PDA

View Full Version : Wall Street Journal Article



yaduck9
09-25-2009, 11:39
Article on the economy and the AT.







http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125348373308426061.html

The Weasel
09-25-2009, 16:34
Only the WSJ would be so tight-assed as to spell it out as "through hikers".

Also fascinated about the "hobo" and "bum" references. I'm sure that those who were on me like white on rice about suggesting that thru (not "through" for me) hikers resemble hobos and the homeless to many people will now write angry letters with filled with lots of really neat insults to the WSJ, which will (as it always does with criticism) promptly ignore them.

But hardly surprised that the WSJ approves of skinning hikers by "work for sleep" after "14 hour days" playing bracero in their fields or "shearing the sheep" by all you "athletic hippies." Beats paying that communist-mandated legislative crap called "the minimum wage" to the people who thru-hikers took their jobs from. Congrats. Who says thrus don't care?

Man. Can't help praying this is fiction.

TW

max patch
09-25-2009, 17:23
If you don't like the WSJ you can always go back to the Daily Worker.

Oh, wait a minute. It went belly up.

Madison County Owl
09-25-2009, 17:50
I wrote to the nerd " Joel Millman" and asked him if he was nuckin futs

The Weasel
09-26-2009, 01:30
If you don't like the WSJ you can always go back to the Daily Worker.

Oh, wait a minute. It went belly up.

If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"? :-?

TW

earlyriser26
09-26-2009, 07:11
If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"? :-?

TW
I read both the times and the WSJ, but if I had a fish I'd use the times.;)

max patch
09-26-2009, 09:33
Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"? :-?

TW

Neither. I'm the guy who worked hard and saved enough money before my hike so that I didn't have to worry about funds while hiking.

But if Ron Haven and a hiker mutually agree that if the hiker strips the sheets off 20 beds and makes up those beds with clean sheets in exchange for room and board for the night is a fair deal then thats between them. Sounds like a win-win proposition. None of my business. Nor none of yours.

The Weasel
09-26-2009, 09:54
If it ain't none of my business, why it is any of the business of the WSJ? But so glad to hear you brag about how you're such hot stuff. Kind of shames all the other thru hikers, but puts them in their place. I'm also kind of glad someone hasn't come along to take away your job by working cheaper, even if you work hard. That way you - unlike those athletic hippies and all them out-of-work braceros - have the cash to pay your ISP so you can post here. Gotta love it!

TW

max patch
09-26-2009, 10:10
If it ain't none of my business, why it is any of the business of the WSJ?

TW

Its a newspaper. They report the news.

If you don't like the article go back to the WSJ and leave a comment. Share your thoughts with the world like 49 other people have already done. It'll stay up -- Mr Gator doesn't have editing power over there.

Excuse me, the Saturday edition just arrived. WSJ with a coffee and bagel. Good times!

Pedaling Fool
09-26-2009, 10:19
If I don't like the WSJ I can ignore it. Used to be a newspaper. Now it's just fishwrap. For news, I go to the Times, both of them.

Were you one of the hobos they are referring to, Max? Or just one of the "athletic hippies"? :-?

TW
They? The WSJ was not referring to thru-hikers as "athletic hippies". That was the words of Mr. De Sena.
From the article:

"But it isn't always an easy fit, Mr. De Sena says.

"We thought there was a correlation between people who would hike the 2,200 miles and an incredible work ethic," says the 40-year-old entrepreneur, a former Wall Street trader who, besides farming, also operates an asset-management firm. "Turns out those people tend to be athletic hippies, just looking to have fun forever."


...I'm also kind of glad someone hasn't come along to take away your job by working cheaper, even if you work hard. That way you - unlike those athletic hippies and all them out-of-work braceros - have the cash to pay your ISP so you can post here. Gotta love it!

TW
But those "atheletic hippies" have put people out of work, again from the article:

"Up in New England, through-hikers have become a popular form of just-in-time labor for rural businesses, especially for organic farmers like Joseph De Sena.

