This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Following some pub-like discussion we were left with an unresolved question:
Why is there no investigative journalism in climbing? Forum stories like the recent Asgard Apology thread or that 'Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC' and the like, seems the climbing media ever investigate or report these stories...is it because
1) they are not relevant/interesting?
2) investigation may conflict with sponsor/advertisers preferred content?
3) reporting may attract unaffordable litigation?
4) too much like hard work?
Seems the most controversial stuff is the grade of 3PS or whether the turf was frozen or not.
Why is there no investigative journalism in climbing? Forum stories like the recent Asgard Apology thread or that 'Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC' and the like, seems the climbing media ever investigate or report these stories...is it because
1) they are not relevant/interesting?
2) investigation may conflict with sponsor/advertisers preferred content?
3) reporting may attract unaffordable litigation?
4) too much like hard work?
Seems the most controversial stuff is the grade of 3PS or whether the turf was frozen or not.
In reply to simondgee:
5) in the grand scheme of things not enough people care.
I'm afraid that top class investigative journalists are unlikely to be working for climbing maagazines and there simply isn't an audience wide enough to make it worthwhile for those working at top notch media outlets.
I think the closest you will get to 'investigative journalism' are things like 'Into Thin Air'. Namely interesting stories that appeal to armchair explorers. The vast majority of people haven't heard of the Asgard Project let alone care whether an apology has been made or not...
5) in the grand scheme of things not enough people care.
I'm afraid that top class investigative journalists are unlikely to be working for climbing maagazines and there simply isn't an audience wide enough to make it worthwhile for those working at top notch media outlets.
I think the closest you will get to 'investigative journalism' are things like 'Into Thin Air'. Namely interesting stories that appeal to armchair explorers. The vast majority of people haven't heard of the Asgard Project let alone care whether an apology has been made or not...
In reply to simondgee:
Its not contaversial though, it is established fact that 3PS is E0 and that there isn't any turf of it at all so the placements needed are hooks and faith. what is contraversial though is the price of really nice coffee in the plantaion car park compared to the overpriced badger piss served up in Outside
> Seems the most controversial stuff is the grade of 3PS or whether the turf was frozen or not.
Its not contaversial though, it is established fact that 3PS is E0 and that there isn't any turf of it at all so the placements needed are hooks and faith. what is contraversial though is the price of really nice coffee in the plantaion car park compared to the overpriced badger piss served up in Outside
In reply to Fickalli:
...but there are plenty of people capable of picking up a phone and asking pointed questions and then writing it or filming themselves doing it given the proliferation of 'i've got a media studies' degree and the ease of publishing. Asgard Apology wasn't about Asgard it was about the the biggest names in climbing, in uk filmaking and in making macs and sacs on a steam train of commercialism.
I think you are right though and it it explains why there are less climbing films worthy of TV airing than there were 25 years ago...no depth, parochial audience.
...but there are plenty of people capable of picking up a phone and asking pointed questions and then writing it or filming themselves doing it given the proliferation of 'i've got a media studies' degree and the ease of publishing. Asgard Apology wasn't about Asgard it was about the the biggest names in climbing, in uk filmaking and in making macs and sacs on a steam train of commercialism.
I think you are right though and it it explains why there are less climbing films worthy of TV airing than there were 25 years ago...no depth, parochial audience.
In reply to simondgee:
IMO it's all of the above and realistically will never be any other way. If by 'the climbing media' you mean the printed magazines then you need to realise that because of relatively low profit margins these publications work to, they don't have large staff of journalists who can afford to spend time digging for background stories. Investigative journalism is very labour-intensive, stories often take a long time and a lot of work to actually get to publication stage. Climbing magazines (like most consumer interest group mags) don't have newsrooms staffed with teams of Woodwards and Bernsteins, they're more likely to have an editor and a list of contributors who are climbers first and journalists second. They just can't really afford to equip themselves to do the sort of work you're talking about - and of course the advertisers, who provide most of their income, probably wouldn't be too pleased either.
> Following some pub-like discussion we were left with an unresolved question:
> Why is there no investigative journalism in climbing? Forum stories like the recent Asgard Apology thread or that 'Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC' and the like, seems the climbing media ever investigate or report these stories...is it because
> 1) they are not relevant/interesting?
> 2) investigation may conflict with sponsor/advertisers preferred content?
> 3) reporting may attract unaffordable litigation?
> 4) too much like hard work?
> Seems the most controversial stuff is the grade of 3PS or whether the turf was frozen or not.
> Why is there no investigative journalism in climbing? Forum stories like the recent Asgard Apology thread or that 'Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC' and the like, seems the climbing media ever investigate or report these stories...is it because
> 1) they are not relevant/interesting?
> 2) investigation may conflict with sponsor/advertisers preferred content?
> 3) reporting may attract unaffordable litigation?
> 4) too much like hard work?
> Seems the most controversial stuff is the grade of 3PS or whether the turf was frozen or not.
