PDA

View Full Version : A pet peeve -- Why does the media focus so much on "experience?"



Shutterbug
06-20-2015, 16:26
I just watched some of the news coverage of the former White House Chef who is missing on a hike in New Mexico. About half of the coverage was a reporter questioning whether or not he was "experienced?" I fail to understand why the obsession with "experience." It would be my observation that some of us who are very experienced take risks that most novice hikers would avoid.

The questions I would consider relevant would be: 1)Was the person sober? 2)Was the person in good physical condition? 3)Was the person properly clothed? 4)Did the person have a plan? All of those questions are relevant, but in my opinion, it doesn't really matter whether or not a person is "experienced."

Walkintom
06-20-2015, 16:57
I believe that they equate experience with capability and planning.

They are the MSM, after all. What do you expect? Nothing more than a 24 cycle of sound bites, I hope.

Deadeye
06-20-2015, 17:08
An experienced hiker would be more likely to be sober, in appropriate physical condition, properly clothed, and have a plan. "Experienced" could also be shorthand for "he should have known better".

BirdBrain
06-20-2015, 18:31
I get the peeve. If only experienced hikers should hike, then no one should hike. You can't get experience without doing. We were all ignorant of everything we ever did before we did it. It is a completely irrelevant query. It is fine to wonder if he prepared or trained or planned. The "experience" is always in front of us.

Another Kevin
06-21-2015, 01:02
The subtext to me seems to be, "This person was experienced and still got in trouble. This stuff is dangerous and knowing what you're doing doesn't help. Nobody should be allowed to do this, it's too dangerous!"

Which does get me a bit peevish, since knowing what you're doing does indeed help.

The other one that peeves me is when they make a big deal when the victim went alone. As if the victim wouldn't have fallen off that cliff, had a heart attack, or been hit by a car at the trailhead if only there'd been someone else there. (What someone else would have done is usually unclear.)

Sarcasm the elf
06-21-2015, 08:10
I am inclined to think that the use of the word "experienced" by the media is their way of being lazy and not bothering to describe to the complexities of the situation to the audience. It's basically just saying "he knew what he was doing" instead of having to go into all of the complexities and known risks involved in a particular situation.

For example, I don't know a thing about deep sea diving, but if I heard a report about something that happened to an "experienced" deep sea diver my first thought would be "well I don't know jack about diving, but it sounds like they knew what they were getting themselves into and how to handle
it."

jimyjam
06-21-2015, 08:14
I get the peeve. If only experienced hikers should hike, then no one should hike. You can't get experience without doing. We were all ignorant of everything we ever did before we did it. It is a completely irrelevant query. It is fine to wonder if he prepared or trained or planned. The "experience" is always in front of us.

+1


Life is full of ups and downs! Hike on!

eblanche
06-21-2015, 08:33
Pretty soon, it will be illegal to go out in the backcountry/frontcountry alone unless you are a "certified guide - ie. experienced."

Can not be certified until you spend minimum 1080 hours out in the backcountry with certified guides. Hah! that would be something...


Another thing to consider: I consider myself very experienced, but Joe Mountaineer, with 20+ yrs of climbing, backcountry, ascents, etc thinks I don't know my head from my ass.

Offshore
06-21-2015, 09:05
An experienced hiker would be more likely to be sober, in appropriate physical condition, properly clothed, and have a plan. "Experienced" could also be shorthand for "he should have known better".

Exactly - people here seem to be reading far too much into this (and seem to perhaps be reaching for a reason to be peeved). But, as an experienced reader of WB I'm not all that surprised and never click that "What's New" link without the appropriate preparations for the adventure to come.

Pedaling Fool
06-21-2015, 12:43
I am inclined to think that the use of the word "experienced" by the media is their way of being lazy and not bothering to describe to the complexities of the situation to the audience. It's basically just saying "he knew what he was doing" instead of having to go into all of the complexities and known risks involved in a particular situation.