He operates Amee Farm in Pittsfield, Vt., which lies a few miles from a trailhead. Mr. De Sena says that in a good year, "hikers could provide 50% of the labor we need," doing everything from watering lettuce in the greenhouse, to weeding the garden to shearing the sheep.

He estimates that hiring similar labor locally, if he could find it, would cost $50 to $75 a day. He does a barter deal with hikers who stay at the farm in exchange for their labor. No money is exchanged."

SunnyWalker
09-26-2009, 10:22
OK. I read all the comments. Now I'll go back up and try to read the WSJ article.

SunnyWalker
09-26-2009, 10:36
Oh, I thnk it's a pretty positive article. IMO: it's not really about AT. The article is on the "Carreer" section or page of the WSJ and thus is a slant article on alternative ways to make a living or suviving these perilous economic times, so to speak. It's pretty good. Kinda nice to know when one is hiking the AT one might be able to make it still if you are short of funds or couting change. As for folk just hiking the AT as an alternative "job" I don't think so. Maybe for a short stretch, but the entire AT. No, I don't think so.

Pedaling Fool
09-26-2009, 10:54
I think all this talk about more people being on the trail due to the economy is a little overstated. Yes there seems to be more people this year and I agree it's probably directly related to the economy, but how many?

If you were to read the WSJ article or any other article that has covered this, knowing almost nothing about the AT, this would seem like some new phenomenon, MAYBE EVEN AN ALARMING PHENOMENON. However, we who know the AT, know this is nothing more than a little bump in the numbers, THIS IS NOTHING NEW; people have always worked for stay/food along the AT.

Look at the numbers, it's just a bump http://www.appalachiantrail.org/site/c.mqLTIYOwGlF/b.4805579/k.DA92/2000Milers_Facts_and_Statistics.htm

Darwin again
09-26-2009, 17:10
Just the MSM going for the colorful story, trying to keep everybody skeered.
As usual.

Jack Tarlin
09-27-2009, 09:58
My beef with the article is that it isn't very accurate. While there are many hikers who will take advantage of a work-for-stay option if they see one, the implication that many, if not most hikers work their way up and down the Trail or take time off to do so is inaccurate, and helps foster the image of hikers as tramps/bums. Also the "dollar a mile" budget for a thru-hike hasn't been accurate for many, many years. Most thru-hikers spend twice that. I'm not sure where this reporter got their information on the Trail and on thru-hiking, but whatever the source was, it wasn't very good.

jersey joe
09-27-2009, 10:45
I see Ron Haven got a nice plug!

Lemni Skate
09-27-2009, 11:04
I have nothing against the WSJ; if I read it I'm sure I'd be wealthy enough by now to be finishing up a thru-hike right now, but this article did rub me the wrong way.

The descriptions of thru hikers seemed so opposite of what I've encountered. I've rarely encountered any thru's who could be described as bums (though I've encountered a couple of bums pretending to be thru hikers). Most of the hikers I've run into are hard working people in whatever they do, and can't really be classified by job or anything else. I'm sure if you are a business near the trail you run into a few bad eggs every year, but they've got to be a small minority.

Just a Hiker
09-27-2009, 11:25
As already mentioned, the WSJ article is a tad misleading and contains it's fair share of misinformation. The article also implies that hikers can work their way up the trail with relative ease, but it's not as easy as the article wants us to believe. Further, the article wants it's readers to believe that thru-hiking is a product of the economy, which isn't accurate either. Lastly, if my hike was dependent upon working for Elmer Hall for a month, I would just stay home.

Tipi Walter
09-27-2009, 14:06
Reading the Wall Street Journal for info on backpacking the AT is like hiring Adolf Eichmann as a consultant for race relations. As an alleged shill for the companies behind the biggest financial meltdown in U.S. history, I'd say the Wall Street Journal needs to find another line of work. Maybe it's already out of work and trying to become a midget OUTSIDE magazine?

Jack Tarlin
09-27-2009, 15:33
Geez guys, let's leave politics out of this.

It's a newspaper story, period.

