Wall Street Journal Article

[Pedaling Fool]

...Mr. Gault: you are way giving this scribe the benefit of the doubt. Did you not previously say you hated the media? Maybe you were just having a bad day...

Yes, I do loathe the media (in general), I loathe the media because it seems that so many are attempting to persuade us rather than simply report the news. However, I do not allow that prejudice to extend to all that are a part of the media (regardless of which media outlet they are associated with); I judge everyone on their own merits and I'm a fairly forgiving person.

This guy's article, in my view, is just a job he's doing for a paycheck. There's no passion involved in trying to convince people what a thru-hiker is, yes he got it wrong, but I didn't sense a deliberate deception in his reporting, just a bad job – big difference in a mistake and deliberate deception. I forgive him for seemingly being a schlep, but since I’ve never heard of this guy before I’m not ready to throw him to the lions.

[weary]

The "through" is the WSJ's equivalent of the Times "Mr. Loaf"

That said, this article is most unfortunate.

First, it may (note the *MAY*, not going all alarmist here) make a bunch of wide-eyed wonderers/wanderers think Yeah, man, go hike the AT, you just shear a few sheep on an organic farm every couple of weeks and you get all the pesticide-free food you can eat.

I may not be alarmist, but the same can't be said about this article with stunners such as: "Some people complain of aggressive panhandling, robberies and homeless hikers blending in with genuine backpackers to take advantage of free food or work-for-stay opportunities."

Well, "some" do complain -- or at least observe -- that some panhandlers take advantage of free food and work for stay. "Some" also complain about genuine thru hikers overdoing the begging bit, thus giving all hikers a bad name.

After some 20 years of living in the Rotten Apple, and never having the pleasure of having been the victim of a personal, non-governmental robbery, I am now going to have to keep heading out to the AT in order to get mugged? And just how many of these muggings have occurred recently? No, seeing a "sketchy" person who makes you feel slightly uncomfortable does not qualify as a felony (possibly a misdemeanor in some of the stricter jurisdictions). .....

However, I find the above statement about begging, robberies, and homeless hikers blending in with "genuine hikers" to "take advantage of free food or work-for-stay opportunities" to be most annoying.

As do I, especially, the robbery bit. They happen. When they do folks complain. But in my experience the incidence is relatively rare.

Weary

[XCskiNYC]

Well, "some" do complain -- or at least observe -- that some panhandlers take advantage of free food and work for stay. "Some" also complain about genuine thru hikers overdoing the begging bit, thus giving all hikers a bad name.



As do I, especially, the robbery bit. They happen. When they do folks complain. But in my experience the incidence is relatively rare.

Weary

Fair enough. My "data" is really too limited to comment with much accuracy on the overall character of AT hikers.

With less than 10 total days on the trail, I should probably avoid sweeping statements.

Maybe I hit a good stretch but I've yet to see anybody begging. Except myself. I cadged a couple drops of iodine off the Princeton kids.

OTOH, my hiking has probably been outside the main surge of thru-hikers who I'd imagine already came through the Hudson Highlands area a month or more before I first hit it (my first overnight at Graymoor was around the first of August).

One guy at Graymoor (on another visit of mine to the same place) was planning to go and work for the landscaping business in Pawling by the AT train station stop. He seemed okay. Maybe short on funds but otherwise okay. He didn't ask myself or anybody else for anything, at least not that I saw (I'm one of those elitist tent sleepers so might sometimes miss out on the shelter goings on).

I guess sooner or later I'll probably run into one or two of the bad apples and get a more balanced view but, so far so good. The hikers, as they say, seem like a nice bunch of kids.

It would be interesting to see the statistics on robberies (as opposed to burglaries). Being robbed would definitely NOT be fun.

[Press]

Seems to me being an athletic hippie who just wants to have fun forever is not a bad thing to be. Also, you guys need to chill out about the "media." There is no "media." It's a bunch of people, some good, some bad, mostly a bunch of hard-working types doing their best to get it right every day. These days, many readers don't want to be informed, they want to read something that conforms to their already-formed opinions and biases.

