With Publicity Like This

1.7k · October 28, 2005

Typical article on Geocaching, until the second half and the reporter seems to be a little over focused on something that was not needed. Am I the only one who is annoyed with this one.

News Article

October 28, 2005

Yep, I agree - the article is pretty good until the part about the incident in the park.

8.4k · October 28, 2005

What a twist to a downer negative ending . Spin doctor David Uhler is a sensationalist jerkwad. :lol:

I know, or know of, all the people mentioned in that article. I bet they're pis$ed to have helped him.

October 28, 2005

I don't see a problem with it. Isn't someone dying while signing a logbook newsworthy? Armed with that information, I think any self-respecting reporter would be compelled to report on it. What is it that annoys you about it?

October 28, 2005

I thought the article was well written and probably well researched. Are there any factual errors in it?

9.2k · October 28, 2005

As a news story written around the time of this tragedy, the article would have been a good one. But this death occurred months and months ago! It was widely reported at the time, and discussed here in the Forums. Why bring it up in that much detail in what started off as a typical feature story on geocaching?

I read it and said "this is old news," and disrespectful to the family of the deceased for bringing it up anew.

9.4k · October 28, 2005

I suppose it was the general tone of the article is the biggest issue with the piece. I'm sure there are other areas to spot, but this one in particular was interesting:

So when someone found a way to sneak a cache into Eisenhower Park, some members of the geocaching community secretly smiled and silently cheered.

The point here was that the reporter was giving the impression that he somehow knew that there were geocachers out there secretly cheering about the fact that a cache was placed in a park without the park's permission. It's perfectly possible that the placer had no idea that there was any issue with placement.

"The Can D Man" - the multicache's mysterious creator, who never revealed his identity - dubbed the final location "Can You Keep a Secret?"

City parks officials didn't have a clue. To the geocachers, the secret cache was like a candy jar left unattended in a roomful of children. "Bilderback" found it first on Feb. 1, 2004.

Again, this gives the impression that there is some law skirting going on. As many geocachers know the idea or secrecy for cache hunting is fun but not necessarily thumbing noses at authority. This is inference again by the reporter.

I'd say for the most part that the article was very well written but the ending was pretty weak. The first time I read it I thought that he died doing something he enjoyed.

8.4k · October 28, 2005

What is it that annoys you about it?

What exactly IS the last thing he wrote on the subject?

What is the last impression that a muggle reader is left with?

Uhhh, hello, spin. :lol:

October 28, 2005

I thought the article was well written and probably well researched. Are there any factual errors in it?

I agree. I thought it seemed like a lot of time was taken to write the article. I don't necessarily think it was bad publicity; he even wrote that the news wrongly reported that he died from a fall; and the first part of the article was fairly good. It was something that happened, I would think he wasn't doing his job if he left it out.

What a sad, sad story though. 64 is way too young. :lol: I could see how this could happen though. I get all excited when I get a find, my heart starts racing, and after walking however long, if your heart is weak, it could seemingly happen fairly easily. And I don't mean this disrespectfully at all, but I bet there are many people here who would not mind having a nice find be there last moments on earth.

8.4k · October 29, 2005

OK. I've had a minute to stew and the more I think about it, the facts surrounding the death seem hinky. :lol:

I don't remember the over dramatic part about the log book being reported before. Does anyone else???

I'm gonna check with the locals....

Edited October 29, 2005 by Snoogans

1.7k · October 29, 2005

The log book part bothers me, I'd like to know how the reporter got access to the physical log book.

You'd think with all the positive things Geocachers do, like CITOs, he could have found something else to focus on.

1.4k · October 29, 2005

It seems the author used a bit of artistic license in trying to emphasize the "secret" theme behind the multi-cache in Eisenhower Park, and he seems fascinated with death, since he wrote about the incident in more-than-necessary detail.

Maybe he's an aspiring Edgar Allan Poe.

Otherwise, I thought the article was well-researched and pretty good.

38.2k · October 29, 2005

Was the article supposed to be about geocaching, or the death of Mr Chamberlain? Fully half the article deals with the poor fellow's death. I think his obsession with Mr. Chamberlain is pretty weird.

22k · October 29, 2005

Diogenes would have never bothered to reply.

October 29, 2005

The writer mustn't have much integrity or focus to write something like that.

22k · October 29, 2005

The writer mustn't have much integrity or focus to write something like that.

Exactly what I said.

8.4k · October 29, 2005

The writer mustn't have much integrity or focus to write something like that.

He seemed to be focusing on making an old wound reopen with some frankly questionable NEW information.

