Earlier this month, I covered the story of a Transavia flight which diverted to Faro, Portugal due to complaints about the ghastly stench emanating from one passenger.
The odor seemed to get worse as the flight progressed, causing some passengers to vomit. Pilots deemed no other alternative to diverting.
In Faro, the man was rushed to a hospital, where doctors determined he was suffering from necrosis. Per Wikipedia, necrosis is a form of cell injury which results in the premature death of cells in living tissue by autolysis.
It’s a very serious issue and the man has now died in a Portguese hospital after several failed treatment attempts.
The man’s name was Andrey Suchilin, a 58-year-old Russian art-rock guitarist. Prior to his death, he wrote on Facebook:
The tragic and comic component of this whole situation is that I caught a disease, which (let’s not say how and why) makes a person quite stinky. As a result, a group of passengers may demand the captain for you to be removed from the plane.
> Read More: Flight Diverts Due To “Unbearable Stench Of An Unwashed Man”
H/T: @MeenzMev
The Ethics of Covering This Story
One Mile at a Time took a rather circumspective look at the issue this morning, reasoning:
While I hadn’t written about this exact story because something seemed odd about it to me, it has made me realize that in general I need to hold myself to a higher standard when it comes to the viral travel stories I write about. It goes without saying that there’s a reason so many sites pick up stories like this — it seems interesting/amusing, and it makes a great headline, and therefore is easy pageviews (that’s the truth, regardless of whether most others want to admit it or not)…
The only reason they make great headlines and stories is because we have very few details about what happened, and therefore can come up with funny conclusions in our heads.
I don’t apologize for writing about this story. And I did write about it for page views, as we all do with blogs driven by click-based revenue. I also wrote about it because I found it interesting: because I cannot think of a more horrible (non life-death) flight situation than a smelly passenger. But if you read what I wrote, I never poked fun at the man, nor did I jump to conclusions as to why he stunk. I simply reported the facts, as currently available.
Sometimes I write about what I want to write about, even if very few people read it (like flight reviews on obscure airlines). Other times, I write about what you, my readers, want to read. And you clearly like reading about diversion stories. As long as the facts are reported and human dignity is always respected, I see no need to pause these sorts of stories…even if additional facts emerge later.
CONCLUSION
This is a tragic story. Necrosis is horrible. This story is indeed a reminder that we need to be compassionate, always treating others with respect and never jumping to baseless conclusions.
image: Transavia
Get Daily Updates
Join our mailing list for a daily summary of posts! We never sell your info.
In the original story you did treat the individual without respect or compassion and did jump to numerous baseless assumptions.
Sorry, but a new low.
Such as?
I find the term “Smelly Passengers offensive and disgustingly insenstive. A Human Being died.
Such as waiting for more information to be available before posting about it. Its clear from your post (and the dailymail story you refer to) that something was seriously wrong, even if you keep the medical issue aside.
Its a sad state of affairs that you felt the need to post immediately to get a few clicks and couldnt do more research or wait till more information became available to be able to provide a more complete picture. I think Ben was spot on here, this is a time for self-reflection.
You say you did not speculate, but in your original article you did:
“one man who smells like he has not bathed for weeks”
“horrific stench of a man who smelled like he had never encountered a shower or bar of soap”
Interestingly, there was an indication this was more a medical issue than simply ‘poor hygiene’ , but you dismissed it as the airline being “diplomatic”:
“Transavia, staying diplomatic, cited “medical reasons” for the diversion.”
Not exactly respect or compassion here:
“the logical question is how did he get on the plane in the fist place? If he smelled so bad that he literally coaxed vomit out of disgusted passengers…”
“Seems like a gas mask may be helpful on your next Transavia flight.”
Yes it was tragic and clearly, a lesson to be learned… as few likely even linked his stench to a life-threatening disease like necrosis. The question still remains, ‘HOW did he acquire it’? Spider bite perhaps? Some have necrotic bites. Could it have spread to major organs? That seems something worth investigating and telling THAT story. So that we all learn from this and take precaution (and pay proper respect) in the future.
What garbage. Congratulations on being able to sleep at night instead of taking what Ben wrote to heart.
You can’t think of a more horrible flight situation than a smelly passenger? I think of a nearly infinite number. Somewhere on that list would be flying while dying of a horrible disease coupled with the intense embarrassment that my situation might have inconvenienced others. Oh, and then dying.
Words matter, man, especially if you are going to seek to justify click bait that turns out insensitive. Why don’t you take the time for genuine introspection instead of writing crap like “I can’t think of a more horrible flight situation than a smelly passenger,” because, shit, I don’t know — maybe the child of the woman sucked out of an airplane might see what you wrote?
Context, Larry. We’re talking about flight discomforts, not life/death situations. Come on…your comment is absolutely absurd when taken in the full context of what I wrote.
