The celebrated Peter Greenberg spews misinformation about non-ski activities at ski resorts -- and at non-ski resorts.
I'm a journalist who tries to be factually accurate, so it bugs me big-time when a high-profile travel expert -- probably with a couple of assistants to help him sift through the mountains of material he must receive -- managed to include so many erroneous facts and misleading implications in one small article. I also wonder whether his editors were asleep at the wheel. Why else would they have run the article I'm about to skewer because it contains as much misinformation as information?
What first caught my attention in a piece called "What If You Don't Ski? Cool Winter Alternatives," by travel "expert" Peter Greenberg (The Today Show, msnbc.com, USA Today, his own website, etc.), was: "At Stoweflake in Stowe, Vermont, up in the Green Mountains, they get back to basics with a nordic walking program — a great outdoor snow activity which works out the entire body. A three night program that includes breakfasts and dinner, some spa activities and the nordic walking program, starts at $1446."
Nordic Walking -- a great snow activity. Huh? Nordic Walking, about which I have written a book and therefore a topic I know quite well, is not a "snow activity." Au contraire. Its roots are as an off-season (i.e., summer) cross-training activity for Finnish cross-country ski racers.
But wait. There's more. Not only did he get Nordic Walking totally turned around seasonally, but he wrote about non-ski activities at the Broadmoor. Get a clue, Peter. Every activity at this Colorado Springs resort is a non-ski activity, because the closest skiing is at Breckenridge (about 105 miles) and Monarch (about 125 miles).
Ditto at Montana's Paws Up Ranch, which was renamed the Resort at Paws Up. It not near any ski resort worth traveling to for a ski vacation. It's an hour or more on a good day to a couple of strictly local areas, one of which is not even operating. Marshall Montain Ski Area, a small ski hill, is not too far by Montana standards, but it is closed (a new owner hopes to reopen it eventually), and a bit farther is Montana Snowbowl, also a largely local area and not a ski destination by most measures. Assuming that guests would go to the Resort at Paws Up for activities other than Alpine skiing, note that it also offers snowmobiling, winter bird hunting, winter fly fishing and winter ATVing, none of which Greenberg bothered pointing out.
Other "suggestions" are also off the mark. He wrote, "If you want to ice skate, try the resort at Squaw Creek, in Olympic Valley, just minutes from California's North Lake Tahoe. It's also the site of the 1960 Winter Olympics and the resort just completed a $53 million renovation." In fact, the Resort at Squaw Creek was not yet built when the 1960 Olympic Winter Games were held at Squaw Valley. In fact, Olympic Valley is essentially the postal addess; Squaw Valley is the real place. OK, that's a hairsplitter that wouldn't be worth mentioning on its own, but it is yet more sloppy reseach and writing.
Greenberg suggested a costly scenic gondola ride at Heavenly, CA/NV, and in the next paragraph, suggested, "At nearby Northstar at Lake Tahoe, the resort offers winter paddle wheel boat rides from the north shore to the south shore of Lake Tahoe between January and April." Squaw Valley and Northstar-at-Tahoe (not Northstar at Lake Tahoe) are both on the North Shore, and Heavenly is on the South Shore, so describing Northstar and Heavenly as "near" one another is misleading. Furthermore, the "Tahoe Queen" indeed connects the two shores, but the paddlewheeler is not specifically associated with Northstar.
He wrote, "there the ... Zorb... It's offered at a number of ski resorts around the world (and in the U.S., of all places, in the Smoky Mountains in Pigeon Forge, Tenn." What on earth does Pigeon Forge have to do with skiing? It's even father from ski slopes than the Resort at Paws Up, which at least is in the snowbelt, or the Broadmoor, which at least is in Colorado and right at the foot of the Rockies
Greenberg also used every negative cliche he could dredge up about skiing itself. I am a long-time skier and snowsports journalist, so even his lead got my hackles up when I read, "Each year, almost all ski resorts boast the best powder, the best runs, the infamous black diamonds with thrill-seeking turns and extra fast downhill speeds. That's great if you're a skier — or you have strange hopes of orthopedic surgery."