October 29, 2005

Just skimming over the link, it looked like a normal explanation of geocaching at the top, then by the bottom it looked like part of the local news crime blotter.

1.7k · October 29, 2005

Reread it, the incident with the Geocacher occured Decemeber 10, 2004. Now I'm really confused, I could understand if this article came shortly after, in this case almost 12 months later. I'm not sure what the point is, the guy died of a heart attack. Unless its to some how "spice up" the article. So the writer could avoid having to write another boilerplate article about Geocaching that has been written so many times.

October 29, 2005

What is it that annoys you about it?

What exactly IS the last thing he wrote on the subject?

What is the last impression that a muggle reader is left with?

Uhhh, hello, spin.

The last thing he wrote was about how Mr. Chamberlain passed away while doing something he obviously enjoyed. Being a non-muggle, I'm in no position to comment on any last impressions a muggle might be left with. With all due respect, we must be wired quite a bit differently because you are obviously quite offended by something in the article and I just don't see it.

I thought the reporter was very respectful toward the deceased. I was impressed that he made a point of correcting earlier erroneous media reports that Mr. Chamberlain died as the result of a fall while searching for the cache, which would certainly have left many readers with a less favourable opinion of caching.

Sorry, I guess I'm just too thick to see the negative spin that you allude to. Perhaps you'll have to spell it out for me.

October 29, 2005

I see your point, Gorak. Just we don't like to see anything that could even be interpretted as bad for the sport.

The article also mentioned how we laugh about how a cache was placed illegally.

People may interpret that as that we don't abide by laws, which could then trigger towns and cities to not allow caches in the borders of their public property and parks because we are not law abiding people.

The article is bad on MANY levels.

6.5k · October 29, 2005

Kinda weird artical starts out ok, then gets really strange and perhaps misleading (knows that other people were thinking and doing?).

I was thinking that AZrepublic has published other not so glamours things about geocaching. Didn't they have one a couple years ago where they basically blamed all pothunting in the SouthWest on geocachers? (or was that a different paper from the out that way?)

I don't want to waste money on them to check, but their archive lists a couple past pieces.

2.2k · October 29, 2005

slow news week i guess so the guy digs up this old story and gives it a revamp.

but what a way to go. that's how i want to be found. doing the sport i enjoy after finding the cache and logging my find to drop dead suddenly. not nice for those left behind but when is it ever?

October 29, 2005

My dog could write a better article than that. How'd that guy become a reporter/ journalist? Who hired him? What kind of article was that? Why do people keep calling geocaching a scavenger hunt? There is no list of things to collect in this, you get coordinates, you find A CACHE, not a bag full of bird feathers, pinecones, pennies with a specific dates on them or whatever else you include in a scavenger hunt these days, easter eggs perhaps?

They don't even highlight how geocaching is a way for families to spend time together, he focused so much on the negatives. I also don't think that if a member of my family or any of my friends had such an unforseen consequence, that i'd want some reporter, (let alone this guy) writing about it like that.

Hey Uhler, in case ya didn't know, here's a review, that article sucks! :lol:

October 29, 2005

It's just a poorly written article. Either write a piece about the game of geocaching, or about this guy's death. (which is morbid to me, 12 months later)

The segue between the two subjects is very amateur, IMHO. He suddenly mentions Mr. Chamberlein in the 10th paragraph, out of nowhere?!? My high school English teacher would have given him an F on this one.

October 29, 2005

At least he was technically acurate when describing how the activity works. It is one of a few articles that actually got all the technical stuff correct.

The second half was a bit odd. No doubt it was a tragic story, but it left me with the impression that geocaching was to blame for the death. The guy could have just as easily bit it on the john at Denny's. Would that article spend the first 9 paragraphs explaining how Denny's scrambles the eggs and gets their coffee just right before it abruptly introduced the poor man and his death?

October 29, 2005

The sport attracts people from all walks of life, particularly those with a slightly geeky side.

Cachers are slightly geeky but journalists aren't? :lol:

Humph!

October 29, 2005

I think the reason the article started well and ended poorly was he had some great input from some local cachers. His article would have been great if he'd have stuck with that, but instead turned his focus away, like all the rest, to what bleeds. I am thankful to those who had input on this, apparently it helped some of the techmical details and clarified some other details. At least his article may be be a step in the right direction, but shame on him for spending so little time on the benefits of geocaching. Improved health, beautification of local parks, increased awareness in some otherwise dangerous areas, I really feel like he missed alot. The list goes on and on....he just got off track. Maybe the next one to come along with a story will do a better job, and not spend so much time off topic. We should bring this guy to a big event......maybe then he would realize what it is he should be writing about..........