IMO it's all of the above and realistically will never be any other way. If by 'the climbing media' you mean the printed magazines then you need to realise that because of relatively low profit margins these publications work to, they don't have large staff of journalists who can afford to spend time digging for background stories. Investigative journalism is very labour-intensive, stories often take a long time and a lot of work to actually get to publication stage. Climbing magazines (like most consumer interest group mags) don't have newsrooms staffed with teams of Woodwards and Bernsteins, they're more likely to have an editor and a list of contributors who are climbers first and journalists second. They just can't really afford to equip themselves to do the sort of work you're talking about - and of course the advertisers, who provide most of their income, probably wouldn't be too pleased either.
In reply to simondgee:
Read Krakauer's "Into Thin Air"
Then read Boukreev's "The Climb"
Then read Krakauer's response to various things written in "The Climb" (e.g. in the prologue to the hardback special edition of "Into Thin Air")
Read Krakauer's "Into Thin Air"
Then read Boukreev's "The Climb"
Then read Krakauer's response to various things written in "The Climb" (e.g. in the prologue to the hardback special edition of "Into Thin Air")
In reply to simondgee:
Climbing is dominated by private companies, and I can imagine that most magazines (all two of them!) do not want to piss them off due to advertising/sponsorship deals etc.). That's why most gear reviews in climbing magazines are pretty much useless these days, as they rarely say anything critical - of course, modern climbing gear might be so good, that it is incapable of criticism. This is not just found in climbing, but also in snowsports and game fishing magazines.
I think that if any investigative journalism were to be carried out, it would be in the mainstream media. However, there's probably very little demand for this, as most of the public don't care about inappropriate dry-tooling or bolting.
Climbing is dominated by private companies, and I can imagine that most magazines (all two of them!) do not want to piss them off due to advertising/sponsorship deals etc.). That's why most gear reviews in climbing magazines are pretty much useless these days, as they rarely say anything critical - of course, modern climbing gear might be so good, that it is incapable of criticism. This is not just found in climbing, but also in snowsports and game fishing magazines.
I think that if any investigative journalism were to be carried out, it would be in the mainstream media. However, there's probably very little demand for this, as most of the public don't care about inappropriate dry-tooling or bolting.
In reply to simondgee
Most interesting question/comment posted on here for a long time IMO, thanks! And yes, I'd say a combination of the above with, I suspect, a bias towards 2 and 3.
Most interesting question/comment posted on here for a long time IMO, thanks! And yes, I'd say a combination of the above with, I suspect, a bias towards 2 and 3.
In reply to Blue Straggler:
Also 'Three Cups of Deceit' by Krakauer which had a bit of a climbing background
Also 'Three Cups of Deceit' by Krakauer which had a bit of a climbing background
In reply to verygneiss:
I wouldn't say the gear reviews for UKC are any better tbh. Admittedly I'm not an avid reader of gear reviews (not least because as you pointed out, there is very little criticism) but the odd review I do read seems, broadly speaking, bland and positive.
(Although I am aware that by saying this, the obvious response is "OhRly?? And where pray is your balanced critical review masterpiece?!... You haven't done one yet, well, yes then I am sure you are qualified to comment and I am just waiting with baited breath for your first foray into the review arena".)
> That's why most gear reviews in climbing magazines are pretty much useless these days, as they rarely say anything critical - of course, modern climbing gear might be so good, that it is incapable of criticism. This is not just found in climbing, but also in snowsports and game fishing magazines.
I wouldn't say the gear reviews for UKC are any better tbh. Admittedly I'm not an avid reader of gear reviews (not least because as you pointed out, there is very little criticism) but the odd review I do read seems, broadly speaking, bland and positive.
(Although I am aware that by saying this, the obvious response is "OhRly?? And where pray is your balanced critical review masterpiece?!... You haven't done one yet, well, yes then I am sure you are qualified to comment and I am just waiting with baited breath for your first foray into the review arena".)
In reply to simondgee: I did do a mini investigation into Bear Grylls, it has been linked off this forum on many occassions. I am sure if you search you'll find the link.
In reply to simondgee: Its many years ago, but the story of false claims of new routes on Gogarth was in a Sunday paper (Sunday Times ?) - would that happen today ?
In reply to Doug: Didn't the finding of Gunther Messner make the national press not that long ago?
In reply to simondgee:
Good questions.
One topic that might be worth looking at is the impact of sponsorship and advertising on climbers, and on the editorial policy of climbing magazines and websites (such as this one).
Another one might be Gwynedd County Council's controversial Green Key scheme (I think I've got the right name; someone correct me if I haven't) for traffic and parking regulations in Snowdonia and the climbing organizations that backed it in the face of climbing and local public opposition. I may have my facts wrong here (hence no naming names) but this is an example of where a bit of basic investigative journalism on a climbing related issue might benefit all.
As to the Gogarth story - wasn't that run by journalists who happened to be climbers? Roger Alton, now the Executive Editor of the Times, is a climber, and his links with Ed Douglas have enabled a few stories to get out in the past when he was, I think, on the Guardian. (Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
Anyway - what we really need is a statutory base for an independent tribunal to adjudicate on the regrading of TPS.
