Urban Exploration And The Media: Why? - Continued
So, if youíre not happy doing an interview, the politely decline. Thereís no need for the
aggressive responses as seen from 28dayslater, which only aggravates the whole situation.
But is there still a downside? What of the inaccurate reporting, the unwanted publicity, site
closures and nothing to gain for the explorer? These are often used as arguments against any
involvement with the press, but donít stand up under closer inspection.
Inaccurate reporting: Deal with this by talking to the journalist. Put your point of view across.
Give them the sound-bites and killer quotes. Otherwise they'll only talk to your opponents or simply
look up something inaccurate elsewhere. Problems I've experienced were a bad picture caption (which revealed the location)
and the use of the phrase breaking and entering (although nothing came of it).
Unwanted publicity: The more people who know what an urban explorer is the better in my book.
And anyone with a website who moans about publicity is perhaps somewhat confused: what's your website for?
Closure of sites: Iíve always kept the sites mentioned in interviews anonymous (although watch out
for picture captions which are written by a third party). But, and most often, itís the influx and sheer volume
of urban explorers getting repeatedly caught at sites which closes them.
No tangible gain for the explorer: Rubbish. I was given sole access to Paddock and Rauceby for
interviews. One lead to an interesting tour and write-up, whilst the other lead to the completion of the virtual
asylum. Further coverage has brought many people to this website who wouldnít have known about it and who've tipped
me off about others locations, added to the write-ups and generally made this website more detailed and richer in detail.
In summary, urban exploration has few rules and many guidelines and I've
added a few more here. The bottom line is dealing with the media has its
pros and cons, and I believe it's a personal decision whether to
participate or not. But it's no coincidence the most vehemently opposed
to dealing with the media are the worst represented. Unless you open
your mouths, and put your side of the argument forward, then it'll be written
for you. At least load the dice in your favour. And this is where the attitudes of
the few who run 28dayslater got it so very wrong, and condemned the
entire forum, and perhaps the entire movement, to such an avalanche of
poor and hostile press.