October 29, 2005

the arizona republic didn't write the article, this is a reprint from san antonio, what's going on that they chose to reopen this issue nine months later.

October 29, 2005

The second half was a bit odd. No doubt it was a tragic story, but it left me with the impression that geocaching was to blame for the death. The guy could have just as easily bit it on the john at Denny's. Would that article spend the first 9 paragraphs explaining how Denny's scrambles the eggs and gets their coffee just right before it abruptly introduced the poor man and his death?

Only if he had an axe to grind or a vendetta against Denny's. Or maybe he had to fill a certain sized column and ran out of material. It would seem that there is something more going on here than is evident. What that would be I of course don't know.

But hey, I could use some poorly placed facts. I heard about a tragic car accident on the radio as I was reading this article. Therefore I can draw some conclusions that this article is somehow related to the automobile accident can't I?

Now since I have no idea what to write next I guess I will start writing about .... You get the idea. The guy is a hack and most of the article is padding.

1.7k · October 29, 2005

Someone tracked down the cache, read this log.

It seems the guys wife was given the cache, by the police. Not sure how the reporter got access to log book or the pretense that he used.

Edited October 29, 2005 by magellan315

October 30, 2005

My take is that this reporter is not impressed by geocaching. He even writes that it attracks those that are "slightly geeky." He found this story about Mr. Chamberlain and added it beause he thinks it makes the sport look dumb. As in, "look this guy died while hunting a box in the woods." I'm sure this reporter has hobbies that others might find boring or dumb. But he doesn't see the world that way. He doesn't allow others to have different interests than his own. Oh well.

As to Mr. Chamberlain's demise; he was out doing something he enjoyed. He happended to pass away while doing it. We should all be so lucky. I'm not going to go into tragic deaths, there are many worse ways to go. But to me, I think the man was probably smiling just before he left. Is there anything wrong with that?

October 30, 2005

Yes it is an awful article, terribly written and the reporter apparently invented some of the 'facts' as has already been pointed out. The reporter can't even focus on what the subject of the story is about. He gets sidetracked about halfway through. He and his editor should both be fired.

I almost died while geocaching once, while hiking in the mountains of New Mexico at 9000 feet where an outta-shape low-lander has no business hiking (without supplemental oxygen). When I got back down off the mountain, I remarked that if I have to die, I'd prefer to die while pursuing a fun hobby like caching. So many people live till a ripe old age then spend ten, maybe twenty years or more rotting ill a hospital wired to a machine, drooling on themselves and unable to recall their name.

On my last day I'd much rather find a cool and challenging cache: Take nothing, leave nothing, sign the log, then keel over. TNLNSLKO.

October 30, 2005

That was a strange article! I'm sorry that the gentleman died, but he did die doing something he enjoyed.

I would hope that if something like that happened to me, someone would log my find and apologize for my failure to rehide it. :lol:

~Shaggy~

38.2k · October 30, 2005

I remarked that if I have to die, I'd prefer to die while pursuing a fun hobby like caching.

If I'm doing something I like, I'd want to keep doing it. If I'm gonna die, let it happen in the dentist office, or sitting in the automibile inspection line.

October 30, 2005

It seems the guys wife was given the cache, by the police. Not sure how the reporter got access to log book or the pretense that he used.

Why would anyone assume pretense? Perhaps the reporter simply called the widow, explained he was writing a story, found out about the cache, and asked to see it. It looks like the reporter did a thorough job researching the article, and in a professional and sensitive manner as well.

Yes it is an awful article, terribly written and the reporter apparently invented some of the 'facts' as has already been pointed out.

Hugh Jazz, what are you talking about? I read the entire thread, and could not find anyone pointing out a invented fact or an error in reporting. Please show us all, because I think you are the one inventing things.

How many posters has it occured to, that the article was not a story about geocaching, or a report about a death, but a human interest story that showed how people's paths can cross, even if they never meet?

7.2k · October 30, 2005

I thought it was a good article up until I couldn't find the "next>>" link.

I understand sometimes editors chop up a story and if this particular editor didn't understand the main theme of the article, then he could have thought it was about the guy dying. The end result is an awkward article which it is.