They are your words, not mine. For someone that spends so much of his blog focused on perceived injustices in the travel world and service failures, you don’t seem to have the level of introspection with respect to taking responsibility for your own words that you expect from the rest of the world.
I’m just a guy on the blogosphere, but I’m not prone to “absurd”ity. I’m not a rag-on-the-blogger-in-comments type. Call my comment whatever names you like, but your post on this, and your response to me, are not flattering to you.
You make an inflammatory charge but fail to defend it. I argued 1.) humans should be treated with dignity and 2.) facts should be reported without undue speculation.
I clarified what I meant to you in the sentence you took offense to.
So what exactly is the problem? You don’t believe I paid Mr. Suchilin proper respect in this post? If that is the case, I apologize.
I’m not sure what “charge” I made, let alone an inflammatory one. I expressed my opinion that your approach to the issue pales to Ben’s and I stand by that opinion. I think this was an excellent occasion for introspection, and am disappointed in yours. What else do you want me to say about that? You’re happy with your resolution of the issue, you told us your reasoning, and it was disappointing to. If that’s a “charge,” then I stand by it. I wish you had made a different decision about continuing click bait on this kind of nonsense, whether it’s delighting in a passenger’s mental illness, odor, or even substance abuse. But, ultimately, I’m just one reader. If your fans are ok, then my voting with my feet shouldn’t concern you. But as long as you want comments, there’s mine.
And I thought the problem was exacerbated by your original sentence, which I see you’ve now changed. To say that it was about “context,” and to label as “absurd” my concern about your own words was silly and overly defensive. If it really was about “context” and my comment was absurd, why did you change what you wrote? Seems a better label for my comment would have been “correct” or “effective”.
I added the caveat to avoid any confusion or doubt as to my original intentions.
In any case, I appreciate that you care enough to take the time offer this constructive feedback. Thank you.
Wow such sanctimony pouring of an obvious saint!
Of course you have never said anything that in retrospect may seem insensitive.
Actually I can’t think of anything more horrible; all suffering is horrible. I don’t go around rating and comparing other people’s misfortunes.
Matthew, you did nothing wrong. In neither posting were you mean and insensitive.
I have been on a flight with a very smelly man that came close to inciting passengers to vomit. All those near the smelly passenger were trapped by the stench of intense body odor, and freezing with the vents turned full blast pointing at their faces. FAs asked the man to sort himself in lavatory, but he refused or maybe didn’t understand. The man rushed off the plane (like someone anxious about a connection) but was met by border security (?) and questioned as the rest of us deplaned. I felt bad for the guy, but he certainly called attention to himself. A colleague on the flight even ended up with a respiratory infection, stiff neck/back, and out of work for 2 days from the full blast vent. I had a scarf over my face and the vent on low, so I survived, but the stench really exacerbates the feeling of being trapped in a metal tube in the sky. Of course there are worst tragedies that can happen, but those are tragedies and not mere flight situations.
There are two questions in play here I think.
First was your coverage of this event. It was certainly blog worthy and your treatment of it was appropriate. I see nothing to apologize for.
The second question regards publishing “click bait” articles in the first place. To my way of thinking the first question needs to be is there a legitimate story? Is there something that’s worth taking about? In the case of the article in question I would argue yes. A man smelling so foul that he led others to vomit should never have been allowed on that plane.
But you have occasionally published articles where I would argue the converse. Like the recent story on the Air Asia pilot “flushing” people off the plane with condensation. That a pilot would turn on the Air Conditioning to try and force people off a plane seems highly questionable and certainly unlikely. The headline in that case seemed needlessly sensationalist and misleading when you consider the facts. It stated as if it was undisputed fact that the Captain had flushed out a plane load of people when after reading it you would have to at the very least say the facts are in dispute.
I very much enjoy the blog which is why I continue to read it regularly. But I would encourage you in cases like Air Asia to lean away from clicks and more towards the facts of the case.
Although I don’t think you were necessarily 10)% in the wrong with your post… dedicating a new post just to say that comes off as rather righteous / arrogant no?
I would take this as an opportunity for self-reflection
“…all suffering is horrible. I don’t go around rating and comparing other people’s misfortunes.””
well, and that is the true meaning of being human. anything less is engaging in atavistic othering which should go the way of dinosaurs because there really is no justifiable basis for it in 2018.
Don’t take this personally, as this isn’t directed at you, per se. But I wish bloggers generally would stay away from these “Daily Mail” tabloid-type posts (stinky passengers, the Air Asia deal, etc.). It’s one thing if it’s something that happened to the writer personally. That at least provides an interesting anecdote about the unpredictability and adventure of traveling, especially if the writer is a good storyteller.
Otherwise, I feel these types of posts tend to distract from the focus of travel blogs. I actively try to avoid clicking on these, though sometimes I can’t help myself, like with your Norway post yesterday. I get why people write them – they do generate clicks (like I told someone the other day, America loves a freak show). Perhaps I wish that we as a society were better than that.