Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - Accidents & Injuries

Report Accidents and Injuries

Author

journos abusing online forums


nmonteith

20-Jan-2009
11:29:54 AM

At least you'll all be happy that he is very worried about your perceptions of him and the SMH and he promises to mend his ways! He is very much listening and trying to do it better in the future. (p.s. He rang me to try and work out a solution to make amends with this forum). I had to explain to him that many Chockstone users are pretty fiery, reactionary and fairly anti-mainstream media.


BigMike

20-Jan-2009
11:45:05 AM

On 19/01/2009 Duncan wrote:

>
>Looking at his user details we found that this was in fact Paul Bibby
>from SMH, who apparently did something similar on a paragliding forum (I
>think).

I don't recall any mention about Paul Bibby being on a paraglider forum. I did read a post
from someone from an ultralight advocacy group who said that Bibby had written an
article on aviation that had contained incorrect statistics and the Age and Herald had
subsequently published a correction.

Is that the incident to which you're referring?

(Disclaimer: Big Mike is a subeditor on the Sydney Morning Herald.)


Sabu

20-Jan-2009
11:57:18 AM

On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>Paul will be posting his explanation on this forum in the near future.
Can't wait to hear this...

Also when can we get the author of that stupid DT article on here? That would also be amusing.


westie

20-Jan-2009
11:57:33 AM

On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>I had to explain to him
>that many Chockstone users are pretty fiery, reactionary and fairly anti-mainstream
>media.

geez Neil, sounds like your mending bridges for him (not to mention making excuses). He deserved to be paid out. Live and learn.

hotgemini

20-Jan-2009
12:03:00 PM

Actually no Neil, that's still just appears to be a matter of his personal backside protection policy.

I'd also like to make it clear that I'd take it as an insult to the entire community to suggest that the reaction to Mr. Bibby's post was based in some shortcoming in this community's attitude to the media, rather than stemming directly from what was either a deliberate choice or incompetence in his approach to this forum.

Actually I'm quite understanding of the pressures Mr. Bibby must be under. I don't believe that anyone would argue that his employers cater for the trashier 'tabloid' end of the market and as such there's an expectation from his editors that there should be an element of scandal in his stories. Whilst unfortunate and not to my taste, the expectation of a poor-quality article does not justify poor-quality behaviour from its reporters.

In essence, just because you write like a tabloid scumbag doesn't excuse you acting like one Mr. Bibby.

-Adam.


Sabu

20-Jan-2009
12:03:03 PM

On 20/01/2009 westie wrote:
>geez Neil, sounds like your mending bridges for him (not to mention making
>excuses). He deserved to be paid out. Live and learn.
Some people need things explained to them in black and white; "But daddy *sniff* why are they all so *sniff* mean to me?!"


nmonteith

20-Jan-2009
12:12:53 PM

I would prefer to see a more positive and accurate portrayal of climbing in the mainstream media. By mending bridges I hope that in the future myself and other climbers can be contacted directly by the media for accurate information - rather than relying on random forum postings to make their stories. Turn your back on the media and they will rely on third hand stories and tabloid bullshit.

Would people have reacted any differently if he announced he was a journo? I reckon he would have still been shot down in flames by the majority of users on this forum. I see "reporter" who did introduce himself on one of the forum topics was suitably told to get stuffed by several people.

Interesting enough he still thought the accident was on Bucket Bunny Buttress...


Pat

20-Jan-2009
12:13:19 PM

Respect to you Neil if you actually made the effort to get in contact with him.


nmonteith

20-Jan-2009
12:16:45 PM

It took him a week to return my call - but he did eventually!


BigMike

20-Jan-2009
12:35:50 PM

On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:

>Would people have reacted any differently if he announced he was a journo?
>I reckon he would have still been shot down in flames by the majority of
>users on this forum. I see "reporter" who did introduce himself on one
>of the forum topics was suitably told to get stuffed by several people.
>
http://www.chockstone.org/Forum/Forum.asp?Action=DisplayTopic&ForumID=5&MessageID=4304&Replies=4

(Disclaimer, until you all get bored of it: Big Mike is a subeditor on the Sydney Morning Herald)


Sabu

20-Jan-2009
12:53:21 PM

On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>It took him a week to return my call - but he did eventually!

On 20/01/2009 BigMike wrote:
>(Disclaimer: Big Mike is a subeditor on the Sydney Morning Herald.)

Are these possibly related?!

Duncan

20-Jan-2009
1:12:54 PM

On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
> I had to explain to him
>that many Chockstone users are pretty fiery, reactionary and fairly anti-mainstream
>media.

Pfft, that has NOTHING to do with it. If you're a reporter you should identify yourself as such. He didn't. Everything else is detail.

hotgemini

20-Jan-2009
1:18:57 PM

Except we DID react differently to the Daily Telegraph reporter, his reaction stemmed from the community's belief that it was more appropriate for the identity of the climber to be publicised once the necessary process of confirming his identity and his relatives being informed had been completed.