3.9k · October 30, 2005

I personally found the story to be quite well-written and apparently well-researched. Yes, it is true that the author chose to devote the last half of the story to the fact that some cachers had placed an illegal cache in an off-limits park, and to the subsequent death by natural causes of a finder. While the author may have been guilty of slightly straying from his title and implied subject matter by over-focusing on the latter material, the facts remain that:

It is and was entirely true that a cacher had placed a cach illegally in a park where caches were forbidden, and that other local cachers were apparently playing along to keep it a secret. What is wrong about the author reporting those facts? If you REALLY do not like such reportage, then maybe you need to encourage geocaching to clean up its act and work harder to prevent such illegal placements. However, it is a bit confusing (to say the least) to flaunt the law and then scorn a reporter who subsequetly writes about your illegal act.
The story about the cache hunter who died at the scene was compassionate, factual, and did not try to make it sound as if geocaching had caused the man's death. Rather, the article made it perfectly clear that the man had died of natural causes. In fact, the author apparently cleared up some lingering confusion about the causes of the man's death (some initial reports had speculated that the man had fallen into a steep ravine while seeking the cache...)

Botttom line, I liked the article overall and felt that it was well-written. It also provided me with additional helpful facts about the Texas cacher death to which I had no previous access.

8.4k · October 30, 2005

Yes it is an awful article, terribly written and the reporter apparently invented some of the 'facts' as has already been pointed out.

Hugh Jazz, what are you talking about? I read the entire thread, and could not find anyone pointing out a invented fact or an error in reporting. Please show us all, because I think you are the one inventing things.

JX,

You must not have read this thread as well as you thought. I posted that the facts surrounding the log book seem hinky. As in possibly made up.

HJ isn't inventing anything. He (as another username) and I were somewhat local to the events surrounding last year's death. The death was reported by a number of sources and all of us locals were very interested in what happened to a fellow cacher. Texas cachers are very much like an extended family and we all felt the loss and remember the details a bit better.

The article is over dramatic. No one here heard anything about him keeling over while signing the log not to mention his so called "last words" in the log. In fact, there was some question as to whether he found the cache at all before he died.

Now we have a painted picture of his dramatic last moments a year later. :lol: Hinky is the best way to describe it.

If new information was really obtained regarding this death, one would think the reporter would focus on the fact that earlier reports had been in error. Instead he wrote geo-fluff and twisted geocaching from a family game to an "Adult" game that would have you breaking laws and getting killed. :drama:

How many posters has it occured to, that the article was not a story about geocaching, or a report about a death, but a human interest story that showed how people's paths can cross, even if they never meet?

:drama: :drama: :drama: :drama: That's a knee slapper.

6.5k · October 30, 2005

How many posters has it occured to, that the article was not a story about geocaching, or a report about a death, but a human interest story that showed how people's paths can cross, even if they never meet?

Hey, or maybe it meant for the puzzles section, it's sure confused a lot of people what the articale is supposed to be about.

October 30, 2005

No matter who you are, where you go or your level of health, have the good sense to NEVER go caching alone.

Lilbluyze

Edited October 30, 2005 by lilbluyze

October 30, 2005

Certainly I cannot be the only one to notice the striking similarity between the name of the reporter, David Uhler, and the name of the guy who placed the first GPS Stash, Dave Ulmer?

9.5k · October 30, 2005

No matter who you are, where you go or your level of health, have the good sense to NEVER go caching alone.
Lilbluyze

A heart attack is a heart attack and it can happen while you're walking down the street from your own house. Having somebody with you isn't going to save you if you don't have the proper training and equipment to handle that kind of immediate need emergency.

I cache alone a lot. The true rule is never cache or hike without letting people know where you're going and when to expect you back.

3.9k · October 30, 2005

JX,

You must not have read this thread as well as you thought. I posted that the facts surrounding the log book seem hinky. As in possibly made up.

HJ isn't inventing anything. He (as another username) and I were somewhat local to the events surrounding last year's death. The death was reported by a number of sources and all of us locals were very interested in what happened to a fellow cacher. Texas cachers are very much like an extended family and we all felt the loss and remember the details a bit better.

The article is over dramatic. No one here heard anything about him keeling over while signing the log not to mention his so called "last words" in the log. In fact, there was some question as to whether he found the cache at all before he died.

Now we have a painted picture of his dramatic last moments a year later. Hinky is the best way to describe it.

If new information was really obtained regarding this death, one would think the reporter would focus on the fact that earlier reports had been in error. Instead he wrote geo-fluff and twisted geocaching from a family game to an "Adult" game that would have you breaking laws and getting killed.

How many posters has it occured to, that the article was not a story about geocaching, or a report about a death, but a human interest story that showed how people's paths can cross, even if they never meet?

That's a knee slapper.

Snoogans, you have raised some points -- or potential points -- of which I was unaware. You seem to be saying that there is/was no mention anywhere else of his having died while signing the log, and you seem to speculate about whether the author invented that part of the story. Has anyone simply checked with folks who knew the deceased cacher, or with the police, to verify this story? This might be a very easy tale to either verify or disprove.

With Publicity Like This

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Link to comment

Join the conversation