Photo: Lisa Brewster
Ego and ethics are important points of the discussion. But would the environment have been important if an onlooker hadn’t brought it up?
The latest twitstorm blew through the travel writing universe over the weekend, leaving the blogosphere breathless–but certainly not speechless–over the quantity and quality of mudslinging that can be done in 140 characters.
I daresay the majority of us following the #followmeatsea hashtag on Saturday and Sunday didn’t give a damn about the spa treatments, fruity drinks, or lavish meals that bloggers on the Princess Cruise Twitter press trip were enjoying and then thumb-diddling about online. I mean, really: who wants to hear about someone else’s free trip while they’re sitting at home up north, slogging away at work? I’m just saying.
As several of us following the twitstorm admitted, we couldn’t look away. Some colleagues even suggested we all go make some popcorn and pull up a virtual chair in this online theater.
The twitstorm was about this: A travel blogger following the hashtag from home raised the issue of the environmental impact of cruise ships. Unfortunately, her phrasing was charged with a certain holier-than-thou tone. What ensued was an hours-long joust of keyboards between said blogger and the bloggers on the cruise, tempered with an occasional observation from those of us on the sidelines.
Before long, the whole exchange–which could have been an excellent opportunity for thoughtful discussion–devolved into a mutually defensive and embarrassingly immature display in which each party clearly wanted to have the final say.
In the midst of the storm, a couple of bloggers on the trip declared they’d speak to cruise ship representatives in order to provide a definitive answer about the environmental impact of cruise liners. They tweeted about their 5.5 hour tour of the ship, remarked about the GPFs (gallons per flush) of cruise toilets (”better than home!”), and insisted that “NO SOLID WASTE [read: poop] goes off a cruise ship!” Princess even, reportedly, “turns its old cooking oil into biofuel.”
Some onlookers were content, saying they “can’t wait to hear the REAL enivronmental facts” from the bloggers who were determined to resolve the matter once and for all.
All of which is well and good, I guess, but the whole exchange leaves me with a few questions:
*Is a 5.5 hour tour of the cruise ship led by people who clearly have a stake in presenting the ship in the best light really going to produce compelling evidence about the “REAL environmental impact” of cruising?
*Were any of the bloggers on the trip concerned about the environmental impact of cruise liners before the issue was raised by someone who wasn’t on the trip?
*Should travel writers care, ultimately, about their own environmental impact?
*And if the answer to that question is yes, how do we figure out what our true environmental impact is?
As I’ve written elsewhere, I’m not opposed to press trips. I’m not envious of the bloggers on this trip–I’ve never been interested in going on a cruise. I wouldn’t have been the least bit interested in #followmeatsea if it hadn’t turned into a disturbing yet fascinating real-time case study about the intersection of comped travel, social media, and environmental issues. Were any of the bloggers on this trip concerned about the environmental footprint of the trip before they eagerly signed on to cruise around the Caribbean on Princess’ dime?
Should travel writers care about their environmental impact? Should travelers?
My own opinion is an unequivocal yes. What’s yours? I hope you’ll share it–politely, please–in the comments.
Community Connection:
Missed the other recent twitstorm about travel writing ethics? You can read all about it here.
About the Author
Related Posts
58 Comments... join the discussion!
-
-
Yes, absolutely. Unfortunately so much of traditional traveling–road trips, RVs, airplanes and, I bet, even cruise ships–are horrible for the environment. It would seem travel writing and environmental protection are at odds in many cases. Which really sucks.
↵ -
Definitely. I think not only travel writers but even airline and cruise pilots (crazy as it sounds) can all help by thinking deeply about environmental issues and acting where possible – e.g. campaigning on a general level for eco-friendly changes as well as looking at their own footprint.
↵ -
“If you think you are too small to be effective, you have never been in the dark with a mosquito.” Betty Reese
Thank you Julie! I don’t agree with everything said here, but still think this is one of the best and most honest posts on this topic. These kind of points were exactly what I was trying to point out! I wish I could have been as clear! (I don’t have the years of training,writing and editing that you have, I am just a traveler and citizen journalist.)
I also agree 100% with Ian that travel writers are ” in a unique opportunity to use their access to urge travel providers (and readers) to go greener.”
Perhaps my passion (based on what we have seen first hand by spending months in many famous cruise ports) gets in my way of expressing it perfectly, but just on principal, I felt someone had to speak up.I wasn’t writing from home BTW, but Barcelona on my own family world journey (with a serious injury of paralyzed dominant arm/hand at the moment that impacts).
