This is my request to Jerry Kobalenko, the editor of the Explorer’s Web to develop editorial guidelines.
The Explorers Web is known for calling out other explorers for not following the guidelines in the field. Nevertheless they never established or acted upon any set of guidelines themselves. Editorial guidelines are a standard of decency for any respected newspaper or magazine. The following experience makes me post this request:
Jerry commented my achievement:
-No reader would assume that an expedition that aborts its original goal and changes its end point to a much closer place because of problems is "complete," despite covering some arbitrary minimum distance. To aver otherwise is to play the word games that Ash Routen wrote about yesterday concerning land-based Antarctic expeditions. Thank you for pointing out our misunderstanding of when your crew mate was injured. That has been corrected.
I responded to this comment (screenshot):
-The Southern Ocean boundaries are as arbitrary as they can be. You have been confusing them yourself in the past articles. (referring to the Explorers Web mentioning latitude 40S as the Southern Ocean, being literally as incorrect as calling the waters north of Spain the Arctic Ocean).
"Aborts its original goal" as you have phrased it in your response sounds good, please phrase it this way in the headline. Shackleton’s route was not reenacted, I agree on that, you question however the completion of the row on the Southern Ocean. The guidelines regarding distances have been available on the Ocean Rowing Society website for a long time. I am not sure if you ever studied them, but you assume that you know better, so please explain to me what it means to you to complete a row on the Southern Ocean?
After 3 attempts I gave up and messaged Jerry:
-May I ask why you removed my comment?
Jerry responded:
-You commented fairly on our story. I responded with ExplorersWeb’s position. The reader has been served.
I wrote as a response:
-Jerry, but your response opened another theme, where you invalidate a significant part of our achievement. I think it would be fair to allow me to relate to it, and ask you as I attempted on what basis you invalidate it, and define when this achievement would be valid. For now it is just your judgment and it is not enough. Because if you wrap your mind around an attempt to define what it means to complete a row on the Southern Ocean, which is a ring 200nm thick in some areas, you will see how challenging this definition is and probably also come up with minimum distance criteria. And very likely you would conclude it should be the same or smaller than in the Arctic open waters, due to the difficulty level being higher. It is also worth admitting that if you don't want to relate to things which are arbitrary, you should disregard the sheer concept of the Southern Ocean as it is as arbitrary as things can be, and additionally one end of it fluctuates as ice index goes from season to season. And I think it is about being able to defend your statements, not only about the reader being served, because following this logic we could say that the expedition is about the audience being served, not about the validity of the achievement. And I think as you phrased in your post: "aborted its original destination" is a fair headline as a result.
By the way, I changed my post on my website, clarifying that we didn't achieve our goal in terms of retracing the James Caird Voyage.
Jerry never responded.
It is worth noting that previously Jerry asked me to comment another article where guidelines and integrity were addressed.
Update from 16th of February 2023: 2 weeks later The Explorers Web again confuses the boundaries of the Southern Ocean and calls an expedition that reached 59°S and never even entered the Antarctic / Southern Ocean "completed” expedition on the Antarctic Ocean. Additionally The Explorers Web mentions that the Elephant Island is 2000km from the Antarctic Peninsula while in reality it is 140km from the Antarctic Peninsula. I guess The Explorers Web still knows better. Screenshot attached below. I hope by the time you read it they have corrected this.
so I posted the following comment:
the next day the following changes were made to the text, my comment however was removed again:
Here you can read a well written BBC article on the Expedition of Antonio De La Rosa, quite contrary story to the one Jerry chooses regardless of being informed about his lack of understanding it.
Finally I messaged Jerry the following:
I have to say that this is really odd that you, who is always calling other explorers, who is the guardian of integrity, reads my comment, applies (some) corrections that my comment points, and deletes the comment. This is really not a statement of integrity and not a journalism or editorial standard.
Moreover, the article is still wrong. The expedition you are writing about never entered the Southern Ocean / Antarctic Ocean. Why won't you once research where this ocean is located? I am making the same remark for the 5th time. (referring to other articles in the past). This expedition happened on the South Atlantic, reaching 59S before turning north. The whole paragraph and the headline is wrong. It was not a human powered expedition either, but mostly a sailing voyage.
I think it is also a high time to write down the editorial guidelines like all the serious newspapers do.