UKC

It appears lazy journalists have taken to peeping thru web forums for their stories (though not enough to realise that Ben Nevis is not in the Cairngorms). Lazy, cheap and badly informed article, but worth bearing in mind when posting - you dont know who else may be stalking the forums
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/ben-nevis-sara-albone-selfie...

ps to the person who posted the original thread - very sorry youve been the victim of shabby journalism, it was an honest and brave post and you didnt deserve this

In reply to pebbles:

Do you think we could manufacture a completely fake, outrageous story and get it published?

In reply to MG:

Do you think we could manufacture a completely fake, outrageous story and get it published?

Tomorrow would be quite apt...

In reply to MG:


Something like:

"Two walkers returned from Scotland last summer where they had been shocked to enjoy several glorious sunny days in a row, pleasant walking in midge-free hills and local shops open at convenient times."

No-one would ever believe that....

In reply to pebbles:

they could at least take out a premier post and ask for stories.
Independent are slackers as well everyone else grabbed the "story" yesterday

In reply to pebbles:

Looks very shabby, but before we get the pitchforks out we ought to check whether those quoted were contacted by the journo prior to publication. Real names used, not UKC logins, so they might have agreed that it was worth publishing the story for much the same reason as posting on here - as warning to others who might make the same mistake.

In reply to pebbles:

To be sure of success, any such bait must include the tell-tale journo tic phrases:

scale, Mount, thrill-seeker, fall, danger, irresponsible, rescue. They're bound to have a Google alert for those......

BTW if your Google alert is working, .... off and don't come back

In reply to MG:

>>Do you think we could manufacture a completely fake, outrageous story and get it published?

Yep. Although if you want to make sure the Daily Fail really wants to put the boot in, you've probably got to have the protagonist as a non-white transgender asylum-seeker ...

In reply to nniff:




You forgot "conquer..." as in "conquer Mount Snowdon"; "conquer Mount Ben Nevis".

In reply to Wingnut:

For the fail also need to get their house price in. No story is complete without that.

In reply to pebbles:

"Terrifying freak avalanche thwarts hikers attempting conquest of Box Hill"

In reply to mypyrex:


In my younger days I used to do the Box hill fell race...........totally awesome mountain, I wouldn't want to be lost up there in a pair of shorts!

In reply to mypyrex:

Conquer the sheer north face of Mount Ben Nevis

In reply to mypyrex:

"Did asylum seekers trigger Box Hill Avalanche ?"
"How will the Box Hill avalanche affect house prices ?"
"Is the Box Hill avalanche proof that climate change is a myth ?"

P.S. Don't forget that Britain's deadliest avalanche occurred in Sussex !!

In reply to pebbles:

You'd be naive to think that the media don't do this. It's in the metro today as well. Did you think actual reporters went out to get a story? And if they did, do you think it would be any more accurate? In fact, probably less accurate. At least they could copy and paste from the internet.

In reply to ChrisBrooke:

One for the Mail: 'Immigrants are wearing our our mountains' Hoards of East Europeans are flocking to our blue remembered hills because, they say, they remind them of their homeland, and are causing unprecedented erosion.

In reply to pebbles:

The bit that winds me up about this is the people on my FB feed reposting the story and saying she should be fined or charged and what a moron she is. People make mistakes - she apologised, offered thanks to her rescuers and has clearly learnt a valuable lesson. It takes guts to publicly apologise like that and she should get some credit.

In reply to Chris the Tall:



Near Lewes if I recall.

In reply to GargoyleFeet:
I'v no idea what they think she could be charged for, since she was helped off the hill by climbers, with no rescue service involvement . Though to be fair the independent doesnt make this clear. No doubt the journalist was too busy checking the location of Ben Nevis, as it would look a bit silly to get that wrong, oh, wait.....

In reply to mypyrex:

Surely you aren't that old

In reply to pebbles:
Okay, here's an alternative viewpoint, and fwiw I used to work as a journalist:

Nowadays an internet forum is as much a source as any other public place where people speak. Is a journalist who overhears something about a story in a pub "trolling the pub"? Or what about a journalist who overhears something at the site of an accident and uses the quote?

The article I saw (Graun) was rubbish in that it didn't get the essence of the UKC discussion, which was really supportive and not at all critical. Some of the reporting clearly involved factual errors, which is rubbish and unprofessional even given that our sport is kind of a minority interest. I think a tweet or email to the journalists involved should see the errors corrected (if anyone can be bothered). But journalists looking at a public source of quotes and stories isn't lazy journalism - it's the essense of journalism.

In reply to pebbles:


unless I'm missing something, or they've edited the story since you posted, I can't see where they say Ben Nevis is in the Cairngorms...

In reply to Moley:


They'd need to be a big pair of shorts

In reply to seankenny:
So apart from getting the tone of debate wrong, getting the facts wrong, and not acknowledging the source, it was just fine? Copying (badly) from somewhere is not journalism in my view, although, given the number of reports that now consist of a selection of tweets glued together, I can see I am an outlier here.

And it's an alternat*ive* point of view. Grrr.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

that particular gem was from sky

http://news.sky.com/story/1670028/ben-nevis-rescue-for-woman-in-shorts

In reply to MG:


Thats unfair. Some throw in comments from reddit to break it up a bit.

In reply to MG:


So here's a thing. From the Guardian story which I said I'd read:
"Writing on a mountaineering forum, Albone praised her rescuers for being “incredibly brave and kind” "
That looks like acknowledging the source to me, but see how easy it is to read something and get the wrong end of the stick? As for the tone, I think a line like "Fellow mountaineers expressed their support for Albone etc etc" would have done it.

The Guardian didn't get the facts wrong, but others did - this shouldn't happen, but is really common in stories about climbing which most London-based hacks know nothing about. It's not excusable, but try to write 250 words on something you know nothing about in 15 minutes and you might see an error or two creeping in.

What is fine - and here is where I think you missed my point - is that journalists aren't "lazy" or "trolling" for looking on a public forum to find stories and use quotes. Journalism has always consisted of copying things and putting the quotes together. I don't see getting a quote off the internet as any different to getting a quote from anywhere else where people talk or write.

In reply to seankenny:

I'm currently working as a journalist and I think this is journalism of the lowest, worst kind. There is no way this woman deserved the monstering she's got from tabloids and broadsheets alike.

Yes, forums are public but people don't generally post on them with an expectation they'll be quoted - or labelled as "idiotic" - by a national newspaper. I'd no sooner scrape quotes off a forum without asking permission than I would skulk behind a stranger in the pub writing down what they said.

In reply to seankenny:



That sums it up very well. Or badly, depending on your perspective.

In reply to chris_s:

I agree she doesn't deserve the monstering for a second.


Well that's the Mail for you - they are a cancer on national life.


