Climbing Media 2011: A Response to Andrew Bisharat

In response to a post I made earlier this week, Andrew Bisharat, editor at Rock and Ice had this to say:

"This is exactly the reason why blogs are never going to replace actual content created by legitimate media sources. Your post is uninformed, poorly researched, completely made up off the top of your head, and makes sweeping generalizations that largely aren't true (and none of which are substantiated by any facts) just in order to make yourself sound as if you know what you're talking about.

Peter, do you even read any of the print journals that you're talking about? Do you follow any of these sites' online presence beyond an obviously cursory perusal of content? Are you fluent enough in French, German and Italian to comment about the content of the European sites? What content, exactly, is Deadpoint creating that in your opinion is so far exceeds the quality of what other websites are writing and creating?

You have no shortage of ways of contacting any of the editors at any of the publications that you bring up in this post, but you decide that your powers of deduction ought to be good enough to dissect online media landscape. Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that.

If you want to look at simple numbers, an easy search on www.alexa.com will show you that RockandIce.com is most popular, highest ranked website of any of the sites that you mention in the U.S., so it's completely erroneous for you to say that we have no significant web presence.

Of course, everything could be better--and I agree that we have a ways to go before our website meets the quality of our publication. It's something we're constantly working on, but good journalism is expensive. Opinions are cheap.


--Andrew Bisharat
abisharat@bigstonepub.com
Senior editor, Rock and Ice"

Well. To be honest I have probably more important things to consider, such as the fate of a country that legalizes "medical" marijuana and outlaws collective bargaining. But of course for a senior editor to take the trouble to smite a lowly blog is really a compliment in a way so a consideration of this bit of prose seems in order.

As I review the arguments actually stated in the piece, and not the ones invented by Andrew (those will emerge in due course) I note the following."...there is maybe one stand-alone web-based general climbing media outfit that is producing its own content and creating a distinctive brand." Nowhere in Andrew's comment is this central truth addressed or refuted. I stand by this statement and welcome suggestions for other companies I may have missed. I continue, "American print journals such as Climbing, Urban Climber, and Rock and Ice are far behind the Europeans in providing a significant and satisfying web presence." I am unable to see how Andrew's comment considers this argument on its merits either. Instead he cites a survey from Alexa.com, claiming that "RockandIce.com is most popular (sic), highest ranked website of any of the sites that you mention in the U.S." Note that I didn't say that R&I was unpopular or poorly ranked or anything of the sort, only that, in my view, it was, along with Climbing, et. al. "far behind the Europeans." This is a statement that can be argued over, not by citing statistics but by direct comparison with the top European websites, such as UKClimbing, Planet Mountain, etc., something Andrew doesn't bother to do.

I continue further by making a statement that has been supported by conversations with editors and even a comment that was posted from a former Climbing staffer, to the effect that editors and publishers see focusing on the print edition as a safer bet, since they can actually monetize it and not give expensive content away for free. This is a hypothesis that can be followed by trained monkeys and hardly requires contacting busy editors and wasting their time to confirm the obvious. Either way Andrew does not address this central point except to note that journalism is expensive, which is correct.

I continue ironically enough, to note that most blogs are not really worth reading over the long haul, being either industry mouthpieces or purely personal ventures that rarely ask interesting questions about the sport. The irony is that this echoes Andrew's premise that "blogs are never going to replace actual content created by legitimate media sources" though I would not presume to dictate what "legitimate" implies here. However I do not go on to expand upon how my own blog is clearly worth reading nor do I cite my readership numbers, mostly because they are so low as to be embarrassing.

So what is it exactly that Andrew has a problem with? Let's look at the first sentence. "Your post is uninformed, poorly researched, completely made up off the top of your head, and makes sweeping generalizations that largely aren't true (and none of which are substantiated by any facts) just in order to make yourself sound as if you know what you're talking about." I am not sure what exactly is uninformed here as Andrew doesn't bother to refute any actual points made in the piece nor cite research I could actually have done besides contact some editors to discover the obvious point that journalism is expensive. While I do compose extemporaneously, I fail to see what was made up off the top of my head. I also wonder how I can possibly write "sweeping generalizations" that not only "largely aren't true" but are not even "substantiated by any facts." That frankly takes a lot of work that I don't really have time for. But I digress.

Andrew is correct to question my bona fides. I don't actually read anything anymore in the world of climbing journalism. Wait, that's one of those sweeping generalizations unsubstantiated by facts. OK I admit that I do read climbing magazines and have done for many years. But then Andrew gets personal. "Do you follow any of these sites' online presence beyond an obviously cursory perusal of content? Are you fluent enough in French, German and Italian to comment about the content of the European sites?" My reply is "Does anyone do more than a cursory perusal of these sites?" And of course, my fluency in foreign languages is second to none, certainement, certo, though my command of echt deutsch is less than perfect, thanks for asking. What a silly point to try to score since European sites such as Planet Mountain or 8a.nu offer multiple language options, including English in an attempt to be truly global. I guess I will defer to Andrew's multi-lingual capacities on that one.

Then of course the reprimand, where Andrew the senior editor glares from under his green eyeshade at me, the cub reporter. Chomping down on his well-chewed stogie, he barks, "Kid, you have no shortage of ways of contacting any of the editors at any of the publications that you bring up in this post, but you decide that your powers of deduction ought to be good enough to dissect online media landscape."

Hilarious stuff to be sure, to stand corrected by the author of an "article" complaining about trustfunding dirt-baggers in a recent issue of the mag. No stereotypes or generalization there, of course. Just good old pound the pavement, shoe leather journalism, the way grandpa used to do it. Yessir "Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that." Wait what was that again?

"Looking at numbers, presenting facts, asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field, and a blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction. I hope you realize that."

OK, maybe the saliva was covering over the screen so much at this point that it was getting hard to see, but honestly Andrew, proofread your work, however modest the venue. You're a senior editor at Rock and Ice fur chrissakes. And can you explain the tortured syntax of "asking This is the difference between journalist and a writer who has ethics to this field?" What field are we talking about here? How can I have ethics to it? Am I the "blogger who spouts of hyper-intellectualized, ego-stroking fiction?" Do you mean I reek of it? Spout off? Are we talking meta-fiction here?

Anyway, thanks for the opportunity to write this Andrew. One issue as I see it is that you are paid a salary to write about climbing but you have shown that maybe your criticism of my work could use some critique itself. In fact I have been editing your comments for free (no gratitude expected of course) and hopefully showing what few readers I have, that yes I have integrity and no I am not as amateurish as you would like to believe. My opinion may be cheap as you say, but it's also free, free of slapdash personal attacks and sloppy writing.