In reply to mark s:
> (In reply to howlingbaboon)
> [...]
> my point exactly,you climb e2!! im sure bear can also, hardly pushing the boat out there.
> if he is keeping people entertained,whats the problem.
>
Did you read the thread before posting? Rather than parrot the same old question as others why not address the points made far above, if you see fault with them.
The 'problem' is that as Grylls' telegenic idiocy becomes more 'popular' his antics are the filter through which many more of us are seen. People with no experience of normal, genuine outdoor activity think that what he does is OK, even good, when much of it is rubbish, let alone faked. So when real incidents in the outdoor world - expeditions, climbs, accidents, disasters - hit the media a lot of people use Grylls as some kind of popular reference point. His name has become a brand associated with adventure, something the mainstream audience will recognise. Even if he and his theatre have nothing to do with the reality of adventure, survival etc.
Get in an accident in the outdoors and the media jump on you and the readers pillory you as some kind of nutcase-who-thinks-he's-Bear Grylls etc. cos all them adventure types is MAD eh! Genuine, normal outdoor people and the real outdoor industry (not his clothing line) have enough challenges with shrinking insurance options, land management,access and liability issues without us being associated with this unrepresentative pap.
Leaving aside his on-the-record conflict with animal rights activists, he presents outdoor activity as desperately adversarial, even the name 'Man vs Wild', like it's some kind of war. I thought 'wild' was a good thing. Don't we strive to protect wilderness? It's all a bit mad and crazy and whoo-hoo dangerous, so of course don't try this at home, don't even get off your ass and do anything because it's MAD out there, nature is dangerous, it's hard but don't worry, kids, Bear's a bit rufty tufty and knows what's what so watch and learn.
It's fantasy, but fantasy that leads people to misunderstand the reality on which it is supposed to be based. Why does he need to run down everything? It would be stupid, dangerous and completely unnecessary to do that in real life (eg. down a glacier) but it looks good on telly so he does it.
To defend stupidity is to promote stupidity.