[Hoop Time]

What media have you ever known to be correct? it is all for a better story "The Big Seller". I mean you folks do watch the news right? And how much of it is true? they can't even seem to get the weather correct.

As someone who actually spends most of his workday covering the stories you see on the evening news, I can tell you most of what you see is true. Even the stuff that does not conform to your personal view of the world.

Are there mistakes? Well, sure, just like every occupation. Nobody is perfect. But the crap about the media being filled with lies is itself a big lie which has been promoted by folks who need you to believe their lies in order to further their own agenda.

And if you have some basic understanding of weather, you'd realize how right they get it. Which is to say, they get it as right as predictions about unpredictable events can get. A weather system shifts 50 miles -- common and usual in nature -- it can completely alter the resulting weather.

The point is that they don't tell the you the whole true only what they think.
Other words they flat out lie.

My experience is they tell you as much of the truth as they are able to uncover. In this particular case (the WSJ story), it appears to me to be the work of a writer who had a limited amount of time to report his story and met a limited sample of the hiking populace.

Think of it like writing a story about shelters on the AT. A reporter with limited knowledge would go the reasonable place to research the story -- to a shelter to talk to hikers. In that scenario, they would never encounter folks like Lone Wolf, who have a contrary opinion.

So a resulting story on shelters would likely not include the anti-shelter sentiments.

In other words, I don't think this guy was trying to do a hatchet job. I don't think he had a preconceived agenda. I think he just did not have enough time on the trail to gain a broader perspective.

[Pedaling Fool]

As someone who actually spends most of his workday covering the stories you see on the evening news, I can tell you most of what you see is true. Even the stuff that does not conform to your personal view of the world.

Are there mistakes? Well, sure, just like every occupation. Nobody is perfect. But the crap about the media being filled with lies is itself a big lie which has been promoted by folks who need you to believe their lies in order to further their own agenda.

And if you have some basic understanding of weather, you'd realize how right they get it. Which is to say, they get it as right as predictions about unpredictable events can get. A weather system shifts 50 miles -- common and usual in nature -- it can completely alter the resulting weather.



My experience is they tell you as much of the truth as they are able to uncover. In this particular case (the WSJ story), it appears to me to be the work of a writer who had a limited amount of time to report his story and met a limited sample of the hiking populace.

Think of it like writing a story about shelters on the AT. A reporter with limited knowledge would go the reasonable place to research the story -- to a shelter to talk to hikers. In that scenario, they would never encounter folks like Lone Wolf, who have a contrary opinion.

So a resulting story on shelters would likely not include the anti-shelter sentiments.

In other words, I don't think this guy was trying to do a hatchet job. I don't think he had a preconceived agenda. I think he just did not have enough time on the trail to gain a broader perspective.

I still hate the media, but I basically agree with you and I do understand how vital it is to have a free press.

There are a lot of good people out there, but there's also some people that have an agenda, but what can you do. Of all the media outlets I've followed I can name some good people, no matter how slanted the organization seems to be.

[Pedaling Fool]

I still hate the media, but I basically agree with you and I do understand how vital it is to have a free press.

There are a lot of good people out there, but there's also some people that have an agenda, but what can you do. Of all the media outlets I've followed I can name some good people, no matter how slanted the organization seems to be.

I should have emphasised that there are also news organizations that are slanted, not just some individuals.

[Hoop Time]

It has come to my attention that this particular writer apparently had been advised several times before the story ran that it was not an accurate picture of AT hikers. Can't for the life of me understand why he ran with it anyhow under those circumstances. That is very unlike the people I have had the pleasure (in most cases) of working with in the newspaper business over the years.

[weary]

Seems to me being an athletic hippie who just wants to have fun forever is not a bad thing to be. Also, you guys need to chill out about the "media." There is no "media." It's a bunch of people, some good, some bad, mostly a bunch of hard-working types doing their best to get it right every day. These days, many readers don't want to be informed, they want to read something that conforms to their already-formed opinions and biases.

Very, very true. Well, I might add, "mostly mediocre," in the description of the press. But that distinction isn't really important. As long as a few of us are allowed the resources to delve into the "big" stuff, a lot of us are still needed to report the routine, which is essential to the workings of a democratic society.