Good questions.
One topic that might be worth looking at is the impact of sponsorship and advertising on climbers, and on the editorial policy of climbing magazines and websites (such as this one).
Another one might be Gwynedd County Council's controversial Green Key scheme (I think I've got the right name; someone correct me if I haven't) for traffic and parking regulations in Snowdonia and the climbing organizations that backed it in the face of climbing and local public opposition. I may have my facts wrong here (hence no naming names) but this is an example of where a bit of basic investigative journalism on a climbing related issue might benefit all.
As to the Gogarth story - wasn't that run by journalists who happened to be climbers? Roger Alton, now the Executive Editor of the Times, is a climber, and his links with Ed Douglas have enabled a few stories to get out in the past when he was, I think, on the Guardian. (Again, someone correct me if I'm wrong.)
Anyway - what we really need is a statutory base for an independent tribunal to adjudicate on the regrading of TPS.
In reply to Solaris:
I can't think of anything more boring than your first suggestion. The pitfalls of sponsor pressure are obvious and overstated repeatedly here by those with conspiracy paranoia. Going on and on about it would risk a crying wolf problem when a real scandal did pop up.
The 'Green Key' idea I'm sure would have legs if it's true (journalists must do their fact checking or we have another Lord McAlpine situation)
I think the numbers of articles on climbing and mountaineering that do hit the real press are more than I'd expect although as a Grauniad reader they tend to be from the ever impressive Ed Douglas. I also think the mags and UKC could try harder sometimes but part of the blame of that is down to climbers not contributing good material to them (so well done Mark Reeves on that BG piece and others doing similar).
3PS IS E0 whether the grade exists or not (ie bordeline HVS/E1)...yet another non-story.
I can't think of anything more boring than your first suggestion. The pitfalls of sponsor pressure are obvious and overstated repeatedly here by those with conspiracy paranoia. Going on and on about it would risk a crying wolf problem when a real scandal did pop up.
The 'Green Key' idea I'm sure would have legs if it's true (journalists must do their fact checking or we have another Lord McAlpine situation)
I think the numbers of articles on climbing and mountaineering that do hit the real press are more than I'd expect although as a Grauniad reader they tend to be from the ever impressive Ed Douglas. I also think the mags and UKC could try harder sometimes but part of the blame of that is down to climbers not contributing good material to them (so well done Mark Reeves on that BG piece and others doing similar).
3PS IS E0 whether the grade exists or not (ie bordeline HVS/E1)...yet another non-story.
In reply to scrufff: Did you see the rather terrible news the Mortenson's co-author/ghost writer on Three Cups of Tea, David Relin, killed himself yesterday? http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/03/business/media/david-oliver-relin-co-auth...
In reply to simondgee:
At UKC we haven't got the resources, time and money to even consider investigative reporting. I am certain the same situation exists at the magazines.
If I could afford to pay someone to look into these interesting stories then that would be great, but I can't, so I don't - end of story.
Alan
At UKC we haven't got the resources, time and money to even consider investigative reporting. I am certain the same situation exists at the magazines.
If I could afford to pay someone to look into these interesting stories then that would be great, but I can't, so I don't - end of story.
Alan
In reply to Offwidth:
is this Marks piece you refer to ?http://lifeinthevertical.co.uk/blogs/blog/2009/07/bear-grylls-the-bmc-and-u...
is that investigative??? wheres the unambiguous narrative? where's questions about perkins slade actions on insuring it? how much? what was the premium in the first place? ...they are a very experienced commercial insurer what was the original cover granted based on misleading information? why did they payout (actually did they payout)? Is the BMC overly dependent on Perkins Slade? What happens when a serac breaks off off an takes out 100 folks tramping up Everest? How many other expeditions that have commercial activities at their heart mislead insurers e.g. photographers and film makers? (neatly round to Asgard Apology)would perkins slade have paid out on rescue on Asgard if the chaps were knowingly breaking the law, does a editor being asked to print an apology in his magazine with a very clear and interesting story behind what was a climbing blockbuster film not ask questions about that apology...or is that a bit to close to hand that feeds. That's not conspiracy paranoia is it? Its a simple question. That in 30 years of Kendal Mountain festival you can probably count on 1 hand the number of films out of the hundreds screened that have aired on broadcast says much about our sports ability to engage with mainstream media providers and mainstream audiences in the way we think is representative.
For me I'm interested in why (for which their are few reasons) rather than the whats (which will recur again and again in the future to be seemingly side stepped).
is this Marks piece you refer to ?http://lifeinthevertical.co.uk/blogs/blog/2009/07/bear-grylls-the-bmc-and-u...
is that investigative??? wheres the unambiguous narrative? where's questions about perkins slade actions on insuring it? how much? what was the premium in the first place? ...they are a very experienced commercial insurer what was the original cover granted based on misleading information? why did they payout (actually did they payout)? Is the BMC overly dependent on Perkins Slade? What happens when a serac breaks off off an takes out 100 folks tramping up Everest? How many other expeditions that have commercial activities at their heart mislead insurers e.g. photographers and film makers? (neatly round to Asgard Apology)would perkins slade have paid out on rescue on Asgard if the chaps were knowingly breaking the law, does a editor being asked to print an apology in his magazine with a very clear and interesting story behind what was a climbing blockbuster film not ask questions about that apology...or is that a bit to close to hand that feeds. That's not conspiracy paranoia is it? Its a simple question. That in 30 years of Kendal Mountain festival you can probably count on 1 hand the number of films out of the hundreds screened that have aired on broadcast says much about our sports ability to engage with mainstream media providers and mainstream audiences in the way we think is representative.
