A U.S. magazine website called SmartMoney said the following about ski resorts earlier this month - hotly disputed by the National Ski Areas Association, below:
10 things ski resorts won't tell you
1. that resorts are keenly catering for a continuing growth in snowboarders, conscious of bad behaviour/conflict with skiers
2. they fake their snow reports, partly by exaggerating depths at weekends, to attract weekenders
3. they are facing huge increases in running costs, attributable to snowmaking, in the face of climate change
4. that liftpasses are heavily discounted at outlets away from the lift stations, or online
5. that instructors don't have to be certified/trained to work in ski schools. They just have to be PSIA members
6. that snowmaking "rarely makes first-rate conditions", due to high temperatures or humidity (involving high energy costs)
7. that super-groomed slopes are increasing speeds and knee injuries
8. that "scenic trails" involve trees, and the risk of head impact with trees
9. that suing a ski resort is unlikely to work, because legislation now indemnifies most US resorts
10. that there's a tendency for skiers to smoke dope to "make them more receptive to central experiences"
The response of the National Ski Areas Association
1. It's not true, and skiers are "three times" more likely to collide than snowboarders
2. It's not true, because resorts have microclimates and - anyway - they now have webcams to show you the truth
3. It's not true. Resorts are using "less energy and water" and can blanket a ski area in 48 hours
4. No comment
5. It's not true. 94 per cent of PSIA members have earned at least a grade 1 qualification
6. It's not true (see 3)
7. No comment
8. No comment
9. Resorts aren't obliged to eliminate risks, and eliminating risks would make snowsports "unrecognizable"
10. No comment
stoatsbrother, I found it interesting that such a highly-provocative (and business-damaging) piece could be published by a subsidiary of the Wall Street Journal - one of the most highly-respected publications in America.
Isn't that the real story here?
The "sensationalist topic title" is theirs, not mine, which is why it's in quotes.
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Shimmy Alcott wrote:
Did I just say tosh? Shite I am getting old.
got
After all it is free
After all it is free
Quote:
that liftpasses are heavily discounted at outlets away from the lift stations, or online
Not true for Europe that I am aware of
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Well 10 is obviously bollux. All the decent weed is consumed by boarders sat just below a ridge in the middle of the piste. Everyone knows this.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Flim flam fluffle
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
I found it interesting that such a highly-provocative (and business-damaging) piece could be published by a subsidiary of the Wall Street Journal - one of the most highly-respected publications in America.
The same Wall Street Journal that's owned by News Corp. and counts Fox News and The Sun as stable mates - hmmmmm
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Windymiller, you're a man of few but well-chosen words, aren't you? Excellent point.
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
I don't think Rupert Murdoch is stupid enough to dumb down the journalism of the Wall Street Journal to Sun standards. They are effectively autonomous.
The question is why a direct subsidiary of the WSJ is publishing journalism of a prejudiced nature, like the above. That's not to say that the SmartMoney piece doesn't contain some interesting (and probably accurate) points. But it's a pretty bizarre piece of work, and the NSAA could have taken it apart more effectively, if they'd addressed all the points.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
8. that "scenic trails" involve trees, and the risk of head impact with trees
I'm sure ski resorts won't tell you this on the basis that only a complete imbecile (who should be with carers) would need to be told...
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Quote:
Did I just say tosh? Shite I am getting old
Shimmy Alcott, Maybe you meant codswallop?
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
skisimon, you forget that this is a Merikan publication........
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
skisimon wrote:
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
8. that "scenic trails" involve trees, and the risk of head impact with trees
I'm sure ski resorts won't tell you this on the basis that only a complete imbecile (who should be with carers) would need to be told...
Or in fact that should be re-written:
Quote:
8. that the risk of head impact with trees may involve "scenic trails"
Or, perhaps,
Quote:
8a. the risk of head impact with snow may involve "falling over"
Or
Quote:
8b the risk of head impact with windscreens may involve "driving"
As you say, they are Murkan and need to be told.
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
I'd add that Merkin Ski Resorts will never mention the word "Rain" - its "We're expecting a big storm with lots of precip".
Also they'll talk up big incoming snowstorms while neglecting to mention most lifts will be on "windhold" aka "not a chance they'll open".
The list is a statement of the obvious as far as I'm aware with US resorts with the usual attempt to stir up anti snowboarder conflict in the "casual" skier which most people are well over.
Shimmy Alcott, be very careful - old blondes in Cheshire are taken to the vet and put down so their husbands can upgrade to newer models...