So, serious question. You're in court for a sentencing of some local hoodlum. He gets a massive sentence - way longer than expected. His mum - scion of a family of hardnuts on a sink estate - shouts "shame on you judge!" and then faints clean away amidst shouts from the family. Do you quote the woman? Do you report her fainting? If you do, do you ask permission first?

In reply to seankenny:
If you are going to quote you need to do it accurately, not just literally, but getting the context right too, not to mentioned the surrounding facts. Otherwise it's just devious manipulation. This is particularly the case when you are quoting private or semi-private discussions. I would imagine an article along the lines of "woman makes mistake, has lucky escape, and receives supportive comments from other climbers (quote here)" wouldn't have caused this thread.

Were you a News of the World journalist?

In reply to pebbles:

ah yes, I see...

I wonder where they got the height of ben nevis from? Ive seen it as 4406ft, or 4409ft, but never 4411ft- unlikely they just made it up, it being almost right- but not familiar with that one...

In reply to seankenny:

A court of law is a pretty different place to a climbing web forum. There is an expectation that there will be reporters there and that everything is on record, unless a court order is in place. So generally I'd have no problem with that.

But I have in the past decided not to report incidents in the public gallery. I was once at an inquest in Wales when a father whose son was run over and killed by a bus driver suddenly leaped out of his seat and went to attack the driver who was giving evidence. He was quickly restrained by a police officer and taken outside. A drama you don't often see in court, but I felt reporting it would just pile on the misery from someone angry with grief, so I didn't.

There are no hard and fast rules, it just needs judgement. If it feels a bit sh***y it probably is sh***y.

In reply to MG:


Unfortunately this is a total grey area - one person's accuracy is another person's slander. It may not appear this way when you're on the outside looking in, but try to describe the world on paper, put it out there and see how many people take offense.

I'm saying this as a broader point, however. The Mail article and its preachy judgemental tone is shitty.


Whatever gave you the impression that a public forum on the world's biggest climbing website was private or semi-private?! The fact you don't use your real name and don't have a full face picture on your profile suggests you understand this is not a private space.


Nope, not at all. As I hope you can tell - I'm presenting a different view and not getting personal about it. Tolerance for different views and trying to stay even handed aren't exactly traits of a NotW hack now, are they? Or should I say, were they...

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It's grown recently, I think - wikipedia has 4411ft. Who uses feet anyway!

In reply to digby:

Can't believe it took so many posts before yours to post this. People are truly clueless when it comes to the internet as a source for news stories.

In reply to seankenny:
Couldn't agree more with your posts here Sean.
Yours,
Another ex-journo!

In reply to seankenny:


It's semi-private in the sense people clearly don't expect their comments to form reports in national papers. It's like a pub conversation - the table next door might be expected hear but not the whole town.

In reply to seankenny:


Although if they don't do any worthwhile work themselves, it's the essence of plagiarism. Asserting that Ben Nevis is in the Cairngorms doesn't count as worthwhile.

In reply to chris_s:


It is, but the principal is that if something is said in public, it's fair game for reporting is a valid one. Indeed, even if something is said in private, it's fair game. Otherwise there would be no journalism worth the name.




That's very high minded of you. Personally I think readers should have a better picture of what goes on in court...


I think it's perfectly possible to write this story, quote from the forums and make a decent story out of it - and one that reflects what happened better than the Mail did.

In reply to seankenny:

In fact on the semi-private point, it's actually quite dangerous if journalists take frank admissions of mistakes which others can learn from and sensationalise them to make out those who made them are complete idiots. People won't want to talk freely about what went wrong and how to prevent it happening again.

In reply to MG:


That doesn't mean it's semi-private. It means it's a public space in which people don't expect journalists. There's a difference.

In reply to MG:


So if a civil servant made a mistake and it cost the country £10m, and they make an admission of a mistake in a public forum - whether that is UKCS.com or in a report or wherever - should the media not report on that mistake?

I agree with the tone, btw - the Mail making out people it doesn't like to be complete idiots is, as I said above, a nasty carbuncle on British life.

In reply to nniff:


I hate to say it, but plagiarism is taking someone else's work and passing it off as your own. Quoting someone and being open about it isn't plagarism. People do it all the time: students, journalists, writers, academics.

This only goes to show that when you stray onto a subject matter with which you're unfamiliar, it's easy to make mistakes and not understand what is going on.

In reply to seankenny:


Possibly not. In fact quite a few areas specifically have such a system set up - e.g. airline pilots. - to report mistakes. If a journalist got hold of this and reportsed "Bloody idiot pilot nearly crashed", it would hardly help future reports. That UKC isn't formally confidential and works on trust doesn't really change the situation.

In reply to MG:


What you're saying here is that journalism shouldn't hold people to account, which is of course the prime job of journalism. I would rather more openness than less. If MPs had known all their expenses claims would be a matter of public record then they might not have been so cavallier about how they spent public money. Or did secrecy help improve the system, as you suggest it might?

In reply to MG:


It up to 4413 ft now (or 1345m for the metricated)!!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ben_Nevis

That's 7 ft its grown by since I first climbed it- remarkably rapid growth! Everest is only growing at a couple of cm a year I thought. At that rate, in less that 100,000 years, the Ben will be the highest mountain on earth...

In reply to seankenny:


Don't be silly. I am saying it should be accurate and , respect trust and systems designed for safety. Publishing all pilot error reports is in no way holding people to account, any more than hysterically reporting someone getting in to trouble on Ben Nevis using out of context quotes against them is.

In reply to seankenny:



Really? No bearing on the case, no bearing on the Coroner's finding. Incident over within a minute. Where's the public interest? There are plenty of other more important things the public should know about what goes on in court. Full on brawl or actual assault, sure. A moment's anger from a bereaved parent, no - I'm comfortable leaving that out. It's not high-minded - you made the same decisions for every story you ever wrote. You choose which bits to put in and which to leave out. That's part of the journalism.

In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:

It up to 4413 ft now (or 1345m for the metricated)

The error of rounding up beautifully displayed...

In reply to seankenny:


They certainly would be getting their facts wrong if they assumed that UKC was populated by mountaineers !

In reply to MG:

The problem is that by pushing for more privacy rather than less, you're being a little cavalier the principal of holding people to account in the way they act in public. Clearly, the point at which a pilot is held to account for his actions isn't by publising a pilot error report, it's at an inquest or other inquiry into an accident. But I'm very wary of arguments pushing for more privacy in areas of public life, more walls to hide behind. What if the "system designed for safety" is in effect to let incompetents get away with it - should those systems be respected? Do the authorities always know best?

This is a long way from the Ben Nevis story in the Mail, which really is a steaming pile of sanctimonious bollocks.