Wrong again, on virtually all counts. "Almost all" ski resorts do not boast about the best powder. A few do, but most boast of their powerful snowmaking systems and superior grooming. No, most don't boast about their infamous black diamonds. Most boast about their outstanding intermediate runs, great learn-to-ski and snowboard programs and excellent family-friendly terrain. What are "thrill-seeking turns"? I didn't know that a turn could seek anything. The orthopedic surgery line is a cheap shot at a snowsport that Greenberg clearly knows nothing about.
And then, there's what's missing from his misguided, misleading laundry list. Other than kids' snowmobiling at Vail (on Adventure Ridge, which he didn't bother mentioning), he didn't suggest it at all. Snowmobile tours are available at many resorts and are really popular, especially among vacationers for whom it is an opportunity to experience the beautiful winter backcountry. However, as noted, he wrote about the weird activity of Zorbing and about an as-yet-to-be built zipline (at Heavenly). And he didn't mention snowshoeing either. This fabulous outdoor option, either on-mountain or nearby, is available all across the snowbelt. Easy to learn and easy on the budget, it is a number-one non-ski option. In the expensive world of Peter Greenberg, however, it was number none.
It pains me that travel writers have great credibility issues. Many people believe that travel writers only have favorable words about any travel provider that has given them complimentary transportation, lodging and the like. That perception of travel writing is evidenced in the hot topic raised by the publication of Chuck Thompson's Smile When You're Lying: Confessions of a Rogue Travel Writer and the online responses to reviews of it. Greenberg's piece in such a major outlet as msnbc.com bears every sign of being a payback to resorts that have hosted him and reinforces the perception, compromising the credibility of every travel writer out there. In the end, his errors not only mislead readers but hurt all of us who try to write honestly, objectively and accurately about travel.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
I'll never believe another word that comes out of his mouth when I see him on televsion.
ReplyDeleteHere in Montana we have lots of non-ski activities, but we certainly wouldn't go to Paws Up to play in the snow. Peter obviously didn't talk to anyone here in the Northwest part of the state where the snow is the best in years.
ReplyDeleteCarol - The premise of Greenberg's article was giving suggestions for things that non-skiers could do at a ski resort, and even if Paws Up were crotch-deep in snow throughout the winter, it's about 50 miles to Montana Snowbowl and even farther from Whitefish, the next closest decent-sized mountain. It taxes credibility to think that anyone would stay at the luxurious Resort at Paws Up and drive a 100-mile roundtrip to Snowbowl just so the non-skier in the group could go cross-country skiing!
ReplyDeleteWhat a jerk!
ReplyDeleteI live in Colorado Springs and I wondered about the Broadmoor when I read the article MSNBC.com. Then I found this and it explains a lot. A long time ago, there was a small Broadmoor ski area up on Pikes Peak but it was mainly a local area for skiers from the Springs. But hardly anybody ever came here for a ski vacation.
ReplyDeleteLorrayne
He sure is a jerk. He stayed at hotel where I work and was a very hi maintainance guest. The manager said we had to be super nice to him. I won't say which hotel or where it is because I'd get fired if they ever found out. After he checked out I told my mother about him. She watches the Today show and belongs to AARP. She gets their magazine and goes on their Website. She saw that he is their travel expert. She didn't notice that before but she remembered what I told her about him. So I started googling Peter Greenberg and found this blog. I am glad someone else knows what he's like.
ReplyDeleteDo you people have something against Peter Greenburg? We watch him on television and he's given a lot of good travel tips. So have you on this Travel Babel blog. Thank you for those. Jim and Gloria
ReplyDeleteNo, Jim and Gloria, I don't have it out for Peter Greenberg (I can't speak for anyone else who has commented here). In fact, I've heard him speak in person, and he is a charming and engaging speaker. However, the multiply flawed article on msnbc.com has opened a yawning credibility gap for me. I know a lot about the subject that he was writing about -- and he seemingly knows nothing and didn't bother educating himself. I now begin to wonder what other travel subjects he has written about and talked about that are also based on no knowledge and, seemingly, no research.
