The publication's policy of refusing to photograph participants in a boat poker run unless they're wearing life jackets effectively amounts to a form of indirect coercion, compelling you to don gear you wouldn't otherwise choose, despite having paid for the event and expecting the full perks—including heli pics.

By conditioning photos on life jacket compliance, the publication is withholding a tangible benefit you've paid for, creating a de facto requirement to wear one if you want that visibility.
It's not outright mandating the attire, but it pressures compliance by tying it to something desirable.
A third-party publication shouldn't step in as an unofficial enforcer by leveraging their camera as a carrot.

85% of boating fatalities involve non-wearers—but that's a risk adults can assess for themselves, much like choosing not to wear a helmet on a motorcycle where it's not required. The publication's policy flips this by making non-compliance invisible: no jacket, no photo. This isn't neutral journalism; it's selective editing that punishes your choice, forcing you to conform if you want to be "seen" in the coverage. Media guidelines do encourage avoiding depictions of unsafe practices to promote safety, but that's a paternalistic overreach when applied to consenting adults in a paid event. It's not about reporting reality—it's about curating an image that aligns with their agenda, effectively shaming or excluding those who opt out

Imagine a gym refusing to post workout photos unless you're wearing their branded gear—you paid for the membership, but now you're pressured into extra compliance for the social proof. Similarly, here, the publication lacks the authority of law or event rules to mandate life jackets, yet their photo policy achieves the same end by making non-wearers non-entities in the narrative.

I read it before you deleted it. Should have kept it up. We can agree to disagree.
Whatever you decide to do with your publication is your choice, I`m a nobody and like you said if you lose readers so be it.
By the number of likes here and facebook comments and private mass texts, your new policy is universally disliked. I wouldn`t have thought with a dying industry you would go and shoot yourself in the foot but what do I know. If it makes you "feel" better it is what it is .

what’s going to kill this industry and all the fun events is people being unsafe and boats flipping/ crashing bc people’s egos are too big with all the HP they have.

I believe the dying industry he's referring to is the journalism industry...correct me if I'm wrong Dan.

I don't 100% agree with your first quote. You don't have a right to not wear a jacket at an event if it's deemed mandatory. Thus, you should have zero expectation to receive anything, including photos of yourself (from the organizers or otherwise) if you're violating their policy of a mandatory life vest.

And I want to be perfectly clear - my point was never that you should or shouldn't wear a life jacket. Should you? Absolutely. Do you have to? In an organized event that requires it, yes! Are you still free to make the decision to wear one or not when outside of an event? Thank god, yes! I'm a firm believer in preserving freedoms and choices and want to limit Govt. mandates as much as possible. I would hope most of us do. But that's beside the point.

My rub is that this should be irrelevant to SOTW as they "shouldn't" have that type of relationship with the organizers to the point of appeasing them, which you've stated previously as well. BUT this is a micro community and the relationships built by Matt with those connected to the industry are very important for his business to thrive, I do understand that. But I still just think it should've been a closed-door decision. Again, a blanket policy, as you put it, shoots yourself in the foot and also like you explained, the negative reaction to it is MUCH larger than Matt perceives (I wouldn't say universally disliked), as Matt pointed out "those in the industry" are 100% behind it (which, of course they are, it benefits them).

And there's another aspect of all this that no one's even brought up (well, Dan did a little with the dying industry comment). Matt and SOTW won't publish photos. However, facebook, intagram, tik tok, youtube, shoot, OSO and RDP and all the other outlets that instantly flood our devices with video and photos of events, runs and boats out at play will not be taking such a hardline approach on the subject. Matter of fact, they stay indifferent. And this is the VAST majority of content out there. So, the industry (i.e. boat manufacturers and event organizers that want to limit potential liability or even the perception of liability) still has images and videos of people out there in their boats and potentially events running without life vests on non-stop. Good luck trying to censor all coverage. Or even a majority. Which again brings me to my very original point...What's the f*ckin' point?

Again, opinions vary. obviously, there are those on here that agree with the decision whole heartedly because of their strong feelings on the topic or their tragic personal experiences. And I totally get that and respect their opinions.

I'm just here for the conversation.

I don't have a dog in this fight as I doubt my boat would be worthy of any pics anyway but...my take is that if an event requires it then yeah ya gotta wear it...I don't wear my mustangs when I have the boat out just cruising and that's my choice, if and when I ever do a run I will wear it required or not just for the added protection and all the boats/water conditions/etc. I am unaware of the entry fee caveats to these runs as I have never been to one but if part of that fee INCLUDES the photos and he won't take them because of his policy that you should be wearing one that's pretty messed up I think. If you choose not to wear one then you should be able to choose to not pay that part of the entry fee as you know you won't get any pictures taken. Just my thought. I think it is kind of biased but as was said before it's his choice as the business owner to do what he wishes and it may or may not cost some business. I'm wondering if the entry fees go down as a result of not paying for pics that you will not get taken if the stance will change?

Also one more thing...this is nit picky but if you have this hard of a stance on the matter, are you going to remove all the adds from your site that feature boats driven with no vests? Seems kinda hypocritical to force this stance and then run adds showing the very thing you are against just because you got paid to have the add on there....People are paying for you service to take the pics and frankly I don't see the difference in that vs. someone paying for add space. Just my thoughts....again I have no dog in this fight just my observations.

Carry on

I was referring to the magazine field, but to your point, a life jacket doesn’t prevent the things you’re talking about—which is why it comes across as a virtue-signaling, feel-good rule.”


I`ve never been to an event that required life jackets so I can`t speak to those.

Just this year, I might have finally gotten on Matt’s good side and actually got a video of my boat on the fall run. Every other run over the last 10 years, I’m pretty sure Matt said, ‘Delete that a-hole’s video,’ because I never got any footage—and honestly, I don’t blame him. Looks like I’m probably back to that again. I also shot myself in the foot

Edit:it also could be because my crew can`t keep their tops on .

I think some people may be confused here. Speed on the water is an online news organization that has an annual print magazine. They write and publish stories from boat events. As far as I know, they have nothing to do with the actual “event” pictures that the organizers will email to you if you paid for their event.

Either way if you pay to enter an event that requires you to wear life jackets, you probably won’t get any pictures from the organizers if you aren’t wearing life jackets while under way. You may also get expelled from the event for not wearing life jackets to appease the organizers insurance company.

Nobody is forcing you to wear a life jacket while boating, but if you sign up for an event that requires them you should wear them or accept the consequences.

I think I know which one I prefer

Here, I'll push this thread into a positive direction

What is the "best", yet most comfortable, auto inflate vest? We have lifelines but to be honest, I probably don't wear them as much because, they're not comfortable to wear. I'd wear an auto inflate and have been looking to buy a whole set for the boat, so everyone can wear one but I really don't know which I should get.

Opinions?