UKC

A local news paper posted the following article on Facebook, leading to a page on their website.

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=10152355498139814&set=a.4496732...

I found that the story they wrote, appears to be accurate (I'm unaware of the facts surrounding the incident, other than what has been reported)

However they report the incident took place at The Roaches and posts a picture of nearby Ramshaw Rocks. I understand that it may be impractical to get a photographer to the venue, at the time of the rescue. However should a paper such as this not have stock images of the correct location (particularly when The Roaches is one of the busiest attractions in Staffordshire) or alternatively found a bystander who will have taken a picture?

The paper also poses the question on their Facebook Page,

"Do you think more needs to be done to monitor climbers?"

I am undecided why they would pose this question, because they would like a debate on the subject or because they are looking for grater interaction on their post? (Granted my post on here may aid that)

Your thoughts welcomed.

In reply to ianslade:

Local newspapers are struggling - loss of revenue due to lower sales and people getting their info from the web. They need to get visits to their web pages to get views for the advertisers so they create artificially antagonistic viewpoints or questions for discussion. The common one round here (Skipton) at the moment is the "war between motorists and cyclists".

Having the details of the story being accurate is a bonus.

In reply to Bob:

I understand and appreciate the pressures of business and empathize with the pressure of needing to get stories out quickly and keep up with online media. However I feel that the detail in a story are important, particularly if it gives people a heightened awareness of a particular area that may be dangerous.

In reply to ianslade:




I'm a snapper for a local paper. They have a few stock photos of local areas that I've taken, but stock photos or otherwise, they still cost them money. Unless a paper has staff photographers & many don't, it's gonna cost then per job. That said, there's no excuse really for them to use a photo of the wrong place, just sloppy.

In reply to ianslade:


I struggle to see a real issue with this. In what way do you think the photo is dangerous?

In reply to timjones:

It's elf n safety, innit?

In reply to timjones:

I don't feel the photo is dangerous; I feel that using a photo of the location of an incident will help raise awareness of a location that some one has sustained an injury. If this prevents some one from repeating the same mistake or similar that has to be a positive thing.

In reply to ianslade:

Just read the article and I was also enjoying the use of the term "free climbing" where I suspect they may have meant soloing, although this is unclear.