Ernst Goldsmith, yep. Disappointed though that you are so keen to analyse the motivation of the publisher of this site and yet post obvious trash like this with no analysis at all.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
stoatsbrother, Hm, might need to look out for a Sugar Daddy then
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Shimmy Alcott, what about a toy boy?.....i'm not busy for a coupla months.........
okbye
After all it is free
After all it is free
they don't tell you a bottle of magners is up to e7.50 ........
okbye
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
stoatsbrother, I found it interesting that such a highly-provocative (and business-damaging) piece could be published by a subsidiary of the Wall Street Journal - one of the most highly-respected publications in America.
Isn't that the real story here?
No. WSJ may have HAD been highly-respected, it's been on a downward slide for quite some time. (Or perhaps I only noticeed the publicity regarding the slide recently?).
Nevertheless, it's not unheard of a reputable paper do print trash sometimes. The "Smart Money" section of WSJ wasn't really what contribute to its respectiability in the first place anyway.
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
stoatsbrother wrote:
Ernst Goldsmith, yep. Disappointed though that you are so keen to analyse the motivation of the publisher of this site and yet post obvious trash like this with no analysis at all.
Sorry to disappoint you. The case for the prosecution (SmartMoney's) was summarised above. The case for the defence (NSAA's) was summarised below it. "Trash" is your word. "Prejudiced" is mine. There's clearly some truth to be extracted from both sides.
On balance, I think this thread was worth initiating. SmartMoney were correct in raising the subject, but their execution leaves quite a lot to be desired.
You got the journalism for nothing. That may be a relevant issue.
Even the world's greatest city (arguably) now has no priced newspaper. The London Evening Standard is now 'free of charge'.
Is there any such thing as a free journalism? What's the solution to maintaining and funding the 'analysis' that you so desire?
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
stoatsbrother,
snowpatrol, Not if you wory about the cost of a bottle of Magners, sorry.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
Ernst Goldsmith, I would just be interested in your view - you have worked as a journalist - have experience of doing footwork and research investigaating stories - as well as - I think - doing a course in writing non-fiction. You surely have something to share with us?
Quote:
You got the journalism for nothing. That may be a relevant issue.
hmmm... do I detect the sound of imaginary £20 notes rustling...
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
So if you're just off somewhere snowy come back and post a snow report of your own and we'll all love you very much
Ernst Goldsmith, given that your idea of journalism appears to be trawling the web for obscure rubbish and then posting links to it while also asking fatuous questions, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind paying anything for it.
If it's cash you're after, you might have more luck asking prople to pay you to shut up and go away.
You know it makes sense.
You know it makes sense.
Lizzard,
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Lizzard wrote:
Ernst Goldsmith, given that your idea of journalism appears to be trawling the web for obscure rubbish and then posting links to it while also asking fatuous questions, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind paying anything for it.
Well, your idea of journalism appears to be "I'm doing a runner". What made you abort a career in which you clearly had positive ideas for reform?
Get with the programme.
Poster: A snowHead
Poster: A snowHead
stoatsbrother wrote:
Quote:
You got the journalism for nothing. That may be a relevant issue.
hmmm... do I detect the sound of imaginary £20 notes rustling...
No you don't. It's in your (snow)head. You're the whingemeister concerning the global state of journalism. I'm simply asking you to resolve the paradox of how it's paid for (democracy and consumerism are clear causes for bona fide journalism), rather than simply whingeing on about how awful it is.
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Ernst Goldsmith, I think there is a lot of brilliant journalism. I think there is also a lot of paid-for survey/press-release placement going on.
I buy the Guardian and the Times frequently, subscribe to The Week, and pay for Sky News and Fox by paying a sky HD satellite Subscription. I am committed to paying for journalism and analysis.
What I do expect from people with expertise and experience such as yours, is a little bit more than being a "Link-Gibbon", and some attempt to provide some context and comment. Otherwise you are as bad as the lazy twits who took this "survey" at face value and published it without critical analysis and comment.
It took me 30 seconds to identify that the morethan "spokesman" is their head of marketing. Why didn't you find this out?
Or do you just see your self as an attendant at a zoo - chucking waste into the Pirhanas and seeing what they do with it?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
Lizzard wrote:
Ernst Goldsmith, given that your idea of journalism appears to be trawling the web for obscure rubbish and then posting links to it while also asking fatuous questions, I can't imagine anyone in their right mind paying anything for it.