Unlike most travel writers, we are constantly traveling and lucky enough to travel to where ever we want and I can write (or not write) whatever I want. I don’t have to make a living off travel writing or photography, and do it mostly to serve others.
Thus that gives me greater freedom to speak my mind without any constraints. No one else was stepping up to the plate on Twitter, so I felt I must, even though it was sticking my neck out to do so. MANY in my stream supported me. Sometimes one has to have courage and jump in even if you don’t have the skills to do it perfectly!
It’s not about holier than thou, nor am I against press trips or any of the bloggers/tweeters on the trip (most have been highly respected friends for years). I have seen too many of these PR blitzes that misinform and just could not stomach one more. Someone had to be the voice for the other side and no one was until I brought a little reality to the twitterthon.
Should travel writers care about their environmental impact? ABSOLUTELY!
It truly breaks my heart that the community doesn’t do more to help educate the public about sustainable travel.
Yes , “comped travel, social media, and environmental issues” IS the triad that must be talked about!
“Were any of the bloggers on this trip concerned about the environmental footprint of the trip before they eagerly signed on to cruise around the Caribbean on Princess’ dime?”
Based on their tweets to me before the trip started many seemed to say that Mega-cruising was equally green to walking and “everything pollutes”. There was a big campaign of threats and actions publicly and via e-mails/DM’s to silence me and “punish” me for daring to bring up the deep eco issues or say that twethics had an impact..
A while ago, one blogger/travel writer on the trip once chastised another travel blogger in a comment about a mega-cruise and how bad for the environment they were. I also commented and was glad to see someone else helping to enlighten the public.
Sad to say, soon this same chastising travel blogger/writer was offered a free Mega cruise and she completely forgot her real views. Suddenly her Twitter stream was filled with glowing remarks about cruises and butt-kissing tweets to Mega-cruise Industry Twitteri.Soon she was doing more free Mega-cruises and hides her passion about what she knows about the environmental harm. Sigh.
I have seen this type of thing repeatedly!
Thanks for adding to this important topic!
You have enemies? Good. That means you’ve stood up for something, sometime in your life. – Churchill
↵ -
While I do agree with what you’re saying here, Julie, there does seem to be a fair amount of hypocrisy and hysteria around this issue. It’s not as if sending a group of bloggers out on the high seas is breaking the story on cruise ships’ environmental record. This was a social-media own goal on behalf of the PR folks, but beyond that it feel like a storm in a 100,000-ton teacup.
↵ -
I don’t think every traveler nor every traveler writer/blogger should care about the environment in the same way that I do, any more than they should care about any of the other causes or political beliefs that I believe in and support. While i’t’s nice to find a kindred traveling spirit, someone who shares the same values and preferences, the day we make that a requirement for travel or writing is the day we lose a big portion of our individual liberties.
What embarrassed me about the twitter storm was the intolerance shown on both sides of the discussion. It felt like the really ugly side of talk radio/television coming at me on twitter — and from people I knew and expected better of.
There is nothing wrong with caring passionately about the environment and environmental issues. There is nothing wrong with asking tough questions, and refusing to be mollified with the answer is a little too pat. There is nothing wrong with not wanting to follow someone’s idea of a vacation that doesn’t fit with yours. There is, however, something wrong with doing that via personal attacks .
On the other hand, there is nothing wrong with wanting a vacation where you do nothing but lay in the sun and eat tons of food. There is nothing wrong with wanting a pampering spa treatment or to sleep until noon. There is nothing wrong with getting on a an airplane to travel someone, nor any other form of transportation, if it meets your own personal standards. There is, however, something wrong with justifying your choices via personal attacks on someone who feels differently than you.
In our individuality and differences we are better writers and deliverers of information. The twitter debacle seemed to miss that concept.
↵ -
It is nice to see an open approach to the #followmeatsea brouhaha. As some of the other replies have touched on, travel and the environment do a delicate dance. It is hard to find the eco silver lining in an activity that usually begins at the airport (or in a car, bus, RV or yes, a cruise ship). I think many travel providers are trying to green up their operations including cruise lines. It is not an easy task. People like cruises, they are in fact one of the fastest growing segments of the travel industry. People will continue to travel by many means. The environmental initiatives that work best will take this into account. Work with the travel suppliers to green up their operations. Encourage consumers to make educated choices for their travels. People will travel, myself included.
↵ -
Excellent points, Julie, and YES YES YES. We should care. Just like we should care that our dollars (or euros or yen or whatever) are spent as locally as possible. YES.
