I think we have a bit of a red herring here, regarding the cameraman. If you shift back to the thread about the recent Adam Air plane that went missing, and you read some of the comments regarding safety, there is, unfortunately, a more insidious catalyst to be considered here.
You can find right in the forum, first, the prediction that Indonesia would sooner or later be bound to see an unnecessary crash; second, that the authorities there do not really know what safety is; and third, that the government is so closely linked to the air carriers that conflict of interest reigns supreme.
Then a skeptic might turn to the ordinary news, and judge for himself, when he reads that the solution being considered is to fly newer aircraft. The implication seems to be that aircraft are safe for a decade, even when there is no great interest in maintaining them. Once again, if you read back to the specifics of suspect components being traded around, the pattern becomes pretty convincing. It would seem as though the Indonesian air industry is dedicated to minimal ongoing maintenance costs, and that there is every chance of faulty components triggering a real variety of disasters.
(I wouldn't say the Indonesians are more stupid than the rest of us—the world in general takes the very same attitude regarding our biggest aircraft of all, Planet Earth.) But because most people can more easily envision plane crashes than environmental crashes, we do generally like to think our plane flight is based on maintenance and real safety, rather than profits and excuses. Spend awhile reading the Adam Air thread, and then read this one, and consider whether you yourself would feel relaxed flying Indonesian airlines.