Lety's judge it on its merits as a piece of journalism, OK?

dreamsoftrails
09-27-2009, 16:07
that article is a joke. its like they picked up some book about the AT written twenty years ago.

i got a real crack when it mentioned 'the rare motel stop' LOL. every 4 days is rare for most thru hikers.

Jack is right about it giving a horrible impression about how thru hikers make it up the trail. the only people i saw snagging short term labor opportunities did it for extra cash, not necessity. and i never saw any tension around campsites between 'haves and have nots.'

the article is reaching to place the AT in some type of recession historical context, and it should be ripped apart. it would be nice if the ATC would pursue some kind of defamation lawsuit against the WSJ and use the proceeds to build modern shelters with WIFI. hehe.

Jack Tarlin
09-27-2009, 16:11
Well, I'm not sure a lawsuit is in order. :D

I did, however, write the author and will let you know what he has to say, assuming he replies.

Oh, one last thing. I loved his comment about Rutland being the "last stop" on the Trail for Northbounders. This might come as some of a surprise to the folks who still have around 490 miles ahead of them. :rolleyes:

mudhead
09-27-2009, 16:14
The sad part. I have an "educated" aunt in Culpepper, VA. She Emailed about all the downtrodden having to work for food and live in the woods.

Some people. Gotta love kin.

Jack Tarlin
09-27-2009, 16:34
It's really pretty funny if you think about it.

After all, about a third of thru-hikers are retired or semi-retired and have no problems whatsoever financing their trips, regardless of the present economy.

Perhaps a third are young people who have either worked and saved for awhile in order to hike, or in many cases, are upper middle class recent college grads who in many cases have their trips paid for them by doting parents.

And then there's the last third, for whom spending $3500.00 to $5000.00 on a thru-hike is not that big a deal (and many spend more); also, whatever they spend is much less than what they'd need if they were living at home, paying rent, etc.

I don't know where this guy got the idea that everyone starts with a thousand bucks and ends up doing yard work in order to eat, but in my experience, he's talking about one percent of the hikers I've seen.

There are certainly folks out there this year whose decision to hike was based on the economy (like they're out of work or collecting unemployment or waiting for the job scene to look better or whatever) but for a major newspaper to tell its readers that the majority of thru-hikers work and hobo their way down the Trail is extraordinarily inaccurate, and is a real dis-service to the hiking community.

Pedaling Fool
09-27-2009, 18:09
I don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a wad over this story. This story is not about thru-hiking the AT -- it's about Dan Kearns thru-hiking the trail. However, the author does make some mistakes in his attempt at a general description of the trail and those who hike it (he does this to give his readers some background information, but yes, he did make some mistakes). Some examples:

- "...an Appalachian Trail through-hiker is either a symbol of a jobless recovery or of a still-deepening recession."

- "...Typically, about 1,000 hikers leave Georgia each spring in hopes of completing the trail in one all-out trek."

And there are other misconceptions he printed, but many of them are quotes of people along the trail. I don't know how accurate these quotes are, or if they were taken out of context, thereby, it gives a completely different picture than the reality.

I don't know why he chose to write about Dan Kearns, how long he prepared this article, how much knowledge he previously had of the trail (probably none).

The bottom line is that reporters make mistakes like this all the time, unless you got a reporter that is very dedicated to the story or an expert in the subject, misrepresentations like this will continue. IT IS THE NORM.

What gets me mad is when the reporter passes his article off as fact, much like all the BS about global warming.

The old saying is still a good one: "Don't believe everything you read".

dreamsoftrails
09-27-2009, 18:29
I don't see why everyone is getting their panties in a wad over this story. This story is not about thru-hiking the AT -- it's about Dan Kearns thru-hiking the trail.
I don't see how anyone has their panties in a wad, and the WSJ basically uses Dan Kearns to make a giant reach and comment on the AT in general, and how it is 'normally' hiked. So it really isn't about Kearns when you get into it.