For me I'm interested in why (for which their are few reasons) rather than the whats (which will recur again and again in the future to be seemingly side stepped).
In reply to Alan James - Rockfax:
Thats fine Alan, I don't think you were aware of or ran either of those examples as stories anyway, and as a well established non subscription model it would would make no sense.
Thats fine Alan, I don't think you were aware of or ran either of those examples as stories anyway, and as a well established non subscription model it would would make no sense.
In reply to simondgee: In the light of the recent BBC stuff, I was listening to one of the many R4 soul searching/ navel gazing exercises, and they discussed inestigative journalism. One of the key things they talked about (sorry - can't remember who "they" were!) was that you have to be prepared to walk away if your investigations reveal a non story - effectively that after investing time/ money etc, if a story is just hearsay and innuendo, or simply wrong, there is is an enormous temptation to publish something just to make it worthwhile.
Big papers/ broadcasters struggle with this, so I'd imagine niche publishers just have no incentive to even begin down this path.
Big papers/ broadcasters struggle with this, so I'd imagine niche publishers just have no incentive to even begin down this path.
In reply to Doug:
That was written (I think) by Peter Gilman who covered quite a few climbing articles for the Times, including I think some coverage of the Eiger tradegies as well as The Harlin Route, This was the CC guide coverage of the McCallum affair.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=125489
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=125490
> (In reply to simondgee) Its many years ago, but the story of false claims of new routes on Gogarth was in a Sunday paper (Sunday Times ?) - would that happen today ?
That was written (I think) by Peter Gilman who covered quite a few climbing articles for the Times, including I think some coverage of the Eiger tradegies as well as The Harlin Route, This was the CC guide coverage of the McCallum affair.
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=125489
http://www.ukclimbing.com/images/dbpage.php?id=125490
In reply to simondgee:
My point is similar to Alan's there is no real money to do this; so it's better people contribute stuff if they care. As such its unfair to compare Mark with a broadsheet journalistic position when at least he is trying. Why don't you do a piece?
My point is similar to Alan's there is no real money to do this; so it's better people contribute stuff if they care. As such its unfair to compare Mark with a broadsheet journalistic position when at least he is trying. Why don't you do a piece?
In reply to simondgee:
Investigations soak up huge amounts of staff time and cost a fortune. Even major newspapers have been cutting back on them and climbing magazines with miniscule circulations - let alone websites that no one is going to pay to read - can't even contemplate them even if there were to be a scandal worth investigating, which neither of the OP's suggestions are.
Asgard: bad boy adventurer makes illegal BASE jump. Nobody dies.Canadian national park has a hissy fit. Minimal fine levied in obscure court So what?
Bear Grylls: bit more interesting cos he's a 'sleb' on t'telly so got a slightly wider appeal than Leo Houlding but even so what does it amount to? BMC didn't go bust, insurance premiums went up. How many extra readers would that investigation pull in to justify the cost?
Forget the conspiracy theories. You get what you pay for and unless and until thousands of people are willing to pay an awful lot more for climbing mags you will continue to get what you're getting.
Investigations soak up huge amounts of staff time and cost a fortune. Even major newspapers have been cutting back on them and climbing magazines with miniscule circulations - let alone websites that no one is going to pay to read - can't even contemplate them even if there were to be a scandal worth investigating, which neither of the OP's suggestions are.
Asgard: bad boy adventurer makes illegal BASE jump. Nobody dies.Canadian national park has a hissy fit. Minimal fine levied in obscure court So what?
Bear Grylls: bit more interesting cos he's a 'sleb' on t'telly so got a slightly wider appeal than Leo Houlding but even so what does it amount to? BMC didn't go bust, insurance premiums went up. How many extra readers would that investigation pull in to justify the cost?
Forget the conspiracy theories. You get what you pay for and unless and until thousands of people are willing to pay an awful lot more for climbing mags you will continue to get what you're getting.
In reply to simondgee: I am an investigative journalist and a climber. About 20 years ago with my friend Steve Dodd I used to write the news pages for the old Climber magazine, and some of the stories we did were a wee bit investigative. But if anyone has a genuine story that does need investigating and could do with national media airing, please contact me: david@davidroseuk.com
Is it true that Bear Grylls nearly bankrupted the BMC? That sounds interesting...
Is it true that Bear Grylls nearly bankrupted the BMC? That sounds interesting...
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
Thank you. That sums the situation up very well.
