By: Blonde Two
This comment was sent to us by a former Outdoor Education Coordinator, who was concerned about impact of negative press on outdoor pursuits, including the Duke of Edinburgh’s Award. We think he has an interesting point. What do you think?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-cornwall-34961799
“I often wonder why these events make the news. You never hear ‘Footballer hurt on football field’. I ran 160 expeditions with approximately 340 individual young people each year, over the course of 10 years; and only once was an ambulance involved (broken ankle caused by jumping on uneven ground, with pack on back, with walking trainers rather than boots – no ankle support). The PE dept called an ambulance/air ambulance multiple times per term!
This kind of reporting makes our beloved industry and its leaders/participants look incompetent. I know in this case it was a group of climbers and not a led expedition, but it still has the same effect. The outdoor industry covers some of the most regulated and safety conscious sports in the world. Perhaps this does make this accident newsworthy?
Anyway, publishing this article it does damage to our cause. Parents will see this and worry about their little darlings when out with the Outdoor Ed team. ‘But there was an accident recently’ they say. It doesn’t help us when we’re trying to develop confidence, leadership, communication skills, determination, resilience, tenacity, etc. Parents are unlikely to say ‘Jimmy’s not playing rugby anymore; because last week his mate broke his collar bone playing rugby.’
Just under 20,000 participants signed up to DofE Awards last year. Almost all will have completed at least one expedition. I wonder how many ambulances were called out. I bet it’s quite a low percentage.
In my Blonde times out with Ten Tors and DofE youngsters, I have only encountered one ambulance incident … and that was for me!
So, do I take it that not only do you want state-funding of outdoor pursuits but you now want state-censorship of news reporting?
Hello Strider, two separate questions there, please allow me to respond in reverse order:
2. An interesting point but nobody on this blog has suggested state-censorship. Freedom of speech, I believe would indicate that one should be allowed to express a comment on the reporting of a topic that matters to one.
1. I believe firmly in state-funded education (although maybe not in its current form). I have taught many subjects to many age groups and therefore am more qualified than most, to suggest that state-funded education has a moral duty to place equal value on outdoor pursuits, moral and ethical education, sex and relationships education, learning skills, careers guidance, maths, science and English (the list continues, but the above are those that I have taught). Our country and our employers need well-rounded young adults, they need to recognise this need and then they need to pay for its provision. It really is quite simple.
2. ” publishing this article it (sic) does damage to our cause” implies that you think such comments should not be published.
1. I think history tells us that we should avoid the stultifying dead hand of state intervention and funding whenever possible. There is nothing more guaranteed to take the “Great” out of the “Outdoors” than some quango doling out funding from an office in Westminster.
Is it really an industry? (= Economic activity concerned with the processing of raw materials and manufacture of good in factories.) There is another meaning (= Hard work) but neither really seems an exact match. Beloved is a bit strange too since it tends to mean loved by others; this would of course be applicable to the Two Blondes, but much more for being rather than doing.
As an ex-newspaper journalist all I can say for sure is that journalists are fallible. As are people who go walking and the people who guide/instruct them. On the incredibly rare occasions when journalists ever get anything right (Unsuitable clothes/equipment, untrained guides, refusal to take note of weather or expert advice, lack of communications, etc) they are – believe it or not – providing a public service that would be beyond the scope or resources of the “beloved industry”.
I think your man should say to himself: some you win, some you lose; time to bite on the bullet.
Two can play the word game Robbie. ‘A journalist is a person who collects, writes, or distributes news or other current information.’ Therefore we Blondes too are journalists. I guess the competition is to see who can get the most people to read us!
I’d expect good coverage from you regarding Dartmoor. But how about the Cairngorms? Newspapers and TV/radio channels have stringers you know. Also, suppose a guide was demonstrably at fault; how objective would you be? It isn’t just the accident itself; there are often sequels which end up in the courts and these also need reporting and/or comments.
Readership: The Guardian, for instance, like most national newspapers, has a circulation that is going down the plughole. Even so I believe 140,000 buy it each day. The Daily Mail (which I hate with a hard gem-like flame) may have a circulation of 2m. Both have websites visited by millions whereas the BBC News and, especially its well trusted World News radio service, are watched/listened to by zillions.
Me, I occasionally write verse. I expect little and get less. Definitely one of the UK’s hidden assets. I’m even happy with abuse.