I think the misconceptions here may be fairly significant. First, consider that the WSJ is nationally read by the masses. Do you really want the AT to be known as a 'hobo club' made up of economically disenfranchised vagrants seeking yard work for food? do you think this may affect how some folks look at hikers with their thumbs out or how citizens in trail towns feel about accomodating to hikers through services?

This is a horrible misrepresentation of the AT experience, which as Jack hinted at, is more of a retirement experience or a "dad, i just graduated college and i want to hit the AT" type of of thing, or at least a journey undertaken on 3,000 in savings.

Its just a matter of principle to oppose silly misconceptions presented by a news agency seeking to paint a picture of the national economic situation by distorting and twisting the AT experience through the story of one hiker they happened to find.

Just a Hiker
09-27-2009, 18:30
I don't think people are particularly upset.....folks are just commenting on the inaccuracies in the story. For me, if this article was in some college newspaper, I wouldn't give it a second thought; however, the story is in a respected national publication where one would expect them to get their facts straight. It's as though the reporter used one of Wingfoot's Handbooks from the 90's to get his data for this story. Just my opinion.

partinj
09-27-2009, 18:44
Please Jack the NYT or WSJ would know nothing about journalism or the true if they fell over it

Jack Tarlin
09-27-2009, 21:28
Just got a response from Mr. Millman.

It was three words long and said "Thanks for writing".

I wrote him back, thanking him for the thoughtful and illuminmating response to detailed criticism, and told him perhaps I should have sent the letter to his editors.

And perhaps I will.

Bulldawg
09-27-2009, 21:30
The WSJ has been out of touch with the main stream for some time now. Take most of what is in it with a grain of salt.

mudhead
09-28-2009, 06:02
Just got a response from Mr. Millman.

It was three words long and said "Thanks for writing".

I wrote him back, thanking him for the thoughtful and illuminmating response to detailed criticism, and told him perhaps I should have sent the letter to his editors.

And perhaps I will.

Probably should. I now have three relatives that think people live in the woods and beg food when they thru hike.

Oh. Well, you know what I mean.

CowHead
09-28-2009, 06:34
I like the cartoons when I read a paper the rest is garbage

Pedaling Fool
09-28-2009, 07:11
...I think the misconceptions here may be fairly significant. First, consider that the WSJ is nationally read by the masses. Do you really want the AT to be known as a 'hobo club' made up of economically disenfranchised vagrants seeking yard work for food? do you think this may affect how some folks look at hikers with their thumbs out or how citizens in trail towns feel about accomodating to hikers through services?...
It doesn't matter what they think, if they're dumb enough to believe everything they read then screw them. So the short answer is, NO, I don't care if people see the AT as a "hobo club". (The trail towns don't form opinions from newspaper articles, other towns don't matter).

What bothers me are the hikers that misuse services in town...That, more than any inaccurate article, is what hurts us hikers.

Newb
09-28-2009, 08:57
He says Kearns got on at Neel's Gap. If so, he's not a thru, he's just doing a really BIG section. Gotta do the whole thing to be a thru.

Bearpaw
09-28-2009, 08:59
So the short answer is, NO, I don't care if people see the AT as a "hobo club".

I know some very cool hobos...:)

GeneralLee10
09-28-2009, 09:17
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.

partinj
09-28-2009, 12:13
The point is that they don't tell the you the whole true only what they think.
Other words they flat out lie.

weary
09-28-2009, 13:30
I thought it was a pretty fair piece -- as newspaper stories go. As for the WSJ's role in the newspaper hierarchy, its news columns are pretty good. It's editorial and opinion pages are pretty worthless. (Other than it's nice to know what the opposition is thinking.)

BTW, I read -- or at least scan -- the journal daily. And no, my wife and I are not wealthy. We live on the the equivalent of two middle income Social Security checks, a month. But I made my living from newspapers for 40 years and have long been a newspaper addict.

The best newspaper overall is the New York Times, which I also look at daily. I buy the Tuesday and Sunday editions. Read the online versions on other days.

I also read the largest Maine newspaper (where until 19 years ago, I used to work) and the small local daily, (where I also once worked) along with a bevy of free weeklies. And Newsweek.