In reply to pebbles:

I wonder if they nicked the photo of her from her profile here on UKC? I was moderating photos the other day and the young lady concerned had up loaded two profile pics already into UKC - including the one of her in shorts that we can all now see in the papers. I know that shaping your social media profile is quite important these days, but it did cross my mind that considering the straightforward honesty and contrition of the her posts, the profile pics seemed an odd choice.

But that's just me being a middle aged fogey I guess.

In reply to seankenny:


Fine.

But when your stories are published on the internet, using a system providing hypertext links, you should link to the original bloody story (the public source) that you've plagiarised from the internet.

That way, readers can at least go to the original source material and decide for themselves, rather than read the bastardised version some moron has half cobbled together, knowing nothing about the subject; "Ice pick", "Ben Nevis in the Cairngorms", etc.

If I CBA, I'd go and add a link to the original thread in the comments sections of each of these 'stories'.

In reply to chris_s:


You see to me that's just fine to leave in, simply because it paints a better picture of the reality of the court case.


Well, that's true. I still think it's a high minded decision tho!

In reply to captain paranoia:


Yes, there should absolutely be a link to the original UKC thread.

But once again, you seem to mistake "sourcing" and "plagarising". As I said above, all this shows is that when you're writing about something you don't know much about, it's easy for mistakes to creep in and become accepted as fact. Which is exactly the sort of thing we're all complaining about, right?

In reply to seankenny:


It didn't - it was a minor distraction in a day of complex evidence that focused on the death of the young man under a bus, not on an understandably grieving father.

In reply to seankenny:
What if the "system designed for safety" is in effect to let incompetents get away with it - should those systems be respected? Do the authorities always know best?

That's entirely different - you would be reporting a failure of the system, or a cover-up. But you knew that.

In reply to chris_s:


Fair enough.

So, just to be clear, you wouldn't get a story off a public forum such as this one?

In reply to MG:



You're the one who wants to limit reporting and suggests forums such as UKC should be off-limits to journalism, I'm simply pointing out there are a lot of problems with this.

In reply to seankenny:

Taking your civil servant and the £10m fiasco analogy - reporting a public employee admitting to wasting £10m of public money on an open forum would be in the public interest.

Reporting what an individual, of whom we know nothing and who may possibly be vulnerable, (hence her post and perhaps hence her appearance on the Ben that day) said on a forum is not in the public interest.

It's schoolyard bullying. She has no right of reply and she is being judged by an army of frothers and idiots.

Situations such as this have culminated in the individual taking their own life - and to not even consider the potential consequences is wholly unprofessional.

Reading her post I concluded she was honest, naive and possibly vulnerable and I suspect she is not having a good time of it right now. but hey, someone got their copy in on time and f*ck the consequences.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


I'd argue that's debatable. Pointing out that someone made an honest mistake, and was lucky to get away with it, may well have a sobering effect on others considering trotting up the Ben. I'd like to see a greater awareness of the dangers of moutains and the sea, and responsible media reporting of near accidents has a role to play. But, as I've said many times, the way the Mail treated it was contemptible. I think the original PA report was much better in that respect.


Agreed. The poor quality of tabloid journalism is a big problem. And as for the army of idiots - well it's worse than that really, isn't it? Ask any woman who's had the temerity to enter public life...



I agree that sometimes journalism can be terribly destructive.

In reply to seankenny:


Did I? Do quote me on that (I'll allow it).

In reply to seankenny:


This sounds very high minded and valiant as does your claim about the role of journalism being to hold people to account. Be honest, it isnt is it? Its to sell newspapers.
As exemplified by this. F*ck all real interest to the public unless it was turned into an informational piece about dressing appropriately for conditions and possibly getting someone more experienced to go out with you.
The number of inaccuracies are also pretty impressive. For an industry about holding people to account perhaps they could start with their own errors. Say by making corrections as prominent as the original bollocks.

In reply to MG:


There will be a correction in a couple of weeks.
On page 48.

In reply to KevinD:


Sure, newspapers are a commercial operation. Plenty of tabloids are full of misinformation and idiocy. They're also losing a lot of readers. Papers which continue to be profitable, such as the FT, are all much more about decent reporting. Of course journalism is a mix of the high-minded and the shoddy. We're all adults here, this shouldn't be a surprise to any of us...


I agree, the way it was reported in the Mail was shoddy. I hate the public pillioring of someone who made a mistake. But does that mean the story isn't a story? After all, the media is also about "what interests the public" as much as "the public interest".


Yes, totally agree with you on corrections.

The problem with this "damn them all approach" is that it's just ill-informed and a bit all or nothing. Rather than approaching the media with sensible caution, trying to understand when information is solid and trustworthy, and when it's rubbish, taking a stance of "you can't trust any of them" is just a bit of a cop-out.

In reply to KevinD:




I think that's up for debate.

"IPSO has the power, where necessary, to require the publication of prominent corrections..."

(https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/aboutipso.html)

Will IPSO - the Independent Press Standards Organisation - live up to this ideal? It's only 18 months old so I guess we have to wait a bit.

In reply to Bulls Crack:


This reminded me of a couple of year's ago, when I climbed up Elbow Ridge in Winnat's Pass.

I'd parked in the car park over at Mam Nick, and as I walked down the pass, I passed a parked up blue van on the left, and by it stood two gentlemen who appeared to be shouting to someone at the rim, between Matterhorn and Elbow. I couldn't understand what they were shouting, it was in a foreign language.

Anyhow, as I reached the top of Elbow ridge, I came upon about 30 or 40 men women and children, in a line shouting in what I presumed the same tongue as the gentlemen below, and they were attempting to herd sheep towards the edge.

I wasn't feeling very confrontational at the time, in view of the location and numbers, so I retraced my steps to the top of Elbow, and started taking photographs of them, whilst waving. They noticed me and started wandering back to the path down to Speedwell (?). about half a dozen sheep then escaped.

Sorry for the thread hijack, but I'd forgotten this incident until this post!

In reply to seankenny:

Are you referring to my loose interpretation of plagiarism or the journalist's foray into a field with which he clearly unfamiliar? I use the word 'journalist' as loosely as I do 'plagiarism' incidentally

Either way, it would at the very least be courteous to cite the original source properly, especially when the entire factual content of the piece has been lifted from material that has already published, and not pass it off as 'it is understood' instead of 'I read somewhere' and then mumbling about a 'mountaineering forum'.

Drawing his pay under false pretences IMHO.

By the way, the hack seems to be watching this because Mount Nevis has now shifted to the Grampians, but she has strayed onto the North Face. No wonder she got into trouble, walking there. Good stuff though, because the North Face is a lot more sheer and precipitous, and does need scaling and conquering.

In reply to seankenny:
I'm still failing at your analogy.

You said it was debatable about the public interest in the civil service story.

It's a scenario that would interest the Audit committee, so yes, it's fair game.