For example, I don't know a thing about deep sea diving, but if I heard a report about something that happened to an "experienced" deep sea diver my first thought would be "well I don't know jack about diving, but it sounds like they knew what they were getting themselves into and how to handle
it."
That's the way I sort of look at how the media reports on things. In actuality they (most reporters -- especially the ones that read teleprompters to a camera) don't really know much about any story they report on, but they try and give an impression of authority and knowledge on the subject. Probably fools many of the uninformed, but those that know, just shake their heads and :rolleyes:

I know when I watch certain breaking news, I can see how they are trying so hard to look well informed and knowledgeable on the subject, but they usually fall way short. A good example of this was all the reporting on MH-370 disappearance. When some of the experts would get a little technical I could see the confusion in the reporters' eyes. I was totally astonished when many of them thought that radars cover the entire globe and planes are always being tracked over the ocean.

Bronk
06-21-2015, 12:52
It draws people into the story...saying someone is "experienced" leaves people wondering how in the world could this have happened? This guy should have known what he was doing.

peakbagger
06-21-2015, 14:35
Unfortunately many confuse reading about an adventure and actually having one. Experience frequently makes the difference when things don't go according to plan.

Pedaling Fool
06-21-2015, 16:29
In all this discussion about pet peeves I forgot to look into the status of the former WH chef. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/06/21/search-continues-for-former-white-house-chef-who-disappeared-in-new-mexico/

And here's an interesting story of him from back in 2006 http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/story?id=2059729

Five Tango
06-21-2015, 18:05
Sorry to hear the gentleman is missing.Would be interesting to know if he had left a hiking route/plan with loved ones in the event a search was necessary.Experience is always relative.

shakey_snake
06-22-2015, 07:43
The details really don't matter, people just want easy to relate and digest talking points.

This is why it's so important to learn to express yourself through writing--so you don't have to depend on other people to do it for you.

squeezebox
06-22-2015, 09:36
So what are some of the more common mistakes a hiker makes when they go missing?
Seems like there really are places where a spot would be worth while.

Slo-go'en
06-22-2015, 10:02
He was found dead 1.7 miles from the trail head. Few details available, but I would guess he was not on the actual trail or it would not have taken a week to find him. So, the question is why did he wander off the trail?

Fredt4
06-22-2015, 19:27
Experience? We don't need no stinkin' experience!
In my younger days I had lots of energy to get out of bad situations, now I have experience not to get into them. So when I see a news article experience tells me that either they were clueless (no experience), or over confidence (experienced).

fiddlehead
06-22-2015, 21:51
He was found dead 1.7 miles from the trail head. Few details available, but I would guess he was not on the actual trail or it would not have taken a week to find him. So, the question is why did he wander off the trail?

And here lies the problem with listening to the media.
Because, another media report says he was found in the nearby river.
So, which one is telling the truth (perhaps neither)

Even experienced people can drown.
He may have fell into the water because a snake struck.
Or, he slipped after a rainy, muddy trail?
Or was fording and fell in.
I consider myself experienced yet, still find myself in some hairy situations.
Just yesterday I was bushwacking in the jungle here in Thailand and almost fell down a very steep bank.

Slo-go'en
06-23-2015, 11:54
And here lies the problem with listening to the media.
Because, another media report says he was found in the nearby river.
So, which one is telling the truth (perhaps neither)

Both could (and are likely) true. He could have been found in a river 1.7 miles from the trail head. He could have been caught in a flash flood. Didn't that area get a lot of rain recently from a tropical storm? When a desert area gets rain like that, flash floods are a real threat.

Wyoming
06-23-2015, 13:08
The chef guys body was found in a small river 30 feet off the trail 1.7 miles from his car. Cell phone data leads searchers to think he reached near the summit he was going for and died on the return. Note he was 61, brand new to the area and he hiked to near 12,000 ft. At the time he was near the summit a storm blew through with rain and hail and there would have been high winds then too. There are a number of things which may have gone wrong for him given those facts. Was he experienced (experienced for the east coast or for the Rockies - big difference)? Was he fit and healthy. Did he suffer hypothermia? Did he get some altitude sickness. Dehydration (found in a water source)? What gear did he have with him for this day hike.

http://www.taosnews.com/news/article_33bc4584-18a6-11e5-8235-5fd929043c17.html

Pedaling Fool
06-23-2015, 13:13
There's just too much speculation out there and almost no information; for all we know he could've just had a heart attack.

Kevin108
06-25-2015, 00:12
Everything popular on television sets out to relay a story to the lowest common denominator. Take from that what you will.