Well, your idea of journalism appears to be "I'm doing a runner". What made you abort a career in which you clearly had positive ideas for reform?
Get with the programme.
You have done a runner from quite a few careers yourself.
Ernst Goldsmith ... I buy the Guardian and the Times frequently, subscribe to The Week
OK, well if it's any help, I've written for the Guardian about skiing and The Times was the first newspaper to publish anything by me (a full-page ski equipment review, back in 1986, when they were still working in hot lead on the Grays Inn Road). The Week is published by Felix Dennis, who was the first publisher to employ me as a journalist - back in 1977 - as technical editor of Skateboard! magazine.
You're after journalistic analysis on an internet forum? Don't be ridiculous!
I asked you to solve the paradox of how journalism will be funded in the future - given the rapid decline in circulations and revenues of print media, and the expectation of free content on the internet - but you've copped out. Well, don't be surprised if you're at the mercy of much more PR-driven guff and 'bought journalism' in the future. At least what you got at the head of this thread was a counterbalanced argument between some eye-watering troublemaking and a trade organisation defending itself. There is - as I've said - some truth in there to be found. Did you take the trouble to read the linked full texts from which the summaries were taken?
richjp wrote:
You have done a runner from quite a few careers yourself.
News to me - I've always written stuff, and have been doing so on ski forums for about 15 years (since the Compuserve Ski Forum). In the autumn of 1978, Ski Survey magazine published two articles I researched - the first to report radical departures from conventional ski equipment to 'single deck' sliding - on the invention of wide-platform monoskiing (the same design used today), by Mike Doyle - the Bahne Single Ski - and the invention of the first serious snowboard capable of surfing powder snow, by Dimitrije Milovich - the Winterstick Roundtail. Last week I wrote the first UK report on the remote-triggered Avalanche Balloon System.
At what point have I run from reporting developments in skiing? Please have the courtesy to explain which careers I've run from. I've been writing continuously, in a paid capacity, for 32 years - for publications, courts of law, or companies as a copywriter.
Last edited by Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do. on Thu 21-01-10 2:48; edited 1 time in total
I've been writing continuously, in a paid capacity, 32 years
Ahhh so that's your master plan then ......
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Then you can post your own questions or snow reports...
Quote:
You're after journalistic analysis on an internet forum? Don't be ridiculous!
Why is it rediculous? Just because the internet has a lot of junks doesn't mean it can't support serious journalism. In the printed medium, there's tons of trash and only a few serious ones. The same could be the case for the internet.
The medium is irrelavent. It's the audience that doesn't want serious journalism these days. Blame it on the internet is confusing the cause and consequence.
To me, your view on many things shows a lack of objectivity. So forgive me for not considering you a journalist of much quality.
After all it is free
After all it is free
Ernst Goldsmith, you seem to have set a lower standard to your posts than was the case a few years ago. Previously you would discuss the topic you had raised, apply your experience and world-view, sometimes with a crusading twist, and add some value.
What you appear to be doing now (apart from dropping extremely unfunny puns at inappropriate times into threads started by other people about things they really care about ) is shoveling stories - many of which are trashy, regurgitated and third hand - into this section of the site, without sharing any analysis from yourself.
I believe this is lazy and condescending to snowHeads.
Answering your substantive points. I have not copped out about the cost of journalism. I have said I am happy and committed to pay for journalism and analysis - I fully expect to be paying money to a couple of sites in the next year or two. I just haven't seen anything by you that I would pay for. And judging by web searches I have done, neither have editors of national newspapers or magazines in the recent past.
Windymiller,
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
abc and stoatsbrother and my late father
Sorry to have disappointed you. Maybe snowHeads has a Customer Services Desk where your complaints can be resolved. Please produce your original receipt.
Windymiller, no that's not the masterplan. It's a bit early in the year to say anything about that, and I'll probably fuck it up anyway, so I'll 'keep mum' for the moment.
How about yours, Windupmiller?
And how about we revert to the subject of the thread, which is pretty significant in skiing. For instance ... do US ski resorts exaggerate the quality and quantity of snow (reports) to attract weekend business?
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ski the Net with snowHeads
Ernst Goldsmith wrote:
[
And how about we revert to the subject of the thread, which is pretty significant in skiing. For instance ... do US ski resorts exaggerate the quality and quantity of snow (reports) to attract weekend business?
FAQ
Poster: A snowHead
Maybe you meant codswallop?
........