Whereas with Sara, there is no wider context or interest. No enquiry to be had. People are uncomfortable with the invasive nature of the story, the fact that in publishing it no consideration has been given to her or the impact upon her.

It's filler and click bait at a cost of some poor sod who innocently posted on fairly esoteric forum.

In reply to Chris the Tall:

Not Aberfan?

In reply to nniff:


Surely the problem with many posters here is that the *journalist* is using words losely. Writing is something in which the pro/am division is fairly fluid these days, so surely we should all be trying to use words carefully?



I agree, they should have linked to the original discussion. But as long as the quotes are recognised as such, and there are quote marks around it, and there is a reference to where the original came from, it's fair game. After all, a quick google search would get you to the original forum post quickly enough being as there are only a few mountaineering forums in English.

Unless it's my browser, it looks like the Indy has pulled it's comments section.

Guardian never had one as it's a heavily moderated echo chamber.

Mail - as they say, the number on the front page is not the circulation, it's so we can keep count of the number of tw*ts in the country.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:


My point is that the more we try to limit journalism, or what counts as a source, the less good journalism we'll have.


People mostly seem to be hacked off that somewhere they thought was private isn't private. I disagree that there's no wider context or interest, but that's debatable - and it's a debate that occurs in most newsrooms every day.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



I think you're getting a bit carried away. She obviously spoke direct to the Daily Record and the photo they used to illustrate it was an agency photo which she clearly agreed to pose for. So, however 'vulnerable' she might be, she clearly has some part to play in the ensuing story once it was syndicated.

The rest is merely a symptom of how the media work in the internet/non-print age.

In reply to seankenny:


I am commenting on your attempts to use the high ground and defend drivel by talking about holding people to account. Perhaps you can give some examples of where good stories came out of journalists trawling random activity websites?


Pilloring someone for no good reason and piss poor reporting. I would suggest that their time might be better spent stalking celebs, sorry, holding people to account.


The problem is that in my experience, which i know many people share, is that whenever the media talk about a subject that I know a decent amount about they rarely come across as competent with the exceptions of the specialist press for that subject.
It doesnt give much faith in them.

In reply to KevinD:


If someone reads this story and thinks "hmmm, Ben Nevis, perhaps more serious than I thought" - then sorry, but it might just have been useful.



Well the story can be done well, or badly.



Well, mountaineering is not a particularly strong beat for journalists. They're usually better on stuff they know about, but go by the byline not the paper. Some people are experts, some aren't.

In reply to Stig:

I don't think she has spoken to the Daily Record. All her quotes are lifted from this forum in the item I've read. Pictures seem to have been taken from her UKC profile and social media. She's been properly stuffed by our gutter press. A picture agency is even claiming copyright of her pictures.

This interview with Menna Pritchard on the BMC website is enlightening.
https://www.thebmc.co.uk/surviving-a-tabloid-storm

In reply to seankenny:

I can see where you are getting to vis the civil servant. I would agree- in this context journalism should not be limited, and we do indeed need to be watchful. The whole Rochdale child sex abuse scandal shows that the tenacious journalism in the face of some fairly heavyweight opposition was a credit to the profession.

But when all said and done this is girl who went up the Ben in her pants.

In reply to KevinD:

It seems to have jumped from one news source to another, with no one stopping to check facts (how many even looked for the original thread?). The Indy, Grauniad, etc. probably saw it in the Mail and hopped on the bandwagon. According to the Guardian, Ben Nevis is now in the Grampians and people go up mountains with ice picks. Who knew? But the Guardian said it so it must be true.

Did any of the journalists have any direct contact with Sara or the climbers who found her?

The media should have lifted this story ... http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?n=637785

In reply to Snoweider:

In the original piece here:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/woman-shorts-trainers-rescu...

The 'quotes' from her towards the end are not lifted from the original thread, and she hasn't posted elsewhere (there aren't any pictures on her profile??). The photo looks posed to me, fairly decent quality, rather than a snap from her social media (bag and Salamons in shot, lipstick on).

In reply to seankenny:

Yes I would. It's happened a few times. But I've always contacted the people who have posted and then exchanged emails with them, or talked over the phone. As I mainly work in radio I usually have to meet them anyway or at least do an interview down the line. That's a totally different sort of relationship, I'm sure you can see that.

In reply to Stig:

All those quotes seem to be re-hashed versions of what she says in the thread. Moved around a bit to make it look fresh.

Picture is a girl posing with her bike and could have come from anywhere.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:
Comments are still on the Indy story - they load separately a bit slower. Good job, it took literally minutes to compose mine. I see they've reverted to 'Grampian Mountains' as per template and have updated the picture to make her a bit more Brighton looking.

In reply to seankenny:

Does anyone know how the original thread by Sara got picked up by the newspapers? Was it offered by someone on this site as a potential story?

In reply to Pedro50:


Or for the Edinburgh Evening News:

City Mum conquers the sheer North face of Mount Ben Nevis.

In reply to Nevis-the-cat:



It is indeed a girl who went up the Ben and nearly didn't come down again. But my point was that people see how journalism is done and think they want to limit its practice, but that could have all sorts of unintended consequences and is something that you have to be extremely careful about. One minute it's "less public scrutiny on how decisions are made please" and the next it's something altogether more secretive.

I absolutely don't think forums like UKC are private, or should be. Journalists have to be listening to conversations people are having - that's what covering a society is about! And nowadays a lot of those conversations are online. In the other thread someone suggested telling journalists to "fek off". Well, if we want to be covered well on the few times that our stories are covered, we maybe need to engage and tell the where they are going wrong, not get all defensive.

In reply to chris_s:


Yes of course, and it's lucky that your production requirements also happen to help you do decent journalism. But I see no problem in quoting what somebody has written in a public place - or even privately - in making an article. For example, Sebastian Poshington-Titte decides to stand as an MP. Muckraking journo finds that ten years ago he was regularly posting bile on a fascist website. Should he contact the now reformed Poshington-Titte for permission before running the quotes from the post? Clearly not. And before you point out the clear public interest in this story, who judges whether or not a story is in the public interest?

In reply to seankenny:

I don't think anyone has actually said that - it's in your head. What people have said is that if journalists are going to eavesdrop on conversations they should get facts right, be sensitive to those involved and report the context. Turning a healthy discussion of a mistake into a hysterical account and calling the unfortunate people involved idiots isn't doing this. Then trying to pretend it all high-minded holding people to account, public interest stuff just makes it worse.

In reply to seankenny:

oh come on, this woman was absolutely torn to pieces in those stories, its not just a question of misunderstanding a few facts (such as the location of the country's most famous mountain) the journalists dont need gently pointing out that the context has been misinterpreted, they've hung her out to dry in order to get a story and they know it.

In reply to seankenny:


It's got nothing to with luck or my production requirements.