Weary

XCskiNYC
09-28-2009, 13:42
Only the WSJ would be so tight-assed as to spell it out as "through hikers".

Also fascinated about the "hobo" and "bum" references. I'm sure that those who were on me like white on rice about suggesting that thru (not "through" for me) hikers resemble hobos and the homeless to many people will now write angry letters with filled with lots of really neat insults to the WSJ, which will (as it always does with criticism) promptly ignore them.

But hardly surprised that the WSJ approves of skinning hikers by "work for sleep" after "14 hour days" playing bracero in their fields or "shearing the sheep" by all you "athletic hippies." Beats paying that communist-mandated legislative crap called "the minimum wage" to the people who thru-hikers took their jobs from. Congrats. Who says thrus don't care?

Man. Can't help praying this is fiction.

TW

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

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."

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).:cool:

Weasel, thank you for the apt and perceptive criticism. Reading about people working for months in exchange for nothing but a bunk to sleep in and meals (plus the "education" in organic farming, see how big a raise that gets you hanging on the wall of your office cubby) is one of those, as they say, Things that Make you Go Hmmmmmm.

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.

You did make a very correct distinction between the reporter's words and the statements of the sources quoted in the article.

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.

Just the concept of "homeless" hikers and "genuine hikers" is in itself a crock 'o' balogna. Nobody gets to decide who is genuine and who is inauthentic. If you walk a mile on trail, you are a genuine AT hiker, with only 2,174 miles to go (YMMV;)).

Furthermore, we are all voluntarily homeless when we make the transition from our starting point, be that housed or houseless, and the trail.

Folks, everybody on the AT is homeless. Isn't that why it's such a great experience, socially? I think so. Yeah, you might have a K-Mart pack and the guy next to you at the shelter picnic table might have an Arcteryx (yes, I know about the apostrophes, just refuse to use them). But you're both still hauling all your immediate possessions in a four-pound nylon sack.

Okay, 'nuff said.

The Weasel
09-28-2009, 13:45
Okay, 'nuff said.

Great post.

Pedaling Fool
09-28-2009, 15:09
...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
09-28-2009, 17:55
The "through" is the WSJ's equivalent of the Times "Mr. Loaf":D

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).:cool: .....

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
09-28-2009, 22:39
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
09-29-2009, 19:06
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
09-30-2009, 08:55
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
09-30-2009, 09:38
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
09-30-2009, 09:39
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
09-30-2009, 20:23
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
09-30-2009, 20:41
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
09-30-2009, 20:44
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
09-30-2009, 21:00
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
10-01-2009, 08:55
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
10-01-2009, 12:57
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
10-01-2009, 13:00
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
10-02-2009, 14:58
You were lucky.


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

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

The Weasel
10-02-2009, 15:52
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
10-04-2009, 15:18
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
10-04-2009, 15:28
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
10-04-2009, 18:23
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
10-04-2009, 22:38
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.

Jack Tarlin
10-04-2009, 22:51
With all due respect, your profile tells us that you've got 45 miles on the Trail.

This is around 2% of the Appalachian Trail.

So when you say that the place under discussson seems pricey when compared to other Trail establishments, what exactly are your grounds for comparison?

Sorry, but it seems like a fair question.

Just a Hiker
10-05-2009, 00:23
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.

Just so you know, those who provide services to hikers aren't compelled to give away the store......in other words, they have the right to make a living. Jeff Hoch runs a tight operation and is in it to make a living; however, the prices he charges are well worth the price. As previously stated.......for $60.00 one gets a ride from the Visitor Center at Fontana Dam, a private room with all the trimmings, their stinking hiking clothes washed, a ride into Robbinsville for dinner and resupply, then a ride back to the trail the next day. Trust me......that's a fair price anywhere on the trail.

XCskiNYC
10-05-2009, 13:15
With all due respect, your profile tells us that you've got 45 miles on the Trail.

This is around 2% of the Appalachian Trail.

So when you say that the place under discussson seems pricey when compared to other Trail establishments, what exactly are your grounds for comparison?