Alan
> Investigations soak up huge amounts of staff time and cost a fortune. Even major newspapers have been cutting back on them and climbing magazines with miniscule circulations - let alone websites that no one is going to pay to read - can't even contemplate them even if there were to be a scandal worth investigating, which neither of the OP's suggestions are.
>
> Asgard: bad boy adventurer makes illegal BASE jump. Nobody dies.Canadian national park has a hissy fit. Minimal fine levied in obscure court So what?
>
> Bear Grylls: bit more interesting cos he's a 'sleb' on t'telly so got a slightly wider appeal than Leo Houlding but even so what does it amount to? BMC didn't go bust, insurance premiums went up. How many extra readers would that investigation pull in to justify the cost?
>
> Forget the conspiracy theories. You get what you pay for and unless and until thousands of people are willing to pay an awful lot more for climbing mags you will continue to get what you're getting.
>
> Asgard: bad boy adventurer makes illegal BASE jump. Nobody dies.Canadian national park has a hissy fit. Minimal fine levied in obscure court So what?
>
> Bear Grylls: bit more interesting cos he's a 'sleb' on t'telly so got a slightly wider appeal than Leo Houlding but even so what does it amount to? BMC didn't go bust, insurance premiums went up. How many extra readers would that investigation pull in to justify the cost?
>
> Forget the conspiracy theories. You get what you pay for and unless and until thousands of people are willing to pay an awful lot more for climbing mags you will continue to get what you're getting.
Thank you. That sums the situation up very well.
Alan
In reply to davidoldfart: I thought Regions of the Heart was excellent because it went against the, to my mind, generally well intentioned positive tribalism of the climbing community and gave the whole story warts and all. But I guess those sort of projects take a lot of time and the writers and researchers need to make a living whilst doing so.
Oddly I was thinking of your book when I came across this blog post the other day whilst researching something completely different http://jackofkent.blogspot.fi/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html I think after reading about a story in the Mail and then discussion on blogs about that story.
Oddly I was thinking of your book when I came across this blog post the other day whilst researching something completely different http://jackofkent.blogspot.fi/2011/07/who-is-david-rose.html I think after reading about a story in the Mail and then discussion on blogs about that story.
In reply to Wiley Coyote:
That's actually some good spin; why use the term "hissy fit" for example? Someone broke a law, when the relevant authorities discovered this they prosecuted. This is Canada we're talking about here! Hardly synonymous with intrigue, politically motivated judicial persecution and lack of respect for the rule of law. If the police in Britain charge someone for breaking a law where no one got hurt and there weren't any victims, physically or financially - are they "throwing a hissy fit" also?
In the past both High; OTE and Climber has news pages at the front of the magazine that often dealt with issues around climbing but not actual first ascents and the like - so access, insurance, court cases, rescues etc. I would have thought the Asgard thing could have been dealt with neutrally in exactly that sort of way. Basically like the news stories from Canada I linked on the Asgard thread. If someone was really ambitious they could call the interested parties to get brief quotes. I don't think there is much to 'investigate' there but it simple news item would have seemed like the way to deal with it.
> Asgard: bad boy adventurer makes illegal BASE jump. Nobody dies.Canadian national park has a hissy fit. Minimal fine levied in obscure court So what?
That's actually some good spin; why use the term "hissy fit" for example? Someone broke a law, when the relevant authorities discovered this they prosecuted. This is Canada we're talking about here! Hardly synonymous with intrigue, politically motivated judicial persecution and lack of respect for the rule of law. If the police in Britain charge someone for breaking a law where no one got hurt and there weren't any victims, physically or financially - are they "throwing a hissy fit" also?
In the past both High; OTE and Climber has news pages at the front of the magazine that often dealt with issues around climbing but not actual first ascents and the like - so access, insurance, court cases, rescues etc. I would have thought the Asgard thing could have been dealt with neutrally in exactly that sort of way. Basically like the news stories from Canada I linked on the Asgard thread. If someone was really ambitious they could call the interested parties to get brief quotes. I don't think there is much to 'investigate' there but it simple news item would have seemed like the way to deal with it.
In reply to TobyA: Ah yes, the Hari incident. When all that broke I was on a caving expedition in the Picos de Europa. On a break between forays deep underground I climbed the hill above the refugio where we were based in order to get a phone signal - to find dozens of texts and emails from people asking me what was going on. Of course I had no idea, having just surfaced from a three day subterranean camping trip. Thank you for the kind words about Regions of the Heart. Ed Douglas and I put a lot into that book.
In reply to simondgee:
Because neither of them are big stories!
Asgard concerns someone doping something "illegal" that in reality has very little impact on the environment that it took place in. What damage does base jumping do that the climb itself didn't?
IIRC your sensational "Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC" story was more a case of "insurance premiums rise when underwriters catch a cold due to large claim."
You might get sucked in by such overt sensationalism but most climbers are intelligent enough to see straight through such guff.
Do you really want our sport dragged through the mud so that some second rate, tawdry journalist can profit from it?
Because neither of them are big stories!