I'm pretty careful about what I write in public places, but then that's my job. A politician or public figure should be pretty careful and arguably if they aren't - well tough. But tripping someone up who had no expectation that her apology and account of the day could end up in a newspaper - just because you can - is pretty low. I know some journalists would disagree and think that everything is fair game. I don't.

In reply to MG:


Actually you introduced the idea with this comment: "This is particularly the case when you are quoting private or semi-private discussions." (It had never occured to me that people might consider UKC private in any way, shape or form.)

You then wrote: "It's [ie UKC] semi-private in the sense people clearly don't expect their comments to form reports in national papers."

My apologies if I rolled private and semi-private into one. I'm not quite sure what the difference would be in practice. Some kind of redaction of parties' names and details perhaps?

And also, I've been very clear all along that I think the Mail's treatment of this is story is horrible. But then I think the Mail is a piece of shit run by wankers who prey on the prurience and desire to judge of horrible housewives. However the original PA story is much more measured - unlike some people on here I don't have a problem with the story itself. Unless "someone does something stupid and is lucky to get away with it" is a type of story that must be purged from our media. If so, a mass UKC email to the Darwin Awards website would be an ideal starting point no?

My point about the high minded, public interest stuff is not particularly about this story - it's about how being rather prissy about information sources could have a dampener effect on journalism that's actually important.

In reply to chris_s:

I notice you don't take up my thought experiment!


So it's the principle you object to, not the execution? If someone had written it up as an informative article not a hatchet job, that would still not sit right with you?

In reply to seankenny:



Hi Sean - A fair enough point, although I still think it's lazy journalism.

It's lazy journalism because they took an account that a random person has posted on an internet forum, and printed it as fact. I haven't seen any evidence that any of them checked sources, and haven't seen anything added to the story that required anything other than the most trivial amount of effort.

So... They took a story, put as little effort as they possibly could into it, and published it as fact. That pretty much defines "lazy" to me.

As you're saying that we shouldn't judge all journalists by the acts of a few of them (tabloids mostly) would you mind providing a link to one of the papers that you feel covered this story well please? Just so we can see what you mean?

In reply to seankenny:

I think I've been pretty clear. Just because it's possible to rip quotes off a forum discussion and not break any laws, personally I'd rather not do that - no matter how informative or accurate the article. Mainly because I think I'd be pretty pissed off if someone did that to me.

In reply to Clinger:


It appears they rung up the mountain rescue, presumeably to check the story out and get a quote:

"Lochaber mountain rescue team leader John Stevenson said it was ridiculous to attempt to climb the mountain, where the summit remains in “full-blown winter”, without the right equipment or support. “Being irresponsible means others have to go out of their way to help,” he said."



It could also define busy, over-worked and under-resourced. How much have you - or any of us - spent on the journalism we consume lately? (About £50/year in my case, for full disclosure.)


As I said before, I think the PA story (reprinted in the Guardian) wasn't too bad, tho I thought the selfie-stick thing was rather low.

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/mar/31/woman-sorry-ben-nevis-rescue...

In reply to chris_s:


So you'd miss out on a scoop if it involved taking quotes from a forum? I find that hard to believe - and I bet you wouldn't let on about this to your news editor!

In reply to seankenny:

I know Chris, and I think you've seriously misjudged him there!

In reply to seankenny:



Don't worry, quite a few journalists seem to struggle with this:

Private: for example, messages on personal voice-mail
Semi-private: intended for a limited audience.

In reply to MG:


With 73,000 user profiles and 220,000 people reading each month, it's a pretty big pub... a better analogy would be writing a letter to a climbing / walking magazine and it getting picked up by the national media. Which would be entirely unremarkable.

In reply to Bob Hughes:

This, unusually popular, thread has had 1100 views, almost from just a few tens of people

In reply to seankenny:



They weren't involved in the incident, and replied in the most general of terms and not specifically about this incident.


If something can't be done well - or at least adequately - within budget then they shouldn't do it at all frankly.



I'll re-read it with that in mind.

I have to go now so must post and run, but will pick this up this evening / tomorrow.

In reply to pebbles:

This thread is worth considering when people complain about anonymous posters - like me

In reply to seankenny:

Well yes, I suppose I would miss out. But, believe it or not, it is possible to do good, solid, original journalism without being a sleazy lowlife who thinks a young woman's mistake and apology should lead to her becoming branded "idiotic" by a national newspaper. I make no apology for that.

In reply to chris_s:


The thing is, I've said all along that the Mail branding her an idiot is odious. But that's a separate issue from using a forum as a source of information and as a source for a story, which seems perfectly legitimate to me. Perhaps this is a case of a journalist exagerating a disgreement for effect...

In reply to Clinger:


How do you know they didn't confirm that it had happened, did they get a call, etc, then asked the MRT to comment, at which point they said something like "can't say anything about this, but in general..."

That's what a lot of people/orgs would do in this situation. Can't see what's so wrong with that.


That's very high minded of you.

In reply to MG:




So how is the audience limited? Is UKC an invite only forum? Did we sign a non-disclosure agreement? How exactly is this "semi-private" - and what would this mean in practice. If it were "for a limited audience", what's to stop one of the audience going to a reporter? Clearly Chatham House has its rules, and plenty of conversations take place off the record, but you're saying this should apply to internet forums too?

And as for that whole "journalists seem to struggle with what private means", I assume that you disapprove of all use of private correspondence, Wikileaks etc?

In reply to off-duty:


Watch out you will be the subject of a story. "How undercover cops spy on climbers due to fear of ice pick rampages due to rage at selfie sticks".

In reply to pebbles:

Where did the newspapers get her photos from? Did Sarah submit them to them?

In reply to seankenny:

Happy to use a web forum as a source of information... Careful how I treat people who may have no expectation that their dashed off forum post, which was not addressed to a visible journalist, could end up in the media. Nothing more to add to that...

In reply to seankenny:


Why do you assume this when I have never said as much and have pointed out to already that I haven't said as much. This would all be much easier if you responded to what people wrote rather than what you imagine they wrote.

And if you expect you every utterance to potentially one day be used against you, fine. Most people, quite reasonably, don't. If they say things that are unguarded or open to misinterpretation in a small group they expect a degree of discretion from the group. They certainly don't expect it to result in being paraded in the press an idiot.

In reply to MG:


Please, no need to get huffy. I asked a lot of questions about what you believe, because I dont understand your position. If something is private, should it ever be open to journalistic use? If so, then how?



But she didn't say it "to a small group". She said it in a public place, as Bob says above something akin to the letters page in a specialist magazine. And no one in the group was "indiscrete" as far as I can see. A journalist read what was written in a public place and quoted it. I really do struggle to see what is so bad about that, given that it happens thousands of times every day.