Sorry, but it seems like a fair question.

The ALDHA Companion

XCskiNYC
10-05-2009, 14:59
Just so you know, those who provide services to hikers aren't compelled to give away the store......in other words, they have the right to make a living. Jeff Hoch runs a tight operation and is in it to make a living; however, the prices he charges are well worth the price. As previously stated.......for $60.00 one gets a ride from the Visitor Center at Fontana Dam, a private room with all the trimmings, their stinking hiking clothes washed, a ride into Robbinsville for dinner and resupply, then a ride back to the trail the next day. Trust me......that's a fair price anywhere on the trail.

It's been pointed out a couple of posts back that the Hike Inn of which the prices are quoted and for which the link is provided is apparently not Mr. Hoch's Hike Inn.

So if you feel my mention of the prices charged by the Hike Inn in GA are unfair or indicate a criticism of the Hike Inn near Fontana Dam, worry no more.

As for the outlook that the AT as full of "moochers" "working their way up the trail" by begging and causing "tension" at the shelters, well, considering that this is supposed to be a bulletin board by and for AT enthusiasts, it's surprising that nobody has anything to say about that.

Jack Tarlin
10-05-2009, 19:35
Is the Trail "full of moochers working their way up the Trail?"

No, it isn't. The Journal article was wrong in this regard.

Do these people exist and can they be a pain in the ass to other hikers?

Absolutely.

Just a Hiker
10-06-2009, 00:07
It's been pointed out a couple of posts back that the Hike Inn of which the prices are quoted and for which the link is provided is apparently not Mr. Hoch's Hike Inn.

So if you feel my mention of the prices charged by the Hike Inn in GA are unfair or indicate a criticism of the Hike Inn near Fontana Dam, worry no more.

As for the outlook that the AT as full of "moochers" "working their way up the trail" by begging and causing "tension" at the shelters, well, considering that this is supposed to be a bulletin board by and for AT enthusiasts, it's surprising that nobody has anything to say about that.


People here aren't saying anything because the spirit of this thread, and the article in the WSJ, isn't about "moochers" on the AT. Further, I can almost assure you that Jeff Hoch's comment that you keep quoting was taken out of context for the WSJ article......I know this because I know Jeff Hoch very well and he only deals in absolutes, which is to say that if you call his establishment in order to stay with him and his wife Nancy, you had better have the money to stay there. Why? Because he is running a business and he expects to be paid for his services. However, in order to restore your faith in AT service providers everywhere, Jeff and Nancy Hoch have rescued more than their fair share of hikers out of the Smoky's and have given more free rides to hikers than they care to count. Reading about the AT in the ALDHA Guide book and hiking it are two different things all together.

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2009, 16:01
Just a Hiker:

Good post.

But remember.....you're debating with an expert. After all, the guy has 45 miles down, you're obviously dealing with an authority here. :rolleyes:

Krag
10-06-2009, 16:43
http://encarta.msn.com/dictionary_1861631132/mooch.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leech: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/leech

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hobo

The Weasel
10-06-2009, 17:11
Just a Hiker:

Good post.

But remember.....you're debating with an expert. After all, the guy has 45 miles down, you're obviously dealing with an authority here. :rolleyes:

And a man of few words...or posts. That's always the hallmark of a pro, too. At the rate he's going, he'll have as many as Jack in, oh, less than 20 years.

TW

The Weasel
10-06-2009, 17:13
***. Reading about the AT in the ALDHA Guide book and hiking it are two different things all together.

Is that a fact, Mr. 45 Miler?

TW

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2009, 17:23
Um, Weasel......Just a Hiker isn't the guy with 45 miles. He's got a helluva lot more than that. As you recently told me, READ first, then post. :D

Just a Hiker
10-06-2009, 17:34
Is that a fact, Mr. 45 Miler?

TW

Yeah......what Jack said:) My comment about the ALDHA Guide Book was a bit snarky, but I was trying to make a point.

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2009, 17:39
Geez, don't apologize. Weasel says something snarky about me just about every time he posts (see above).

