4 ms·

The story used to introduce this story is the death of an experienced backcountry hiker who, after losing a bet, packed a bikini to the top of a mountain and to

• gatherhunterer 8y ago
  The author explains exactly what happened and still refers to it as a “selfie-related death.” That is atrocious.
  • infinitezest 8y ago
    By the same logic, the death was also "oxygen-related".
  • Bartweiss 8y ago
    That whole attempt to analyze Wu (and the others profiled) by talking to social media experts is stunningly unfair. Honnold got his start free soloing because he didn't have a climbing partner, then continued later because it let him climber faster and more easily. Wu's past is less documented, but to all appearances she was seriously hiking and mountaineering long before her rise on social media, no different than any other mountaineer who hones their skills and then later lands a sponsorship. Bypassing those histories in favor of talking about "personal brands" and selfie-induced selective attention is incredibly unfair. The comparisons between professional and amateur photographers taking risks make some sense here, but there's no such narrative for these two. The risks they run aren't related to their photography, and there's no copycat epidemic of solo mountaineers and climbers. Better to talk about Wu alongside other hikers lost in Yushan, or even alongside other serious 'celebrity' mountaineers like Scott Fischer. It's not a story that has any place in this piece.
• ahelwer 8y ago
  It's a very weird attitude commonly seen among the segment of the population who never travels in the mountains or backcountry. Schadenfreude and twisting the actions of climbers to make it seem as though their judgment were obviously flawed. A lot of dumb, ignorant stuff does indeed take place in the mountains, and that sometimes results in death, but some incredibly experienced & competent people die too and are tarred with the same brush. See the tragic deaths last week of David Lama et al. which was greeted by many a news article comment decrying "adrenaline junkies" and how foolish they were to climb during the month of April due to avalanche risk (the commenters apparently ignorant of the entire field of snow science). This is turning into a rant, but to sum it up I really just wish people would extend basic benefit of the doubt to people who die or are injured in the great outdoors before taking the opportunity to pop off and turn their deaths into some kind of joke or morality tale.
• Nasrudith 8y ago
  I am generally very concerned leary of libel claims for media but that level of knowing misrepresentation seems to actually rise to it actually being worth considering for once instead of "offended person with big ego and disposable income for a lawyer". I wonder statistically about outdoor activities like that what is the probable and average life expectancy impact - since while it has hazards all should respect being active is also better for your health than sitting at home.
  • paradoja 8y ago
    This is true for quite some studies for bike commuters. The risk of accident is probably higher than getting public transport or walking (I don't know with respect to using a car; but that's less common in most places here in Europe), but the improved health conditions are worth it on average.
• Bartweiss 8y ago
  This is a downright grotesque lead-in for the story. I suppose the implied connection is something about how being an "adventure sports personality" creates pressure to continually up the ante, but frankly that's garbage too. Wu was an experienced hiker in a park in the country where she grew up, and I haven't seen anyone seriously claim she was pushing her boundaries for a story or a photoshoot. A solo traverse is dangerous, sure, but expert hikers who aren't "adventure sports personalities" do similar things all the time. And sometimes die in similar accidents, because bad weather and bad falls are in no way selfie-based risks. There's no story here beyond bad luck and the inherent dangers of remote, rugged places, so for ostensibly dignified outlets like the Washington Post to headline their pieces with "Bikini Hiker" was lurid and unfair. But seeing Outside do it, even with a more accurate story, is much nastier. This is their beat, and they're usually much better at discussing these risks than non-dedicated journalists. Anyone who keeps track of dedicated hikers and climbers knows that these incidents happen, and happened long before selfies got involved. So Outside ought to know better, and with any luck their readers do know better.
• stcredzero 8y ago
  This story is not outright dishonest, unlike the typical mass media story...Still, I hope they get roasted by their readers for it and forced to publish an apology. It's immaterial whether we like or dislike people who also say so. We need to face this fact: Far too much "news" media in 2019 is shamelessly sensational and devoid of fact checking and journalistic ethics. The "Fake news" phenomenon has two sides. On one hand, there are fly-by-night small content creators popping up, and many of these are click-bait trash or are propaganda tools used to manipulate the public. On the other hand, there is a dying legacy media who is falling afoul of their fading business model and the same incentives the modern Internet creates. If it weren't for the fading credibility of the latter, the former wouldn't be a problem. We need to call out both! On the other hand, there are also "startups" in the news media space who are doing good work and are prospering. It's vital that our society develops enough of an immune system to quiet down the click bait trash. (EDIT: This cannot take the form of big tech firm censorship! It's just a 2019 technological twist that private companies now have power commensurate with governments. The effect is the same.)
  • dclowd9901 8y ago
    I think we're finding that journalism, weirdly, is a lot like government: We get the version we deserve.
    • stcredzero 8y ago
      There needs to be more calling out of the mainstream media. In particular, as a member of the Left, I have to say there needs to be calling out by the Left when the mainstream follows the lead of bad actors on the Left. Much of the loss of credibility of the mainstream media comes from a lack of calling out bad information from that direction. Note the strength of the namecalling and the high level of acrimony if that ever happens. There's a level of defensiveness there.
• dclowd9901 8y ago
  Trying to understand why the author took this tact, my guess is rather than dragging the experienced professionals down to the level of the amateur selfie takers, they were trying to hoist the rep of the amateur selfie takers to that of the professionals, which is intellectually dishonest in this story. The question the story is asking is "why do people do this?" and the answer it's trying to prove is "because they're pros just out there doing their thing," when the real answer is probably closer to the very unsurprising "they're narcissists who really don't deserve any more consideration than a pitiful headshake." But that doesn't make a very interesting story, does it? I see this sort of "let's take a new look at this thing we all have a preconception about" approach to podcasts too, which start with a point and try to gather all the evidence they can to support it. It's obnoxious and dishonest and should not be considered comparable to an objective and well-researched article.
  • kthejoker2 8y ago
    took this tack* - as in a sudden turn of a boat.
    • dclowd9901 8y ago
      Thanks! I had no idea.