However, that doesn't mean I think the Mail treated her anything other than awfully.

In reply to seankenny:


Well I have said it in various ways already - any source and certainly private ones should be handled with sensitivity to those it affects, with accuracy and with context. I would add relying almost entirely on an obscure internet forum for story is just sloppy and lazy.


As I pointed out, he is wrong. The readership of each thread is small - about the size of a small party. That is semi-private.

In reply to MG:
"As I pointed out, he is wrong. The readership of each thread is small - about the size of a small party. That is semi-private."

Come on, it's posted on the internet, you can't call it any sort of private.

In reply to MG:

Well a good journalist should treat any story - regardless of its source - with sensitivity and strive for accuracy. A good story should include some context, for sure, tho they frequently don't. (This is actually a big technical problem in journalism: how do you ensure stuff makes sense without alienating half your readers? It's not as simple as all that.)

But these don't really answer my questions about how information that you see as private or semi-private should be used, if at all. I'm not being obtuse here, it's simply you're not being totally clear.



Well it's not obscure, it's the world's most popular climbing website. Or at least the most popular in English. Seems like quite a decent source of stories about climbing and mountaineering to me. The errors that came into the story were geographical ones that had nothing to do with the source. The vile tone of the Mail's coverage comes from that publication's shitty attitudes to anything its petite bourgeois readers might struggle with understanding.



So you think the privacy or otherwise of a statement is about the size of the group? That's silly, when you think about it. After all most interviews are just one on one. Or, if a journalist heard something at a party and wanted to follow up on it, that would be pretty reasonable. If say 100 people read this thread, it wouldn't make any difference to the fact it is published and in the public domain. Let's say my example above of wannabe MP with a neo-Nazi past had self-published a book of his ramblings, would it make a difference if he'd only published 100 copies - would it be any less public?

In reply to seankenny:
. I'm not being obtuse here, it's simply you're not being totally clear.

Well I can't be much clearer, I have made my points. Perhaps I would add that the more private a conversation is intended, the greater the need for care in reporting it, particularly given that normally there is no right of reply.



I didn't bring numbers into. My view is based on the intended audience. If something is being reported well beyond its intended audience, the more care is needed to handle it properly, for all sorts of reasons.

In reply to MG:


The thing is, the "privateness" of a conversation has nothing to do with the care with which a story has to be approached. It's easy to get into all sorts of problems reporting on a court case, for example, which is totally public.

The problem with this is that people seem to regard the internet as a pub backroom, when in fact it's a kind of publishing.



But on a public forum, which this is, the audience could be anyone. You can't even assume the audience consists of climbers!

In reply to MG:

How many people read the letters page of a specialist magazine ? Probably an equivalent number. UKC may feel more private because people can reply and have a conversation but that doesn't make it actually more private. Half the videos on YouTube get less than 500 views. Probably the majority of posts on Facebook, Twitter or LinkedIn get only a handful of views. It doesn't make them private environments.

In reply to Bob Hughes: It's a public forum - fair game as a source but, I (also a journalist) would want to talk to those involved myself at the very least.
Agree the reports are poor at best but you get the journalism you pay for - and sadly news/quality journalism seems to be something people are prepared to pay for less and less.

In reply to seankenny:

Interesting debate about privacy.
I wonder what the attitude would be if this website was regularly scanned by "the state" to gather intelligence or evidence ?
Would people still view it as open - and fair game?

(And no - that's not what I do, despite many accusations to the contrary )

In reply to off-duty:

"Police source forced to deny undercover spying operation on climbers."

In reply to KevinD:


Like it, but I'm not exactly "undercover"

In reply to off-duty:


Neither is Ben Nevis in the Cairngorms but that didnt stop the journalists
However thats my next headline sorted:
"Police source forced to admit incompetence in name choice gave away undercover cops role monitoring dangerous climbing anarchists".

In reply to off-duty:


To answer this more seriously, although it probably deserves its own thread. It is always entertaining when people rant about state spying but then post their entire life on facebook etc.
I personally treat both with a certain amount of suspicion.

In reply to KevinD:




A bright future in either the Grauniad or the daily Fail awaits...

In reply to off-duty:
Just adding that the Daily Fail did not necessarily have to contact Sara for her photos; they could have taken them off Facebook or Instagram or whatever her social media outlet of choice might be, without her knowledge or permission. Should reporters do this? Well, no, but ethics never stood in the way of certain publications.

In reply to Emily_pipes:


Ethics? Isnt that the county next to London where the papers can get pics of half naked suspiciously orange "celebs" who are drunk, sorry got that wrong I meant, hold people to account?

In reply to off-duty:

absolutely. and people also might want to bear it in mind when making comments on accidents etc. if youd be embarrassed to see it appear in the Daily Star, dont say it!

In reply to seankenny:



I've re-read it now and have to agree that it's not bad. Thanks for posting the link.

In reply to seankenny:


That just shows there are other reasons for careful reporting. The point is a discussion held with the expectation that the audience is limited to a small group (in this case climbers) means its terms will be different to when the expected audience is wider. People may be more forthright about things and discuss matters assumming others have certain knowledge. In this case we have a rather honest account of mistake on Ben Nevis and thanks to those who helped. The reasonable expectation was discussion would between those who had some understanding of the context of all this. That, I know, isn't a legal requirement, but it is an expectation that is based on trust, hence my term semi-private. Taking such discussion and twisting it in a completely different environment as journalists have done is a breach of this trust and crappy journalism

In reply to pebbles:
That has always been the case and people have been hurt by such comments in the past (which can be rubbing salt into wounds when it comes to recent tragedy). Too many people on UKC live in a bubble: this is in fact a very public place, where what we say remains long after we have sobered up or calmed down.

Its quite good fun reading a thread moaning about journalists fact checking (hardly critical) mountain details when it is not uncommon for UKC posters who should know better to have mountain facts wrong. The bad journalism is all about dishonestly trashing someone. Oh, and for another poster the Grauniad comments page is no echo chamber, it is alive and well and has its fair share of rabid rightwing posters who don't get moderated if they stick to site rules: for all the childish behaviour on a moderated UKC, its a lot nicer place than any national newspaer comment page that I've seen.

Finally thanks Sean for calmly sticking up for journalism. Its sad to see so much bad journalism around (and boy does the gutter press love a rubbernecking story) but a free press is vital for democracy.

In reply to MG:


There are two issues at play here. The first is that this is a public - not "semi-private" but utterly public - discussion about a reasonably technical matter. The discussion may be between interested and knowledgable participants (and even then one wonders, but that's what the other channel is for), but anyone can join in and certainly anyone can read it. Clearly these sorts of discussions happen all the time, in science, social science, sport, whatever. So can journalists use these private but slightly technical discussions and report upon them, use them as a basis for stories? Absolutely! This is where people are having conversations, journalism should include these, if you think about it, it's very democratic. There are no paid PR advisers or handy backroom deals. So yes, forums are fine as a source.

