Seattlest: Different Accounts of Lost Hiker Near Denny Creek

JH

Tue, 19 Dec 2006 15:54:09 -0800

She's a lawyer. Somebody thought they would get sued!

Courtney

Tue, 21 Nov 2006 10:30:41 -0800

Hey Ron, I think we can both agree: I asked, and I was answered in the negative. Case closed, it seems. You're correct that I mean well, and "conspiracy" is not a word I ever used (I didn't think it was that nefarious nor dire). I did use the words soft and pedaling, multiple times, and confidential to BobH: that is the correct spelling, give or take a hyphen.

Ron

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 23:10:22 -0800

Courtney, I, and probably most others, agree with you that people shouldn't go out in the snow my themselves. That was not my point. It was your tone and insinuation that the Times was soft pedaling. Who says they were soft pedaling? As I said before, you don't know what they knew before. Just because another news organization reports something does not mean that all of them have the same information. The Times and the PI, and TV , report different nuances on the same story all the freakin time. To answer your question, the Times can report a story without all the facts, yes. And that's what they did. Different reporters have different sources for stories. Sometimes they gather different information. Sometimes certain news orgs do better jobs than others. Sometimes news orgs go with stories before verifying. And sometimes they have to issue retractions. There was no conspiracy ,as you allude to. You mean well, I believe. But your second post proves it to me - you were looking for a case of soft pedaling, or whatever you want to call it. Ron Beacon Hill

Courtney

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 19:43:07 -0800

Thanks Neil, searchers such as yourself are invaluable and I know you can't talk to the media (and I understand why). What makes me crazy, every single time I see something like this, is how people tiptoe around the issue. That's what I thought the Times was doing. I'm not beating up the two men or the woman herself--I clearly stated that. I said nothing mean, cruel, or inflammatory about the people involved. I hoped that the woman would be found safe and in good health, and rejoiced when she was. I don't think her boyfriend and friend were malicious or inconsiderate, they were all just out for a nice day snowshoeing. But if "Everybody knows that you should stick together as a group" then really this wouldn't have happened. I lead mountain biking rides regularly, in places where people could get lost or injured--sometimes someone will be tired or not feeling well and want to turn back on their own, but I can't let them. No matter what. A group of 20 should turn around before one person should head off alone. The point is not to make an example of those involved, but to talk openly about what happened. That she was found is absolutely the most important thing, but it isn't the only thing. There is no better time to talk honestly to the public about how to avoid this. In a very short amount of time, every other person (except these fortunate three) will get wrapped up again in their lives and forget all about this. I wish the Sheriff's department would say something about how to stay safe when talking about this story. I wish people would talk about these kinds of situations in the future without feeling like we're taking it out on the people involved. I think the people involved would want others to draw the right conclusions if faced with a similar situation in the future so as to never have to go through what they and their families just went through... Maybe you have a different perspective as someone who helps with S&R, and I've not been involved in a rescue effort so I certainly can't speak to that. But as someone who helps find lost people, how do you recommend making sure fewer people get lost in the future? I'm not trying to be inflammatory about this--they sound like smart, active people who love the outdoors and I want nothing more than to see this kind of thing never happen to those kind of people ever ever ever again.

Neil Baunsgard

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 17:51:50 -0800

I was one of the searchers on the mission near Denny creek. Everybody knows that you should stick together as a group. She had become cold and wanted to hike back. All the news knows is specifically what the sheriff tells them. as a searcher I'm not even allowed to speak to media. They had it correct but she is OK don't put the blame on those two men. None of them were adequately prepared and she was found alive. that's all that matters.

BobH

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 16:22:56 -0800

Hey, it's no fun spouting an opinion AFTER you have all the facts. Better to speculate on motives beforehand; otherwise, your post might be irrelevant when all the facts are in. Oh yeah, that's what happened... (Um, that would be "soft peddling" -- if that were in fact what was going on...)

Courtney

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:32:02 -0800

Let me get this straight: the Seattle Times can report something without "knowing all the facts" but I'm supposed to "know for a fact" before I simply ask why the Times is reporting this event differently from every other media outlet in the area? The Times is almost in good company with Kiro who reports that she "was separated" from her friends; that's pretty soft, too. Every once else has the exact same details that KOMO reported last night, so unless I should be getting my facts straight from the Seattle Times (who didn't apparently have all the facts when everyone else did), I think I've got enough to go on here to suggest that the Times is soft pedaling that specific detail of this story. Asking why that is the case doesn't strike me as self righteous, and the very next thing I do is sympathize with a desire not to demonize this woman's boyfriend and friend. But, it appears that the article has already been updated online to now include the relevant details, so...that's that I guess.

Matt

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:19:30 -0800

{shiver} It's all too easy to get lost in the snow. I bought a GPS a week after nearly getting lost myself while snowshoeing. It was after dark when we made it back - several hours after we had planned.

Ron

Mon, 20 Nov 2006 13:06:39 -0800

hey Courtney, before geting all self-righteous with us, you need to realize that maybe the Times reporter didn't know all the facts - i.e., that the two friends let their third friend turn back and go alone. Until you know for a fact that the Times held back information, might be best for you to reserve your judgement. Ron Beacon Hill