The pudent thing to do is ignore it.

Just a Hiker
10-06-2009, 17:48
Definately not apologizing to The Weasel......:) I was explaining myself just in case Weasel was about to take yet another thread hostage....:D

The Weasel
10-06-2009, 18:34
You don't have to apologize to me; can't for the life of me see why Jack thinks you might need to, but Jack likes to stir the pot. My apologies to you, however.

TW

Jack Tarlin
10-06-2009, 18:37
Read your post #69 and tell me who's stirring the part with cheap shots, Weasel.

Now I'll take my own advice and ignore you. I just don't have the patience this evening, plus this is an interesting thread. Someone mentioned that when it comes to killing off good discussions, you've become quite the champ at pissing in the pool lately.

I suggest that we return to talking about the Journal article, assuming anyone's still interested.

TD55
10-06-2009, 18:43
I suggest that we return to talking about the Journal article, assuming anyone's still interested.

To late for those of us with thread ADD.

yaduck9
10-08-2009, 10:49
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.


Yes hidden agendas are all around us. But, we have to invest the time to read between the lines and learn how to deal with it.

One might start with the last few posts.

The Weasel
10-08-2009, 10:59
As I heard David Letterman's wisecrack about how perhaps he should have gone "hiking on the Appalachian Trail" I thought not just of the Mark Sanford scam but of the WSJ article. It seems to me that the AT is getting a bit of a bad reputation, as a place where people are essentially homeless, beg, or sexually irresponsible. That's not the media's fault (although the WSJ has an agenda, because they print stories that their readership will relate to), I don't think. But I'm not sure why it's happening. Perhaps Bill Bryson had more of an effect on the public perception of the AT than we realize; I don't see the same sort of thing being said about the PCT.

TW

Bearpaw
10-08-2009, 19:17
I don't see the same sort of thing being said about the PCT.

TW


I would be willing to wager only a very small portion of the population which has heard of the AT has also heard of the PCT. It's just a matter of numbers.

The Weasel
10-08-2009, 19:29
Actually, it's possible that the reverse is true, too; I'm surpriswed out here at how many people know just what the PCT is, but say, "Yeah, I've heard of the Appalachian Trail." As in, "The whut?" But the PCT doesn't have the slightly humorous cachet with the public that the AT seems to be getting.

TW

crux
12-03-2009, 11:59
Stayed at the Amee Farm on a SOBO this Year awesome place Joe Desena from from the article was a nice guy I ended up competeing in the Death race he puts on in the town.

http://www.youmaydie.com

Jeff
12-03-2009, 14:08
Visited Amee Farm this past October. Interesting accomodations, all brand new. Six miles off the AT. Less than a day north of Inn at the Long Trail...so hikers may not be ready to stop for the night.

Montana AT05
12-03-2009, 21:31
As I heard David Letterman's wisecrack about how perhaps he should have gone "hiking on the Appalachian Trail" I thought not just of the Mark Sanford scam but of the WSJ article. It seems to me that the AT is getting a bit of a bad reputation, as a place where people are essentially homeless, beg, or sexually irresponsible. That's not the media's fault (although the WSJ has an agenda, because they print stories that their readership will relate to), I don't think. But I'm not sure why it's happening. Perhaps Bill Bryson had more of an effect on the public perception of the AT than we realize; I don't see the same sort of thing being said about the PCT.

TW

As a light weight backpacker, I am interested to know how much your tinfoil hat weighs, and how well it performs in wind and rain?

Darwin again
12-03-2009, 21:47
There's a common popular myth, propagated mostly by the media (magazines & newspapers and some fictional books, mostly) that the AT is populated by oddballs, misfits and homeless people looking for a handout.

It's a myth that is sometimes, at any given moment, true or not, depending on who you meet and where. The WSJ piece was obviously lacking in depth and balance, a condition that's fairly common whenever the media do stories about a topic that is available for critique by a community of experts such as posts here. (And I'm not being facetious about that -- this is a community of real experts.)