The second issue is the *way* a forum conversation is reported. As I've said above, the Mail did a shit job - but that's what the Mail does. Perhaps feel free to tell your auntie how bad it is and ask her to stop buying it. Or whatever. But the original PA story was mostly fine, some inaccuracies but niche subject, hack doesn't know much about it, time and money pressures, etc etc.

What annoys me is that instead of - or as well as - being angry at the second issue, the shitty reporting, plenty of posters are getting annoyed about the first issue, the use of forums as a source. Which seems to me both overly prissy and indicative of a certain lack of understanding of what the internet actually is.

In reply to MG:

That expectation or trust is only in the UKC world you have built in your head. This is a fully public forum.

In reply to Offwidth:


No, it's built in our collective heads. This happens with any discussion within a group. There is tacit understanding of how far the conversation should be shared and the degree to which the context needs to explained when it is shared.

In reply to seankenny:


After all this I am not sure we are very far apart. I certainly haven't said forums shouldn't be used as source. My main gripe is using information inappropriately, which you seem to share.

In reply to MG:
It's not in my head and I've been here from the start. It doesn't happen in 'any' discussion in a group; only in groups where you know and trust everyone. So there is no tacit understanding on UKC: even though I'd hope site regulars wouldn't behave that way; its free for anyone to view, including Fail employees masquerading as journos.

In reply to MG:


Where do you get that idea? It's certainly not my understanding.

In reply to pebbles:

>Though to be fair the independent doesnt make this clear. No doubt the journalist was too busy checking the location of Ben Nevis, as it would look a bit silly to get that wrong, oh, wait.....

I'm not following this, probably through idleness. The article doesn't say BN's in the Cairngorms, does it? It says it's in the Grampians, which if I had to guess I'd say it was, though obviously I can't be arsed to check. Perhaps it's been changed. Or I can't read it properly. Or something.

I fear the subject of the article is suffering from the double problem of posting a ready-made clickbait story and also posting pictures of herself looking like a fit lass flashing a bit of skin. The press, being what it is, is hardly going to resist that.

(It goes without saying obviously that the press are idle scum and shouldn't be doing this stuff, but we've passed the point where society thought that was an issue long ago.)

jcm

In reply to Offwidth:


Journalists are paid to get the facts right. UKC posters arent.


Yes we keep hearing that. Normally as an excuse why the press doesnt bother with facts and does its best to screw up peoples live. Normally those without any real power/money since those are the ones without the cash to afford lawyers.

In reply to KevinD:



So you don't see any difference between sensationalist clickbait and "proper" responsible journalism?

In reply to Emily_pipes:

The Guardian, the Daily Mail for the left (but far less professionally produced and successful), is indeed vile.

In reply to johncoxmysteriously:

The Indy piece has been corrected. It did originally say she was walking up the N face of the Ben in the Cairngorms.

In reply to Simon4:

What no BBC rant?
0/10
It'll be Simon3.5 at this rate, can't you throw in some hate speech too? This thread is too civilised but thank goodness you've arrived.

In reply to seankenny:


Now where did I say that? Cant say you are really upholding the journalists side of things here by producing these strawmen repeatedly.

In reply to Offwidth:


Nice contradiction.

In reply to Snoweider:

OK, thanks. The power of UKC in action!

jcm

In reply to KevinD:


Let's look at what you did say:

"Isnt that the county next to London where the papers can get pics of half naked suspiciously orange "celebs" who are drunk, sorry got that wrong I meant, hold people to account? "

"the press doesnt bother with facts and does its best to screw up peoples live.(sic)"

To me that looks like you're describing tabloid journalism, not serious reporting. Unless of course the Commons Audit Committee now meet half naked and lathered in fake tan.

In reply to seankenny:


Perhaps you can give some examples of this serious reporting where they trawled random forums and then misrepresented it?
Problem is the press keeps hiding behind the serious flag when there is a massive divide between the small proportion that does anything worth reading and the majority who either serve their owners and/or pray on the weak. Preferably whilst throwing in a bunch of errors to utterly remove faith in their competence.

In reply to KevinD:
Sure they are paid and the proper journos mainly did fact check OK and where the scum didn't it was hardly important. As for being unpaid one of the annoyances of life on UKC is the petty pedantry from posers in glasshouses... UKB rightly state this is to be avoided... I wish we had the same here..

'The Press' doesn't screw up peoples lives, nearly always certain lazy journos and editors do that to sell certain newspapers under management/ownership that doesn't give a shit about such things. I don't ever buy such publications and always advise others not to; even though a good deal of what is said in such nasty publications is probably OK. So I resent your unfair (and hypocritical) blanket attacks on what is an important democratic function of a society.

In reply to MG:

Hoping for something uniformly good from a public website and thinking it actually always happens are nothing like the same thing.

In reply to off-duty:

The state is different in the sense that society grants them with a monopoly on the use of force so it is natural that we would get more jumpy about the state monitoring us than about a private organisation or journalist.

In reply to Offwidth:


Yet we had pretty much all of the mainstream press repeating the same ill informed bollocks.


Hypocritical? As for unfair. Personally I resent people hiding behind the cloak of important democratic function of society to produce low quality badly informed attacks on people but hey ho.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


Not sure what real difference the use of force gives in terms of surveillence. The opportunity to make someones life hell rarely needs use of actual force.

In reply to KevinD:


Perhaps it's the price we have to pay for a robust free press? There are obviously parts of the press which behave badly. There are parts of the press which act with great bravery and integrity - 69 journalists died doing their job around the world in 2015. Most journalists just churn out stuff which neither helps nor hinders anyone. Trying to pretend all journalists are the same is lazy and stupid.

In reply to Bob Hughes:


I'm not sure how use of force translates to reading a website.
But - yes there does appear to be a different expectation of privacy from state "snooping " compared to commercial companies, journalists, etc etc

In reply to tony:


No one is doing that. The simple fact though is near enough all the main papers regurgitated, badly, a forum post.
It is a tad irritating when you have people babbling on about holding people to account whilst failing to meet basic standards of accuracy themselves.
There is a reason why the press journalists tend to be close to politicans in trustworthiness rankings.

In reply to KevinD:


You're not far off it, with your repeated insistence that anyone supporting a free press is simply making excuses. A free press is, as has been said a number of times, is an essential part of a functioning democracy. We need journalists to go forth and dig about. Some will turn up rubbish, some will turn good stuff and turn in into rubbish, and some will turn up really important stuff. You seem to be taking the line that the ones who turn up the really important stuff shouldn't be doing that because there are some who do a bad job. I would hate to live somewhere where journalists couldn't go digging.