Asgard concerns someone doping something "illegal" that in reality has very little impact on the environment that it took place in. What damage does base jumping do that the climb itself didn't?
IIRC your sensational "Bear Grylls almost bankrupted BMC" story was more a case of "insurance premiums rise when underwriters catch a cold due to large claim."
You might get sucked in by such overt sensationalism but most climbers are intelligent enough to see straight through such guff.
Do you really want our sport dragged through the mud so that some second rate, tawdry journalist can profit from it?
In reply to Fickalli: True that not enough people care, although we could have done with some proper investagative jouralism a while ago when there was a lot of noise about a couple of climbers supposedly lying about their achievments.
Certainly made good copy on here
Certainly made good copy on here
In reply to Offwidth:
I'm no paranoiac and have no axe to grind. If others have been "going on and on" about this issue on here, I haven't been aware of it; I don't read everything on UKC.
But since (perceived) conflict of interest in parts of the print media has been a significant part of the Leveson inquiry, and although you are right that it's silly to risk crying wolf, it doesn't do any harm to be vigilant when there is scope for being conflicted. And perhaps, when budgets are low, both for commercial interests and for (potential) investigators, the risks of mishap are greater.
> (In reply to Solaris)
> The pitfalls of sponsor pressure are obvious and overstated repeatedly here by those with conspiracy paranoia. Going on and on about it would risk a crying wolf problem when a real scandal did pop up.
I'm no paranoiac and have no axe to grind. If others have been "going on and on" about this issue on here, I haven't been aware of it; I don't read everything on UKC.
But since (perceived) conflict of interest in parts of the print media has been a significant part of the Leveson inquiry, and although you are right that it's silly to risk crying wolf, it doesn't do any harm to be vigilant when there is scope for being conflicted. And perhaps, when budgets are low, both for commercial interests and for (potential) investigators, the risks of mishap are greater.
In reply to Solaris: In climbing I think the biggest problem is the 'community' is so small. It's so hard for there NOT to be perceived or potential conflicts of interest even where there really are none. UKC didn't seem to have any problem at all with hosting the discussion I started after reading the Asgard Apology, but I noticed now that the new photos this week feature is now "in association with..." one of the principal sponsors of the Asgard trip. I'm not suggesting anything untoward in either way there, but it's just a relatively small circle where somehow climbing companies, climbers and the climbing media are all kind of mixed up together.
In reply to TobyA:
Good points. Without wishing to exaggerate parallels with other fields, in the case of climbing, who speaks truth to power?
Good points. Without wishing to exaggerate parallels with other fields, in the case of climbing, who speaks truth to power?
In reply to Solaris: I don't sense much holding back on UKC forums; some people are even prepared to talk lies, rumours and half truths to power here.
In reply to Offwidth:
So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image? how much is to be believed off any internet or printed source (save for perhaps peer reviewed content)? ...Self serving countered by healthy pinch of salt seems a reasonable strategy. Why does any climber need to publicise what they do (or might get away with convincing people they do)?
So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image? how much is to be believed off any internet or printed source (save for perhaps peer reviewed content)? ...Self serving countered by healthy pinch of salt seems a reasonable strategy. Why does any climber need to publicise what they do (or might get away with convincing people they do)?
In reply to Offwidth:
I wonder whether you might be making more than I intended of one part of a general observation that I made in my original post. For the same reason that I have only bought a handful of copies of the Times since Rupert Murdoch bought it, I wouldn't use UKC if I thought it was dodgy, and I certainly deplore lies and half truths in the name of internet libertarianism.
The OP raised a question about investigative journalism in the climbing world and basically my point was that there may be topics worthy of investigation and that there is always a need to speak truth to power whether it is political, commmercial, religious, medical or whatever.
I wonder whether you might be making more than I intended of one part of a general observation that I made in my original post. For the same reason that I have only bought a handful of copies of the Times since Rupert Murdoch bought it, I wouldn't use UKC if I thought it was dodgy, and I certainly deplore lies and half truths in the name of internet libertarianism.
The OP raised a question about investigative journalism in the climbing world and basically my point was that there may be topics worthy of investigation and that there is always a need to speak truth to power whether it is political, commmercial, religious, medical or whatever.
In reply to simondgee:
I think this level of scepticism is as dangerous as believing everything you read without any reservations at all. Are you saying that the news media we have in the UK is on a par with that of, say, China, or North Korea? How much is to be believed - well surely that depends on the subject, the news outlet, the journalist, what else is happening that day, etc. Only a fool would believe anything the Mail wrote about science (of course there are a lot of fools about), but then so much of what the media covers is very subjective. Who knows what is really going on in politics, even the key players are working off incomplete information...
Surely comparing peer-reviewed content and daily news journalism is comparing apples and oranges? Journalists don't always have the luxury of time, they have to report on the new rather than the old, which is why it's called news and not olds. Doing academic research and trying to make some sense of events whilst they are still happening are too different things, surely we need both?
> (In reply to Offwidth)
> So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image? how much is to be believed off any internet or printed source (save for perhaps peer reviewed content)? ...