Take note that quite often when a story gets written about any given topic, a person with deep personal or professional knowledge of the topic will be able to discern that the story is about 50 percent factual and 50 percent hooey. I saw this a a former working member of the national media, as well. Nobody can imagine the nonsense that gets printed every day and believed by peopel who don't know any better.

Krag
12-06-2009, 15:03
I've always found the stereotypes such as those offered by the WSJ article bothersome. It just invites irritation that leads to bickering and unkindness. Whenever someone makes an unkind judgment about us we have a choice, retaliate or ignore it. We can always ask, what about you? Have you ever been homeless, short on money, out of work, in bad physical shape, etc.?

To me, for the WSJ, to be throwing stones from the base of the US financial system is like the pot calling the kettle black.

I heard Ralph Nader speak about his new book in Waterbury last weekend--"Only the Super Rich Can Save Us". When responding the frustration over the current political realties he was asked how we can effect positive political change? His response was that the problem is not Washington, D.C., but Wall Street!

max patch
12-06-2009, 15:19
Opinion: I think the WSJ is the finest newspaper in the country.

Another Opinion: You hate the WSJ for whatever reason.

Fact: The WSJ has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country.

Conclusion: My opinion is validated by the facts.

weary
12-06-2009, 19:28
Opinion: I think the WSJ is the finest newspaper in the country.....
I think it ranks among the top two or three. The WSJ reporters, by and large, are better than any that I've read in any competing media.

But the WSJ columnists and editorial writers don't match the paper's reporter quality. Also the journal specializes in business news. Important as that is in the overall scheme of things, for most folks other issues loom as large, and sometimes larger.

For these and other reasons, I still rank New York Times as overall the best. The candidates for a serious second place seem to be getting fewer and fewer as the industry declines, bankruptcies loom, and "bargain" buyers gamble on getting a name brand on the cheap.

My vote for second place remains with the Wahington Post. A few years ago I might have chosen the Los Angeles Times. But the new owners have chosen not to compete.

Having said, all this, I don't really have enough exposure to the broad range of newspapers to know for sure. I read the Journal daily; the Times regularly. I only get to read the rest every few weeks or so.

Weary

The Weasel
12-07-2009, 02:16
Opinion: I think the WSJ is the finest newspaper in the country.

Another Opinion: You hate the WSJ for whatever reason.

Fact: The WSJ has the largest circulation of any newspaper in the country.

Conclusion: My opinion is validated by the facts.

Anyone who equates "biggest" with "finest" has no understanding of the difference between the 1973 Eldorado and, say, a Jaguar E-Type. Nor does "most popular" mean "finest." The pages of history are littered with people, movements and institutions - including media - which were "the largest" and yet far from "finest."

All that it proves for the WSJ to be "the largest circulation" is that it has "the largest circulation."

TW

Darwin again
12-07-2009, 15:32
Plus, Rupert Murdoch owns the WSJ, which influences the editorial tone and coverage slant of the paper. [Not that Rupert gives a rip about the AT or even knows what it is, of course.]

Jack Tarlin
12-07-2009, 20:30
Weasel has a decent point.

Accurate daily or toal circulation figures for newspapers are notoriously difficult to come by, or to believe, once you come by them.

There are any number of "reputable" sources who'll tell you that the American newspaper with the largest circulation is actually USA Today and not the Journal.

(And if you do the same Internet search a week or two from now, I'm sure you'll find something different!)

max patch
12-07-2009, 20:42
There are any number of "reputable" sources who'll tell you that the American newspaper with the largest circulation is actually USA Today and not the Journal.


That was true until (I believe) the 3rd quarter numbers came out this year. The WSJ was one of the very few papers that had an increase in subscribers over the last year.

The Weasel
12-07-2009, 20:55
If "biggest" was "best" maybe John Holmes would still be alive. Now why did I think of him and the WSJ together? :-?


TW

max patch
12-07-2009, 21:13
If "biggest" was "best" maybe John Holmes would still be alive. Now why did I think of him and the WSJ together? :-?


TW

I don't know. I never think about John Holmes.