ReplyDeleteTerry commented that she will never trust a word that comes out of his mouth, and frankly, neither will I. The sad truth for travelers is that this blog has only the tiniest fraction of the reach of 'The Today Show,' msnbc.com or AARP, which seems to have recently engaged him. Visitors to this blog (or at least to this particular post)will have been forewarned, but millions of others who indeed view him as a travel expert won't have a clue about his sloppy journalism and his unreliable "facts."
I don't believe Claire "has it out for Greenberg," however in this case the product he created is faulty. I've seen Greenberg at a book reading a few years back. He was amiable enough, however like any "widget," if the product is bad it's fair to bring it to attention.
ReplyDeleteI think this article demonstrates the problem of "blanket" travel writing. MSNBC and plenty of magazines do this via flashy top ten lists and pithy summaries, but each one has little, (or worse inaccurate,) information about each individual place. Those lists and slideshows are fun to read, but almost worthless for deciding on a destination.
But I think this article is a good example of how USEFUL the internet can be for LOCAL planning. In contrast to AAA books and magazines - local blogs, community message boards, and locally written internet resources contain a wealth of information. And they ARE more accurate as they're written by experienced locals rather than one person trying to cover 20 places with limited experience in each.
After I decide on a place or region to visit I always head for the local newspapers, blogs, and boards. Collectively those are the best resources, and are the TRUE insider tip books.
all the best, james...
p.s. A while back the Travel Channel featured some stock footage of penguins frolicking about - during a top 10 ALASKA something or other. Ugh...
I believe that the James who commented here is probably the one who blogs as The Future Gringo (http://www.futuregringo.com/), and his blog features precisely the kind of local view that he commented about here. I look at it often and have a link to it.
ReplyDeleteLocals' views, when accurate are terrific, but there's also an argument to be made for looking at something with a fresh eye because one is not a local. There is, however, no excuse for carelessly written articles that are very inaccurate -- and in my view, the problem is magnified when the reach is as great as msnbc.com.
I'm a health and medical writer, and if anything of mine with that many errors were published, it could really harm someone. A reader might believe the misleading advice and take the wrong OTC medicine, seek the wrong doctor or other health practitioner or even eat the wrong foods. If that happened, my editors would fire me forthwith, and that would be the end of my career in that specialty. My J-school professors emphasized that you can never be too careful. Peter Greenberg was plain careless.
ReplyDeleteIncidentally, someone in my writing group mentioned this post as an example of what not to do. We were all shocked to hear about it, and now that I have read this blog, I'm shocked that he got away with this article.
Really shocking. If I published an article like this, I would stay in bed, hiding under my blankets, in a full-body cringe for a month. And I would hold a grudge against my editor forever.
ReplyDeleteHowever, travel writing has so many credibility problems, I think good comes from incidents like this forcing us to air out our business. (I also found the Worldhum discussion interesting.)
The dividing line between honest vs. dishonest travel writers is not who takes or doesn't take subsidized trips. Most of us who consider ourselves professional travel writers would prefer not to take subsidized trips. However, except for a small percentage of writers, they are a necessity in our marketplace. I no longer to apologize for taking them. You just have to work a lot harder to keep your head on straight and find stories that don't sound like press releases. (I do that with varying degrees of success, I suppose.) Still, ginchy consumer-oriented travel writing has its place. And now and then you get lucky and have a trip provide a genuine experience.
If you get your facts straight, press trips can be particularly good for the kind of broad listing Greenberg tried to produce. He just screwed it up, big time.
I don't read or watch him on any regular basis but I hope this was a one-time, done-on-the-fly-around-the-holidays mess. Most of us try a lot harder. For a freelancer like me, one story like that and I would have trouble getting my next assignment. (I try to limit my errors to one per story, at the very worst.)
The Emperor isn't wearing any clothes, is he.
ReplyDelete