Weary

[weary]

As someone who actually spends most of his workday covering the stories you see on the evening news, I can tell you most of what you see is true. Even the stuff that does not conform to your personal view of the world.

Are there mistakes? Well, sure, just like every occupation. Nobody is perfect. But the crap about the media being filled with lies is itself a big lie which has been promoted by folks who need you to believe their lies in order to further their own agenda.

And if you have some basic understanding of weather, you'd realize how right they get it. Which is to say, they get it as right as predictions about unpredictable events can get. A weather system shifts 50 miles -- common and usual in nature -- it can completely alter the resulting weather.



My experience is they tell you as much of the truth as they are able to uncover. In this particular case (the WSJ story), it appears to me to be the work of a writer who had a limited amount of time to report his story and met a limited sample of the hiking populace.

Think of it like writing a story about shelters on the AT. A reporter with limited knowledge would go the reasonable place to research the story -- to a shelter to talk to hikers. In that scenario, they would never encounter folks like Lone Wolf, who have a contrary opinion.

So a resulting story on shelters would likely not include the anti-shelter sentiments.

In other words, I don't think this guy was trying to do a hatchet job. I don't think he had a preconceived agenda. I think he just did not have enough time on the trail to gain a broader perspective.

Also very true and very wise.

[weary]

I should have emphasised that there are also news organizations that are slanted, not just some individuals.

Also true. Witness in particular Fox News.

I worked for 40 years for news organizations whose owners had political perspectives different from those of us who actually covered as reporters what was happening in the world.

Never, that's right, not ever, did I hear of one of us peons, discuss, or even mention over a beer, a desire to conform to an owner's desire or obligation for our coverage of the news.

Why such independence? I hate to say it out loud, but as they say, "the truth shall make you free." Anyway, our pay was always so minimal, that it was easy to quit without losing anything significant. Truly sad. Since only an active press makes democracy possible, but as we say in the news business, facts, are facts.

Weary

[Pedaling Fool]

Also true. Witness in particular Fox News.


Weary

Not just Fox News. Let’s be honest, CNN, MSNBC, broadcast news and PBS are all slanted left; and yes, Fox is slanted right. However, I’ve found that on the whole Fox does a pretty good job, but I admit I can’t watch a few of their shows, especially Sean Hannity, Glen Beck and Fox and Friends.

On the flip side there are shows equally infuriating on the left, such as The Rachel Maddow show, Count down with Keith Olberman and even Hardball (and I use to like Chris Matthews, but he has become really partisan lately).

I understand these guys are commentary and not simply reporting the news, like a journalist, but when they start skewing facts in a gross way, then I don’t care if it’s a commentator or a journalist, that’s just wrong. They can have their opinion, but lying is just simply irresponsible and wrong.

It seems to me the way to get the best info is to go to many news outlets for people you see as trustworthy, as opposed to people you have similar political views. There are a lot of things I agree with Sean Hannity on, but that guy does skew the facts in favor of his biases, so I choose not to watch him.

[Darwin again]

Seems to me being an athletic hippie who just wants to have fun forever is not a bad thing to be. Also, you guys need to chill out about the "media." There is no "media." It's a bunch of people, some good, some bad, mostly a bunch of hard-working types doing their best to get it right every day. These days, many readers don't want to be informed, they want to read something that conforms to their already-formed opinions and biases.

You're stretching the truth.
Everyone has a personal agenda and a price point at which their integrity is no longer operable. These pressures operate every day in every newsroom in the country.
This is basic politics, and it operates at every level of consumer society.
Even on the Appalachian Trail.
Mostly every bit of what you see on teevee in nothing more than material to polarize and excite your animal brain stem into fear or to entertain you into a state of numbed-down herd consumerism.
I made "newspapers" for a wasted decade at the local and national levels, so I know whereof I speak. (You know, "news," that stuff that goes in around the advertisements!)

[Darwin again]

Also true. Witness in particular Fox News.

I worked for 40 years for news organizations whose owners had political perspectives different from those of us who actually covered as reporters what was happening in the world.