In defense of those on board, I do think the issue would have come up had it not been brought up from the outside. Not everyone on board is a shill on a bender. Some of those folks are thoughtful travelers with good questions.
Earlier this year, I took an RV trip. Talk about your environmental toxic dump. Whew. I was vanquished by curiosity — as an incurable roadtripper and camper, I had to know what that was like.
Now, I feel like I can talk about the experience with first person authority. I’m not an expert, but I know first hand the fuel costs and the mobility issues and how I felt about that experience. And I can share that feedback with those that ask. That’s part of a travel writer’s job too, isn’t it?
↵ -
Pam-
Thanks for your comments. I absolutely agree with you: as travel writers (at least of travel writers of a certain ilk), we have a responsibility to examine the environmental impact of the modes of transportation we take and the places we stay based on firsthand experience rather than heresay. Often–not surprisingly-it’s only by having those experiences that we can start understanding what kinds of impacts they have. Without having those experiences, we might not even know what kinds of questions we should be asking.
Last year, I stayed at a few different Marriotts, some as part of press trips, some as part of guidebook related writing. I’d long viewed Marriott as “bad,” not the least reason being that when I lived in Puerto Rico, Marriott was accused of trying to take over a public beach (which had, in response, been taken over by locals who set up a tent city there). When I actually started talking with employees–from the doorman to managerial level staff–I learned that Marriott’s actually helped restimulate depressed local economies and has one of the best employee development programs in the industry. As for environmental issues, they may well be doing the best they can as a huge lodging establishment. In certain cities, they’ve been trying out green roofs and retrofitting existing hotels to meet some LEED standards. In the broadest sense of the word “environment,” I was surprised how conscientious Marriott is, and I wouldn’t have known that if I hadn’t gone myself.
I do think that people in other professions should be concerned about their environmental footprint too. You’re right: travel writers shouldn’t be unique in this regard. But given that our work is closely tied to the promotion and, I’d hope, the protection of places, I do think our consideration of environmental impact should be a little bit closer to the surface than it might be for a chef. In this regard, I’m not questioning the integrity of the travel writers on the cruise. I would, though, have liked to seen a more mature and more critical consideration of this environmental issue– and not to take Princess’s claims about its environmentalism at face value.
↵ -
Wow, I can’t believe I missed all that! I think everyone should consider their environmental impact, even when traveling. I think being a travel writer, it’s a bit unavoidable to rack up an environmental footprint, but there are ways to reduce that footprint…I’m sure there has to be, but I wonder if there are any travel writers who not just focus on enviro-friendly lodging/activities/etc. but actually try to reduce their carbon footprint through enviro-friendly travel methods… does anyone know of any writers like this?
↵ -
We do like to single ourselves out as special as travel writers. Should chefs and car manufacturers and that guy with the gas mower that cuts the neighbors lawns and fashion designers care about the environmental impact of their work?
We don’t know which travel writers — not just on this cruise, but ANYWHERE in the world — bought carbon offsets or who is a vegetarian or a hardcore localvore or uses public transit or whatever to mitigate the impact of their travels.
Either we agree that our carbon footprint matters or it doesn’t, and that doesn’t have so much to do with our occupation. I happen to think that yes, we should care, we should ALL care, not just travel writers.
↵ -
>>We do like to single ourselves out as special as travel writers. Should chefs and car manufacturers and that guy with the gas mower that cuts the neighbors lawns and fashion designers care about the environmental impact of their work?
I believe so yes. Definitely.
Chefs have a responsibility to promote sustainable food choices. There’s been a debate raging in London because some chefs have banned bluefin tuna from their kitchens and other chefs refuse to follow suit.
Car manufacturers? For sure! Even more so than travel writers. We need green cars and we need them now. Actually we needed them 20 years ago but now will have to do.
Fashion designers. Yup. Avoiding sweatshop labour and promoting sustainable fabrics like hemp or bamboo should definitely be something that fashion designers consider. Even just by making durable clothing in non-faddish styles, it’s a help. EcoSalon promotes a lot of wonderful eco-fashion designers.
The guy with the gas lawn mower? I have to admit that I have a hard time lecturing someone who earns minimum wage about their responsibilities! I think the people who HIRE the guy with the gas lawn mower should think about what’s sustainable.They could get a pair of wallabies to mow their lawn! http://www.ecosalon.com/let-wallabies-mow-your-lawn/ Or better still, get rid of that thirsty lawn and go for something like a natural meadow that supports insect and bird life, or a paved courtyard that doesn’t require watering.