The simple fact though is near enough all the main papers regurgitated, badly, a forum post.

And to extrapolate from that to the extent that you are doing so is lazy and stupid.


Holding important people to account is more than mere babbling. It's an essential part of modern life. Or would you prefer the bad guys (of all kinds, in government, in business) got away with it?

In reply to KevinD:

Thats right... the people judging them are too stupid and lazy to know the good many of them do, and tar them all with the same brush. Of course the bad eggs were all voted in or supported by buying lazy product.

I still can't see what you think is so wrong with many of the better newspapers reporting on what was said here, in public, including the original article, the Guardian and the Independant (now they righted a stupid but irrelevant mountain designation).

In reply to tony:


Have I said otherwise? As I have said repeatedly trotting that out as an excuse for this sort of gutter journalism, which was displayed by most of the papers, is depressing.
The actual quality journalism is sadly far apart and rarely in the main papers. I am still waiting for an example of quality journalism that came out of this sort of forum surfing?


Sadly though with the state of journalism the chances are they will get away with it unless they manage to upset one of the bosses. Instead the targets will be little people who cant fight back.

In reply to KevinD:
You keep saying it is gutter journalism but in the case of the Indy and Grauniad the only major concerns I have is with the depth of ignorance and nastiness displayed in the comments. The average tourist will have no idea that the Ben is often spring like at the bottom and a serious winter experience at the top, so there is clear public interest over and above any human interest. I've seen quite a few people go up and down the summit section in similar inappropriate clothing because they didnt stop and get cold and were lucky the main path to the zigzags was clear enough to follow.

It's not just ignorant tourists who do silly stuff. I've helped disoriented climbers from the summit plateau of the Ben in white-out conditions. I've also seen a few occasions where climbers 'rescued' people in overcomplicated ways and risked hypothermia for those they were trying to help (eg a walking group who descended in error to the top of Milestone Buttress and 'rescued' by arranging a series of slow assisted abseils, rather than walking the group up and left and down a path).

In reply to pebbles:
I think the point is not, whether the article is "balanced", or even if there is a vague public interest, its that no journalist spoke to the person involved, or got her permission to report the story, or seemingly considered the affect it would have on her before publishing. She is not someone in public life, she didn't commit any crime, nor cost the public purse anything. There may be all sorts of personal circumstances for the subject that have not been considered and any journalist would know what the effect of publishing this story would have on the life of a private individual with no right of reply- but they went ahead anyway. For me, thats bad journalism. It doesn't need value judgements or "tone" to make it bad, its just bad. Whether the forums are public or not is a red herring (although they clearly are).

In reply to Snoweider:
It's good to talk to the person involved but certainly not required if a public statement is made and the idea of permission for a news story is plain daft. If it wasnt public the situation would be different so the public nature of this site is simply not a red herring.

You don't know what the individual news sources considered but normally the very real public interest (most people really don't realise how serious the summit plateau of the Ben is at Easter) would outweight any concerns you raised.

Rights to reply and correct factual errors and associated legal rights clearly exist.

The more responsible news publications dont seem to be misrepresenting what happened (unlike say the dishonest reports and pics of that woman climbing with her kid at Three Cliffs)

I've been criticised by many here for saying that people should be careful about giving immediate public detail on incidents, as dealing with sudden press coverage and associated public comments (even legitimate, let alone the unfair and nasty) can be stressful and hurtful. The argument is, that I will be discouraging reports that stop others learning from mistakes (I disagree.. learning is better at a polite and calm distance when the facts are clearer); but some here want their cake and to eat it.

In reply to Offwidth:

Is it really public interest? There are so many more public interest ways to tell this story.

"Climbers go out of their way to help somone in distress"

"Weather on Ben Nevis treacherous despite spring in the Glen"

But these don't generate clicks. Instead we get the unguarded comments of a young and photogenic woman at the centre of it all, and a focus on her shorts and selfie stick. It may not be misrepresentation but it is clickbait journalism, which plenty of the broadsheets these days stoop to. Its also bloody irresponsible as it destroys lives. This is the world we live in but I don't like it and it doesn't have to be this way. Not every news source chose to publish this story.

In reply to Snoweider:
The selfie stick was very honest self-satire in the original first person report and do you seriously think an unattractive bloke would have been treated that differently? You and others here are just exaggerating the problems in most of the serious press reports. As for public interest: you were not the only one to say on the other thread that you hope the press coverage stops others making similar mistakes.

In reply to Offwidth:

If you can't see how damaging all this is to somebody who has not given their permission for their story to be used in this way, or if you can actually see all this, and you still think that this is good journalism, then I'm stumped.

In reply to Snoweider:

She effectively gave permission when posting the story in public. I've given my view on how damaging such 'naive' posts can be just above (contacting her first or slanting the story more towards safety would obviously have been better practice). Most of the serious press are telling the story pretty straight and yes I think getting a story out about how serious the Ben can be at Easter is in the public interest.

In reply to Snoweider:


If you think that asking a subject's permission to run a story on them is the essence of good journalism, I'm afraid you haven't really thought through what good journalism is about.

Of course, you'll say, journalists shouldn't ask for permission if the subject is some evil-doer who deserves their corrupt, nasty behaviour being exposed, but in cases like this... surely...? But really, best to keep the same standard for everyone: the editor decides what to publish in the paper, not the subject of the story themselves.



So every time a journalist wants to write a story, they must consider whether the subject will not like it? I mean, that's very limiting. It effectively means that you can only do PR, not reporting. Is that the end you want?

In reply to pebbles:

It has been suggested it was poor form for journalists to use forum threads to provide material for articles. seankenny was challenged to provide examples of good investigative journalism resulting from trawling forums.

This thread on mountain project may be pertinent:http://www.mountainproject.com/v/dont-buy-from-123mountaincom/111504772

It highlights some, on the face of it, dodgy retail practices. Journalist Brendan Borrell read it resulting, after some further digging, in this article on the Outside website: http://www.outsideonline.com/2051821/123-mountain-infuriating-gear-retailer

This seems to have encouraged some action to take place: http://www.outsideonline.com/2063221/summit-county-sheriff-seizes-gear-e-re...

Conversations on internet forums are both completely public and conveniently recorded for posterity. It would be incredible to expect journalists not to read them and source from them. I have no connection with journalism or journalists, other than knowing one or two.

In reply to Wingnut:



You missed out 'Who causes mountain rescue poeple to risk their lives without paying any money to the tax payer'.

In reply to MG:


All pilots, not just commercial. I suspect the reason we don't often see chunks of the AAIB's voluminous and excellent output making the papers is that it is a) in general pretty dry and non-judgemental in tone and b) anonymised. The exception is when there's a shocking video to sex the story up or one of the current moral-panic keywords (lasers, drones, terror etc) is mentioned.
jk