The reaction to Mr. Bibby post, which I note included numerous complaints to the newspaper, mediawatch etc had a small sub-element of the above sentiment but almost exclusively stemmed from his failure to identify himself and his purpose.

I am still waiting for a promised reply from the newspaper regarding my complaint, although I'm very comfortable it will simply be a bunch of double-speak, platitudes and excuses.

I'm also still waiting to hear from Mr. Bibby regarding my earlier posts, which one is it Mr Bibby, are you incompetent or are you trying to suggest that we're gullible idiots?

-Adam.

P.S. As for these poor, hard-working journalists who are lamenting the community's failure to embrace them with open arms, have you considered that its not only respect which is earned but also disrespect?


BigMike

20-Jan-2009
1:35:29 PM

On 20/01/2009 Sabu wrote:
>On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>>It took him a week to return my call - but he did eventually!
>
>On 20/01/2009 BigMike wrote:
>>(Disclaimer: Big Mike is a subeditor on the Sydney Morning Herald.)
>
>Are these possibly related?!

In a word, no.


foreverabumbly

20-Jan-2009
1:41:49 PM

I agree with what Neil has said. Yes Mr Biddy was unethical and the articles were crap. Im still upset with the trivialising of Nicks death by the media just for a story on climbing regulation.

But Mr. Biddy wants to cover his arse and we want climbing to be portrayed correctly in the media. starting an open dialogue is a good thing.


Sabu

20-Jan-2009
1:42:34 PM

On 20/01/2009 BigMike wrote:
>On 20/01/2009 Sabu wrote:
>>On 20/01/2009 nmonteith wrote:
>>>It took him a week to return my call - but he did eventually!
>>
>>On 20/01/2009 BigMike wrote:
>>>(Disclaimer: Big Mike is a subeditor on the Sydney Morning Herald.)
>>
>>Are these possibly related?!
>
>In a word, no.
Ah i had wondered whether there was any guidence involved to set him on his merry way of atonement!

Onsight

20-Jan-2009
1:44:39 PM

On 20/01/2009 Duncan wrote:
>Pfft, that has NOTHING to do with it. If you're a reporter you should
>identify yourself as such. He didn't. Everything else is detail.

I don't see how you can really accuse him of hiding his identity. One look at his public profile and it's perfectly clear he is from the SMH.

I've just received a phone call from Paul Bibby - totally out of the blue. After talking to him for 15 minutes I have absolutely no doubt that he is genuinely very concerned that he might have upset some of the climbing community. He is considering posting an apology and explanation here but I'm not sure if he now will as I kind of advised him against it. You never know if it's going to be taken the wrong way when people are so ready to have a go. He told me the reason for his post was so he could interview some people so that he could write a balanced report. I really don't see anything majority wrong with what he ended up writing.

Personally I've no real problem with what Paul did. My concern and questions are for the guy form the Telegraph and why he was trying to find out Nicks name before it was released by the police.

Onsight

20-Jan-2009
1:48:57 PM

On 20/01/2009 foreverabumbly wrote:
>... Yes Mr Biddy was unethical and the articles
>were crap. Im still upset with the trivialising of Nicks death by the media
>just for a story on climbing regulation.

The "Climbers Reject Regulation" headline in the Tele pissed me off too. But that was nothing to do with Paul Bibby.


foreverabumbly

20-Jan-2009
2:02:46 PM

On 20/01/2009 Onsight wrote:

>The "Climbers Reject Regulation" headline in the Tele pissed me off too.
>But that was nothing to do with Paul Bibby.
>

yeah, I was being media generalising here. I didnt mean for the two to come across as the same thing.


Sabu

20-Jan-2009
2:05:17 PM

On 20/01/2009 Onsight wrote:
>On 20/01/2009 Duncan wrote:
>>Pfft, that has NOTHING to do with it. If you're a reporter you should
>>identify yourself as such. He didn't. Everything else is detail.
>
>I don't see how you can really accuse him of hiding his identity. One
>look at his public profile and it's perfectly clear he is from the SMH.
>
>I've just received a phone call from Paul Bibby - totally out of the blue.
>After talking to him for 15 minutes I have absolutely no doubt that he
>is genuinely very concerned that he might have upset some of the climbing
>community. He is considering posting an apology and explanation here but
>I'm not sure if he now will as I kind of advised him against it. You never
>know if it's going to be taken the wrong way when people are so ready to
>have a go. He told me the reason for his post was so he could interview
>some people so that he could write a balanced report. I really don't see
>anything majority wrong with what he ended up writing.
Perhaps actually saying just that might have helped his cause. Instead of saying: 'Hey anyone know that guy' to a community that was in utter shock.

>Personally I've no real problem with what Paul did. My concern and questions
>are for the guy form the Telegraph and why he was trying to find out Nicks
>name before it was released by the police.
I'm assuming people have tried to contact him. Afterall he did leave his mobile number.

There are 104 messages in this topic.