↵ -
The problem was not that someone brought up the environmental issue. I’d already done this myself for Blog Action Day, before I’d even heard of the #followmeatsea cruise. See: http://www.roamingtales.com/2009/10/15/why-you-should-rethink-that-cruise/ and http://www.roamingtales.com/2009/10/21/help-clean-up-the-cruise-industry/
When people started tweeting about the upcoming cruise and using the #followmeatsea hashtag, quite a few of us asked if the travel writers would also be asking hard questions about the cruise ship’s environmental impact. We also used the #followmeatsea hashtag. This was about a week ago now.
As far as I was concerned, the point was already made and quite a few people on the trip responded that yes they would investigate this further. Nancy D. Brown wrote a great post: http://www.nancydbrown.com/journal/2009/11/5/environmental-impact-of-cruise-ships.html
The problem was that then one person made it her mission to send hundreds of tweets using the #followmeatsea hashtag. Many people thought she went overboard and also, as you say, didn’t appreciate her tone or what they saw as the implication that the people on the trip were unethical or bad travellers. (I’m not commenting publicly on whether she sent too many tweets or used the wrong tone – there’s been enough criticism and defensiveness on both sides).
By the time things blew up on Sunday, this had already been going on for days. There were other tweeters involved early last week, such as myself, but we’d all fallen silent by this point because one person was being so vocal.
I don’t think it’s true to say that nothing would have been written about green issues without the hashtag stalking from one individual. I know for a fact that’s not true.
I do agree with you that there is a limit to what you can learn on a 5 hour tour. I hope everyone is on the alert for greenwash and not just hearing what they want to hear.
I also think that Princess should have gotten involved in the debate and used the hashtag to respond to questions and criticism.
↵ -
Considering world travel is steeply on the rise among most demographics and threatens to wear our most beloved cultural heritage sites into the ground I would say that although it may be the single biggest issue facing modern travelers.
↵ -
Before leaving for the trip, I also spoke with the woman in charge of the Friends of the Earth Cruise Ship Environmental Report Card, as well as other experts, and the Princess environmental department. And before accepting the invitation to go on the cruise, I realized there would be deep concern from many (including me) on the environmental impact of cruising. There’s something to be said for seeing things first hand. And yes, I pretty much have fun wherever I go, and work to share both the good and the bad about travels in all areas I’ve been.
But none of that matters since I didn’t do what I was told, and report on environmental aspects of crusing immediately — as soon as I was instructed to do it by a couple of twitter users seeking attention. Sorry that the whole thing made so many upset, but I prefer to fact-check and get answers, not just try to please my fellow travel writers, or the cruise industry.
On another note, I turn down about 80% of press trips invites received and do not depend on them. So this whole thing has really disappointed me, but it doesn’t mean I won’t still do exactly what I set out to do from the outset, which is write in detail about the topic. And I’ll do it when I’m good and ready.
↵ -
Kim-
Thanks for your comment. It’s really helpful to know the thought process you went through before going on the trip, as well as the research you did beforehand. I look forward to reading the article you write; I hope you’ll drop us a line with the URL when it’s published.
↵ -
Sure thing Julie, will do!
↵ -
I agree with Caitlin.
Julie, I’m sorry but I think you got it wrong. Maybe that’s what it looked like by Saturday, but what really happened is one person (and let’s just name her, Jeanne Dee from SoulTravelers3) and one person alone started spamming a hashtag accusing the travel writers going on the trip of being unable to be objective because this was a press trip. She also repeatedly linked to the same articles over and over again about how cruising is environmentally bad (no one was arguing with that, it was repeating retweeting).
What was so frustrating was that it was never a discussion. If you go look back through the history, you can see repeated attempts by people on the trip, people not on the trip, travel writers in general to respond to Jeanne Dee’s tweets in a proactive way. Then she kept tweeting. At some point you have to say, enough!
This was all before they even left. They couldn’t even get a chance to respond because they had been painted in this light.
You have someone spreading the appearance that these writers don’t care, so much so, that Julie writes this piece.
In fact, there have been several pieces written about what happened and all of them have failed to recognize that this was never about the environmental issue.
It was her trying to paint it as a zero sum game. You’re either against cruises (and by going on one this automatically excludes you) or you’re against her. It became personal because I don’t think anyone knows how to handle this.I privately contacted Jeanne about the conflict and she asked me what to do…
I suggested:
1. Apologize in a sincere manner for her tone (she did apologize before, but it read like sarcasm “I’m so sorry if you were so hurt”).
