Swimmer bitten by great white shark off California beach (CNN) -- A long-distance swimmer was attacked by a great white shark near the pier in Manhattan Beach, California, the Los Angeles County Fire Department said. A fisherman on the pier had hooked the 7-foot shark Saturday and was trying to reel in the struggling fish when the victim swam by, LAFD spokesman Rick Flores said. "It was agitated and when the swimmer got close, it bit him," Flores told CNN. The victim was part of a group of swimmers training in the waters near the pier. They did not see the shark until it was too late. The victim was bit in the torso, sustaining a wound Flores described as "moderate." "The shark bit the swimmer and then released," he said. The 40-year-old man is still in the hospital, Flores said Saturday evening. Bystanders captured the aftermath of the attack on cell phone video. CNN affiliate KTLA posted the video on its website. It shows a group of swimmers frantically trying to reach shore with the victim screaming loudly from the water and people on the pier urging him to hurry, yelling that the shark was still close by. All of the swimmers in the water made it to shore safely. The victim was treated by paramedics at the scene, then transported to a local hospital, according to LAFD's Twitter feed. "The male shark bit victim is reported to be in stable condition," a tweet from the lifeguard division said. The fisherman had struggled to reel in the great white for up to 40 minutes before the attack happened. Then he cut the line and the shark swam away, Flores said. Police closed down the Manhattan Beach Pier after the incident. It will remain closed until Tuesday, according to a press release. Shark attacks are still pretty rare, but have increased at a steady rate since 1900, "with each decade having more attacks then the previous," according to statistics from the International Shark Attack File based in Gainesville, Florida. ISAF says on its website that in 2013 there were 72 unprovoked shark attacks on humans, actually the lowest number of global attacks since 2009, when 67 attacks occurred. The research organization emphasized on its website that an increasing number of shark attacks doesn't mean the rate of attacks is increasing. ISAF research shows people are spending more time at sea, which increases the interactions between humans and sharks. http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/05/us/california-shark-attack/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 I didn't know where this best belonged so I put it here, move it wherever if it doesn't belong here. What I find interesting is the mention of unprovoked attacks. Am I the only one that thinks having a hook stuck in their mouth might well be considered provocation? Granted a shark is a fish and not a human, which probably makes the provocation even more legitimate, as it acts purely on instinct. While it doesn't specify if this attack is actually considered unprovoked, it would appear that's the implication by adding that tidbit of information. This is a rather mundane sort of story but demonstrates the ability of the press to insert opinions on undefined matters without any real accountability. Sure they could later retract that information, but by then the story will likely have faded from memory. How often do they do such things? That is a question worthy of discussion as we tend to rely on the media to provide information to us. It would be my opinion that such implications are completely unnecessary and if it was in fact ruled unprovoked, not providing that information would cause no harm and be added later with factual backing. While if it was in fact later classified as provoked the story would have to be altered. It seems there is little accountability in the press and they're just shooting from the hip in hopes we don't notice. Its rather sad actually...
Once you become aware of it - You can have a lot of fun watching how the media (A) butchers the English language and (B) tries to guide our emotions with the text they use.
So true, plus mundane items like this allow for senseless off topic chatter with little or no consequences... I have become deeply disappointed by CNN.com, my primary news provider, and how they word news items in general. The garble of words they use for the links to stories is horrendous, then if you are fool enough to click that link, God only knows what sort of hack job that passes for journalism you might find... That whole unprovoked thing really bothers me, as the damned thing was hooked by a fisherman, what animal wouldn't be lashing out at anything that comes too close?
I guess only the shark could say if it was provoked. Yes, the media all too often slip in words (intentionally or unintentionally) in their writing to slant the story to their opinions. And all too often they write for each other (and give each other awards). I saw a TV news broadcast the other day and the "news reader" looked to be reading what the teleprompter was displaying. So I guess the "writer" of the teleprompter inserted their opinion. Anyway the news was about someone driving a vehicle, hitting a pedestrian, and leaving the scene. The driver later returned to the scene and was arrested. The last sentence of the news item was, "The driver is already out on bail". I felt the opinionated word was "already". I believe a factual sentence could have been, "The driver is now out on bail."
I'm with on that, it appears the news no longer really exists, instead we get editorials that present just enough facts or figures to make it look like news. Everything appears tainted if you take a close look...