Never, that's right, not ever, did I hear of one of us peons, discuss, or even mention over a beer, a desire to conform to an owner's desire or obligation for our coverage of the news.

You were lucky.
But not all conformity needs to be stated out loud, so everyone can hear it. There's a lot of status quo maintenance by unspoken consensus.

[JoeHiker]

You were lucky.

Yeah. He was "lucky". For 40 years.

That's some streak of luck. What newsroom did you work in?

[The Weasel]

You're stretching the truth.
Everyone has a personal agenda and a price point at which their integrity is no longer operable. These pressures operate every day in every newsroom in the country.
This is basic politics, and it operates at every level of consumer society.
Even on the Appalachian Trail.
Mostly every bit of what you see on teevee in nothing more than material to polarize and excite your animal brain stem into fear or to entertain you into a state of numbed-down herd consumerism.
I made "newspapers" for a wasted decade at the local and national levels, so I know whereof I speak. (You know, "news," that stuff that goes in around the advertisements!)

If you think "everyone has a price point at which their integrity is no longer operable," I'm glad you are out of the news business. But tell us: What is YOUR "price point" after which you will lack integrity?

TW

[XCskiNYC]

Veering back to the original topic we have this quote from a lodging establishment near the AT that charges $140 for a double room, $97 for a single, parking not included:

http://hike-inn.com/reservations.asp

"The biggest problem is the have-nots latching onto the haves and trying to mooch their way up the trail," says Jeff Hoch, who runs The Hike Inn close to where the Appalachian Trail enters Great Smoky Mountains National Park. "This creates stress around the campsites."


Quite a statement coming from a place that for one night of sleep space takes what may be a significant percentage of a hiker's entire trail budget.

[Jack Tarlin]

You neglected to mention that the overnight rates include two very hearty meals.

I see you're from NYC.

Presumably one pays for lodging and meals up there?

Well it works this way in Georgia, too.

And this facility is like every other one on the Trail: If you don't wanna go there, then don't, nobody is compelled or forced to spend their money anywhere.

[Bearpaw]

Veering back to the original topic we have this quote from a lodging establishment near the AT that charges $140 for a double room, $97 for a single, parking not included:

http://hike-inn.com/reservations.asp

"The biggest problem is the have-nots latching onto the haves and trying to mooch their way up the trail," says Jeff Hoch, who runs The Hike Inn close to where the Appalachian Trail enters Great Smoky Mountains National Park. "This creates stress around the campsites."


Quite a statement coming from a place that for one night of sleep space takes what may be a significant percentage of a hiker's entire trail budget.

Wrong Hike Inn. Your link and the prices listed are for the Len Foote Hike Inn at near Amicalola Falls. The comment is from Jeff Hoch of the Hike Inn near Fontana, where they charge $60 for the night, including laundry and three shuttles (from the dam, into town for supplies, and back to the dam the next morning). Not the cheapest on the trail, but pretty reasonable all things considered.

[XCskiNYC]

You neglected to mention that the overnight rates include two very hearty meals.

I see you're from NYC.

Presumably one pays for lodging and meals up there?

Well it works this way in Georgia, too.

And this facility is like every other one on the Trail: If you don't wanna go there, then don't, nobody is compelled or forced to spend their money anywhere.

Anybody wishing information on THIS particular Hike Inn can click the handily provided link. Come on, it's the internets.

My outlook on businesses I have yet to visit: neither fanboy nor foe be.

Yes, working at a biz that charges a RELATIVELY high tariff for services provided to hikers might color one's viewpoint. That's why I do imply that the prices seem healthy compared to what one might typically find at such a business. But as for value, that will have to be left up to those who have patronized the lodging place in question, whichever Hike Inn that may be.

The article contains the following quote:

"The biggest problem is the have-nots latching onto the haves and trying to mooch their way up the trail," says Jeff Hoch, who runs The Hike Inn close to where the Appalachian Trail enters Great Smoky Mountains National Park. "This creates stress around the campsites."


That differs very much from what I found on the trail. Your own experience may differ.