2. Write a post about her point of view in as much detail as she’d like on her site.
3. Reach out privately to the bloggers who she fought with (esp those who were her friends/associates)
4. Cool it on posting on the hashtag and let folks have a chance to write about the trip.
She did apologize. I don’t know if she reached out to anyone. No blog post. She kept it quiet for about a day. Then she came back again with the started posting again (many of the same links or RT of her previous comments). Every writer on that trip was already aware of her position and they were working on their own pieces to cover it. If they failed to mention the environmental impact, that would be one thing, but after you’ve repeatedly made your position clear, why continue tweeting over and over about the environmental impact? To put pressure? To control the conversation? To aggressively protect her cause? Or just for the thrill of being in the spotlight?
Maybe it’s all of the above. But there also comes a time when you have to give those writers a chance to finish their trip and write about it.
That first week she posted 106 tweets in less than 7 days. She was commenting over 15 times/day.
So how do you handle this situation? I can see why this would be frustrating for those writers, as much as it was for me to read it. She wasn’t honestly using Twitter to communicate, she was using it to bully. If you ignore the bully, it looks like you don’t care. If you engage, you look just as bad. If you try to respond, they’ll escalate until you have to ignore or engage. No one wins.
This won’t be the last time it happens. I think everyone who uses Twitter, especially for press/travel writing trips, should consider how they’d handle someone painting them as a shill, telling everyone that will listen that you’ve sold out before you’ve even begun.
↵ -
Christine-
Thanks for your comment.
I’m not sure we disagree (feel like I’m saying this a lot today)… I’m not defending Jeanne in the least. After scrolling through most of the tweets from Saturday and Sunday, I absolutely agree: her repeated tweeting of the same information and repeated bullying in a holier than thou tone were obnoxious, and the whole exchange devolved remarkably quickly into a pissing contest that was, as I suggested in the subtitle of this article, more about ego and personal feelings than anything else.
What I intended to convey in this article, though, and what I wish people would take away from this whole incident, is for us to all step back and take a look at the question proposed by the article title: Should travel writers be concerned about their environmental impact? It’s a question that’s important whether we’re on press trips funded by a sponsor or whether we’re traveling on our own dime.
There are times–and I think Pam provided an excellent example (and I provided another)–when it’s important to examine a form of travel from the inside out in order to figure out whether our perceptions about it are actually true. I’d like to think that more of us are doing that– or that more of us will do that as a result of this twitstorm.
I’m not interested in the least in questioning or assessing the character, ethics, or interests of any of the bloggers on the trip, though I think it’s really helpful for them to be transparent, as Kim was in her earlier comment, about the thought processes they went through leading up to and during the trip… not because it will provide any of us a basis for judging them, but–again, hopefully–to give us food for thought as we think about our own writing and travel practices.
↵ -
Thanks Christine for setting the record straight on what actually went on. The issue was never the environment, and it would have been brought up by me regardless of the harassment.
About to dock…really looking forward to Honduras!
↵ -
I’m with Ian on being utterly confused about this debacle, so thanks for clarifying, Julie.
I know the issue is about the environmental impact of cruise ships, so not to start a whole different shitstorm, but what about the social justice aspect of cruise ships? While some of them are attempting to “green” their ships, I see little to no work being done about fair wages and workers’ rights on these ships. Considering many travel writers and bloggers attempt to be aware of oppressive tactics toward or within other cultures, I *almost* feel like this is a bigger issue than the environmental aspect. Almost.
This is an aside, but as for the RV argument, I’ll never forget an old manager’s (who also used to work for PANNA and is a true environmentalist) statement about she and her family traveling around the US in an RV for a year: “The amount of energy for three people in an RV vs. living in a house for a year doesn’t even compare. There’s no question we used a ton less.” (They had sold their house).
This is just to say there are many ways we can actually be greener traveling than living at home.
↵ -
Christine-
Yes, you’re right… that’s a whole ‘nother kettle of fish. It’s one that occurred to me, but one I was hesitant to even touch on in this article. In addition to the issue of the social and economic impacts of cruising on cruise ship employees, I’m interested in these impacts on the communities that are ports of call. As someone who once lived in a port city (Old San Juan, Puerto Rico), I know how absolutely dependent small cities can be on cruise ships. During the slow season, many business owners struggled to keep their shops open, as the local economy just couldn’t sustain them. At the same time, I’ve seen firsthand how cruise ships can be damaging to local communities, too— overrunning them with garbage, walking through their communities in a manner that’s utterly inappropriate (half-dressed, for example– no exaggeration; living in OSJ, I saw this every single day).