> So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image? how much is to be believed off any internet or printed source (save for perhaps peer reviewed content)? ...
I think this level of scepticism is as dangerous as believing everything you read without any reservations at all. Are you saying that the news media we have in the UK is on a par with that of, say, China, or North Korea? How much is to be believed - well surely that depends on the subject, the news outlet, the journalist, what else is happening that day, etc. Only a fool would believe anything the Mail wrote about science (of course there are a lot of fools about), but then so much of what the media covers is very subjective. Who knows what is really going on in politics, even the key players are working off incomplete information...
Surely comparing peer-reviewed content and daily news journalism is comparing apples and oranges? Journalists don't always have the luxury of time, they have to report on the new rather than the old, which is why it's called news and not olds. Doing academic research and trying to make some sense of events whilst they are still happening are too different things, surely we need both?
In reply to seankenny: Nope I didn't say that. I was extending the depth of Offwidth's observation. >>on UKC forums; some people are even prepared to talk lies, rumours and half truths to power<< There are no truths in commercially motivated media, simply perspectives...when the BBC news comes on and wants to report flooding does it do it showing areas that have previously been affected by flooding and are now not, no it turns the camera on whatever is sexy e.g. distraught householders, usually in new builds on established flood plains saying this happened last year too,...choosing to go with bleedingly obvious versus the 'news' of dull but effective flood defences. As for the content of the Mail over the Broadsheets in covering science...there is little science that any newspaper is capable of adequately reporting without over simplification or omission of important detail, so its not comparing apples with oranges its noting that oranges are not a part of contemporary media.
In reply to simondgee:
By heck, your news bulletins would make riveting viewing.
"Our top story tonight. 60 million Britons were not killed today. 20 million homes were not flooded, there were no by elections in 627 constituencies and the vast majority of UK businesses have not laid off a thousand workers nor gone into liquidation."
> (when the BBC news comes on and wants to report flooding does it do it showing areas that have previously been affected by flooding and are now not, no it turns the camera on whatever is sexy e.g. distraught householders,
By heck, your news bulletins would make riveting viewing.
"Our top story tonight. 60 million Britons were not killed today. 20 million homes were not flooded, there were no by elections in 627 constituencies and the vast majority of UK businesses have not laid off a thousand workers nor gone into liquidation."
In reply to Wiley Coyote: Exactly ...the media will report what suits audience...for example in the last 6 years unemployment has increased by 3% in the UK in France it has increased by only 1% over the same period. brilliant ammo to chuck at the government and fits with the nature of political reporting (regardless of the party) ...the fact that our unemployment figures are still 2% lower than France is by the by...the fact that if anything else in your life was at best 95% and at worst 92% you would think you were doing ok...its simply a perspective...I wish I had chosen an a-political example though!
In reply to simondgee:
Hmmm. Well I've no idea what your professional background is, Simon, but whatever it is I'd say don't give up the day job because I'm afraid your chances of ever making a news editor are a tad slim.
Hmmm. Well I've no idea what your professional background is, Simon, but whatever it is I'd say don't give up the day job because I'm afraid your chances of ever making a news editor are a tad slim.
In reply to Wiley Coyote: Aaah the irony ... and which lands us back at the Q. >So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image?< ...conistently whatever keeps you looking at the screen, the page or your ipad.
In reply to simondgee:
"So how much truth is there in any of the media..."
I think it varies from almost 100% on non-contentious local stuff from good sources to close to 0% in some media making a dishonest point about something a long way off where its hard to check. I also think its getting worse due to financial pressures as we are too stupid as a populace to pay for good journalism (mainly through the purchase of papers) and the new models for income from e-reporting don't really work yet. In fact its a dangerous time for the possibilities of government control now nearly everything has gone electronic: all it takes is a major crisis and a dodgy leadership and we are heading for 1984. I still retain optimism that the risks of such a meltdown are low and something will fill the journalism gap, as everyone needs this for democracy to work and the problem is becoming more and more obvious to anyone with any intelligence. This is part of the reason why the BBC news (and Channel 4 news etc) are so important.
I only suggested climbers help in our small vertical world as the magazines in the UK simply can't afford to do it on their own, yet they will publish good stuff.
"So how much truth is there in any of the media..."
I think it varies from almost 100% on non-contentious local stuff from good sources to close to 0% in some media making a dishonest point about something a long way off where its hard to check. I also think its getting worse due to financial pressures as we are too stupid as a populace to pay for good journalism (mainly through the purchase of papers) and the new models for income from e-reporting don't really work yet. In fact its a dangerous time for the possibilities of government control now nearly everything has gone electronic: all it takes is a major crisis and a dodgy leadership and we are heading for 1984. I still retain optimism that the risks of such a meltdown are low and something will fill the journalism gap, as everyone needs this for democracy to work and the problem is becoming more and more obvious to anyone with any intelligence. This is part of the reason why the BBC news (and Channel 4 news etc) are so important.
I only suggested climbers help in our small vertical world as the magazines in the UK simply can't afford to do it on their own, yet they will publish good stuff.