If you are doing something that you really enjoy, that is not harmful to others, and that is a little dangerous and requires learning skills – go and do it. Life is too short to miss out on adventures. Remember – that is exactly what the rescuers are doing – something they really enjoy, that is a little dangerous and requires learning skills. If there were no casualties, there would be no role for them either!
An astute offering, ladies. There is a principle involved here which may affect us all, and it is worthy of consideration.
With Press credentials it’s easy to find a source for a story like this. RNLI and Coastguard are keen to have their exploits known for publicity or fund-raising purposes, and that’s more obvious since their taking on of Beach Lifeguards and rescue helicopter services.
Early and sometimes scant detail can offer news services the chance of the “scoop” or “Breaking News” headline to fill column inches or airtime with even if there’s little fact gained or given by which any definitive judgement of a situation can be made. There’s a commercial advantage in being first or exclusive, and as a result “Breaking News” for example will often change significantly. Is the report of a changing tale before verification of facts of any significance or harm? Well, reports of Weapons of Mass Destruction helped to get a war going in Iraq, so I suspect it might be.
So far as the news item in question here goes, consider the vagueness of words and descriptions used in it – the victim was “believed to be”…, a source (who wasn’t there) said “it was thought”…, and another who wasn’t an eye-witness suggests “he must have”… Even well-intended, isn’t this style of reporting the repeat of hearsay or simple invention rather than verified fact? Putting two and two together and making five? What results in this instance is merely a repeat of the supposition of others in most part – a reporter making a report with little work of journalism or investigation and confirmation of facts about it. The result could easily be used to illustrate laziness, negligence, professional incompetence, or dereliction of duty of care (if reporters have a duty of care). By it, a headline is created and a no doubt ego-boosting credit given, and a vague tale can then be used by others to suggest whatever they wish – reality or not. Reliance on the tale, rather than an appreciation of relevant fact and a proper response to it, is where the danger lies.
Isn’t the real story here the failure of safety equipment in use? Was that the sort of accident that can befall even the most responsible and capable, or is it evidence of sub-standard gear or practices? That’s where the real issue lies, but I see no journalist investigating or reporting that. Too much effort I guess, with an easier way of credit being available instead. Of course, anyone who doesn’t know enough to appreciate the real issues wont see that but will be caught by the hook of the headline with all the intelligence of a fish in so doing. That’s a dangerous thing where the fish has power to influence what does or does not happen as a result of those conditions.
Journalists and teachers may remember as I do, the so-called Lyme Bay Canoe Tragedy that claimed the lives of four youngsters. The circumstances there were investigated by journalists doing true investigative journalism, and the police doing police work. If it had been left to reporters of the time they too may merely have reported whatever someone told them, rather than found important facts that led to prosecutions, imprisonment, and most important of all the necessary and life-saving alterations to the “outdoors activity industry”. My own knowledge of the event and facts comes in part from someone who gave expert opinion to MPs, and described how things should have and could be made safer – and they were. A proper response comes with regard to facts, not hearsay or a headline created on the back of it.
Every year about 150 people, mainly children, are killed whilst cycling, 2200 people suffer serious injuries, and 14,000 lesser injury. Car travel accounts for 3,000 deaths and 30,000 injuries. In 2008 Ed Balls, the British Secretary of State for Children said “while it is important for children to be safe, this does not mean that we should wrap them in cotton wool”. If we were to wrap them in cotton wool, where would be the best place to start according to verifiable accident or death figures – with DofE or Ten Tors participants, or kids on their bikes or in their parents cars? Is it more hazardous to health to be engaged in activity outdoors, or staying indoors at the TV or PC screen? Does an article like the one in question bear out the reality of any such situation? I think not, and it does no-one any favours to miss valid points in favour of a quick, cheap and perhaps distracting headline.
Definitely not cotton wool for me, the sound of it sets my teeth on edge. I am not sure that there are any easy answers to this one, there are so many factors. Hopefully most parents would see that the value of outdoor activity by far outweighs the danger. To quote Arthur Ransome, “Better drowned if duffers, if not duffers, won’t drown.” Sadly, this isn’t always true, but I know that I made a decision early on that I would rather my children had shorter, adventurous lives than longer boring ones. Luckily for me, this has not been tested – I might think differently if it had been.