2006-09-04 11:57:05 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
But wasn't he reckless and irresponsible? He played with crocodiles and other dangerous animals for a living. I don't think it's a necessarily a bad thing to portray him that way, anyway. He lived a great life. How many of us out there can say we've done even one of the things he did in his ever day line of work? I'd say his death fit his life.
2006-09-04 11:54:56 · answer #4 · answered by Ashleigh 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
I don't think so, he was different. But he was an expert in what he did, he knew animals pretty well, just a tough brake. What they should be saying is that he was a great educator and a person that always looked happy and had a smile on his face.
They have made to much about the "croc" feeding while carrying his son. He knew what he was doing and he learned the trade from his old man, so maybe as a child he got to get close to dangerous animals. It was just a different lifestyle, and he was used to it.
2006-09-04 12:02:51 · answer #5 · answered by Forza Catracha 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it's horrid,, but predictable. He did amazing things in his life,, he died doing exactly what he loved.
Reckless and irresponsible,, heck no,, was he a little unstable and insane??? I think so,, but in a good way he just lived in a way that most of us don't understand ,, he tried soo hard to show main stream that this animals that we fear so much aren't the horrible mean ,, man killing,, flesh eating mosters that we have all been taught they were. They are just another one of God's creations and blessings.
Please in all your judgments of him remember he had a family and wife who loved him and are just now mourning for him.
2006-09-04 13:32:01 · answer #6 · answered by B V 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, I don't think he was at all. He loved what he did and, he never used dirty methods or put needles in any animals to track or get to know their habitats. He did it the old natural way , and if that made him reckless and irresponsible then god love him for that.
2006-09-04 11:59:04 · answer #7 · answered by elisa p 1 · 1⤊ 0⤋
It's the only thing in the news the media hasn't spun in years.
2006-09-05 12:16:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It is not an appropriate time to talk like that about him. Since he died they should show him respect and talk about all the good he did for animals.
2006-09-04 12:31:00 · answer #9 · answered by Questions&Answers 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. They are upset that someone who made a career doing something no one else has done got famous because of it.
2006-09-04 12:00:12 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