In reply to simondgee: (and Offwidth)
I think local news reports current news stories reasonably well (bus hit Bridge on acacia avenue, 7 people slightly injured), but is absolutely hopeless at proactive news gathering - I don't think local news does investigative journalism at all. Worse than that is the uncritical reproduction of press releases as "news stories" "workers from McNasties sweatshop helped save fluffy kittens in a day of action sponsored by kitto-skoff" rather than "Secret to McNasties violin strings revealed - no cat is safe!!".
I think local news coverage by mainstream media is dead, they just have't turned off the lifesupport, yet
> (In reply to Wiley Coyote)Q. >So how much truth is there in any of the media...how much of TV do you believe is true to the image
I think local news reports current news stories reasonably well (bus hit Bridge on acacia avenue, 7 people slightly injured), but is absolutely hopeless at proactive news gathering - I don't think local news does investigative journalism at all. Worse than that is the uncritical reproduction of press releases as "news stories" "workers from McNasties sweatshop helped save fluffy kittens in a day of action sponsored by kitto-skoff" rather than "Secret to McNasties violin strings revealed - no cat is safe!!".
I think local news coverage by mainstream media is dead, they just have't turned off the lifesupport, yet
In reply to simondgee:
Surely the first question would be "is there any need for investigative journalism in climbing"?
Taking your two examples, the first is IMHO very minor and in the wider context, has nil impact. The second might be worthy of further explanation, if only to establish that the headline used is hyperbole, and no real story actually exists.
Neither merits deploying the money, time and a potential day in court on the wrong end of our libel laws.
If there was a story that a major kit supplier was importing shonky Uzbeki clibing hardware as marking it as CE / UIAA then sure, but there is nothing like that in the offing. Climbing, being brutally honest, does not merit the effort and energy for what is likely to be a minor infraction in a minority sport.
Is there anything in this sport that would merit the level of investigative journalism under taken by David Walsh?
Surely the first question would be "is there any need for investigative journalism in climbing"?
Taking your two examples, the first is IMHO very minor and in the wider context, has nil impact. The second might be worthy of further explanation, if only to establish that the headline used is hyperbole, and no real story actually exists.
Neither merits deploying the money, time and a potential day in court on the wrong end of our libel laws.
If there was a story that a major kit supplier was importing shonky Uzbeki clibing hardware as marking it as CE / UIAA then sure, but there is nothing like that in the offing. Climbing, being brutally honest, does not merit the effort and energy for what is likely to be a minor infraction in a minority sport.
Is there anything in this sport that would merit the level of investigative journalism under taken by David Walsh?
In reply to John Rushby:
Performance enhancing drugs in unregulated sports? Culture clash given Olympic recognition is on the agenda. Wouldn't just be climbing - I'm sure there are other sports this applies to as well.
> (In reply to simondgee)
>
>
> Is there anything in this sport that would merit the level of investigative journalism under taken by David Walsh?
>
>
> Is there anything in this sport that would merit the level of investigative journalism under taken by David Walsh?
Performance enhancing drugs in unregulated sports? Culture clash given Olympic recognition is on the agenda. Wouldn't just be climbing - I'm sure there are other sports this applies to as well.
In reply to toad:
I don't really see my climbing as a sport. I suppose if people want to be recognised for climbing competitively then they should expect regulators to pop up at some point, but it's so far removed from going out there and climbing things that it probably seems a bit irreverent to most people.
I suppose the people who see it as a competition are those most likely to take drugs. I see it as a fun way to get up mountains and they can take my performance enhancing coffee from my cold, dead hands!
> (In reply to John Rushby)
> [...]
>
> Performance enhancing drugs in unregulated sports? Culture clash given Olympic recognition is on the agenda. Wouldn't just be climbing - I'm sure there are other sports this applies to as well.
> [...]
>
> Performance enhancing drugs in unregulated sports? Culture clash given Olympic recognition is on the agenda. Wouldn't just be climbing - I'm sure there are other sports this applies to as well.
I don't really see my climbing as a sport. I suppose if people want to be recognised for climbing competitively then they should expect regulators to pop up at some point, but it's so far removed from going out there and climbing things that it probably seems a bit irreverent to most people.
I suppose the people who see it as a competition are those most likely to take drugs. I see it as a fun way to get up mountains and they can take my performance enhancing coffee from my cold, dead hands!
In reply to simondgee:
It's a fair cop. I'll come clean. I've been on performance enhancing drugs for years Glucosamine, condriatin (sp?) omega 3, ibuprofen...the list just goes on and on. I'm so ashamed.
It's a fair cop. I'll come clean. I've been on performance enhancing drugs for years Glucosamine, condriatin (sp?) omega 3, ibuprofen...the list just goes on and on. I'm so ashamed.
In reply to Wiley Coyote: People like you shame us all!
In reply to davidbeynon: I'm not expecting to trouble the olympic selectors until they make internet prevarication an olympic sport - was more thinking of anything that might make more than a few thousand beanie wearer take an interest
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...