As Tom said in one of the comments above, people will continue cruising. There are people who prefer this mode of travel, and I’m not passing judgment on them, just as I’m not judging any of the writers who were on this trip. What I’m advocating–regardless of misreadings of the article–is that we all be a little more thoughtful about our travel choices and to think about how our travel decisions affect the environment in the broadest sense of that world. And that thoughtfulness doesn’t have to take away from the fun at all.
↵ -
If everyone were just at least mindful about the situation, we’d all be better off, traveling or not. Too many people are ignorant about how we, directly or indirectly, affect our environment. Education is key.
And yes, of course, everyone should care.
↵ -
I don’t get it.
“Travelers” are by defintion the most affluent of westerners. We use up a tremendous amount of the earths resources, and those of us who catch flights, buy cross country skiis, mountain bikes, road bikes, day packs, travel packs, trekking shoes and Teva sandals and so on and so forth fore ever and ever eating up petroleum in huge gasping gulps should worry about the environment?
People argued about it?
Like discussing pacifism at a chain saw masacre reunion.
↵ -
‘“Travelers” are by defintion the most affluent of westerners.’
Um, excuse me? I think you have vacationers and travelers confused. I would think the most affluent of westerners are those that live in million-dollar homes, drive Land Rovers and BMW M5s, and send their children to private schools.
I might have a pair of Tevas (actually, Chacos), but I’ll own a single pair for years and years. I’ll use my bike instead of driving. What’s wrong with buying things? Simply buying things is not consumerism. The problem is with people needlessly upgrading what they already have every year, and mindlessly buying things at the prompt of a commercial. I don’t think travelers are like that. They can’t be, they’re too busy penny pinching for their next trip.
↵ -
Thanks for this article, Julie. I have felt mystified about the drama. I inadvertently wrote an anti-cruise post on my blog a couple of days ago, not anticipating or aware of the twitter firestorm.
I like to think I’m completely open-minded about all types of travel. However, the environmental impact and ideology behind cruises chafes. I’ll be interested to see more of this conversation develop.
↵ -
Her name isn’t Jeanne. It’s Lisa. What annoyed me and still does is the assumption on her part and on many other people’s part that these bloggers were going to be paid mouth pieces. Who can say that before the trip even started? You don’t know the itinerary or what is going to happen. Maybe there was a day for the environment. Who knows? Then her holier than though attitude about her being the better travel really got to me. Don’t slam a press trip 7 days before it even happens. Moreover, don’t slam the people for being immoral or mouth pieces, especially since most of them are your “friends.” I’ve met many of the bloggers in person….they are honest people. I wouldn’t call them mouth pieces or “bad” travelers.
Yes we should care about the environment but making the assumption that these people will be mouth pieces and that they are eco haters for going on a cruise is just poor form. Cruises do have an environmental impact. But so does flying, driving a car, an RV, etc. If you want to be eco neutral, go die. Being alive takes a toll on the environment. Yes, we should move towards sustainability and reduce the impact of travel on the environment but that doesn’t mean you are a bad person for doing something that isn’t 100% green….b/c nothing is.
A 5.5 hour tour is what you make of it. If you ask the right questions, then yes it can lead to real answers about the environmental impact of a cruise. Of course they have an agenda….but so does greenpeace. The truth lies somewhere in the middle and usually the right questions get to that. I’d rather wait for them to report back then people retweeting stats over and over again. You can get arguments for anything….I mean people still find ways to “disprove” climate change. People yelling about cruises who haven’t been on one and are quoting 10 yr old statistics aren’t people I want to get information from.
↵ -
Matt-
That’s certainly not my assumption, and as I said in the article, the “conversation” devolved into a personality or ego war, rather than an opportunity to really engage the issue in a meaningful way.
“If you want to be eco-neutral, go die” ?? Is that really a constructive comment, Matt? Nobody’s arguing here that any travel is eco-neutral, or that eco-neutrality is even the goal. Honestly, I have a really hard time understanding how so many people are misconstruing this whole situation by saying making comments like yours or the slightly more sophisticated, albeit equally misleading “But they’re not environmental bloggers, so they have no obligation to write about environmental issues.”
I’d hope, that as someone who has as much influence as a travel writer as you do, that you’d engage the question posed by the article with more thoughtfulness. Being concerned about the environment doesn’t mean someone is a stick in the mud and my interest in this article–do I have to say it again?–isn’t to cast judgments of any sort on the people who were on the trip. It was to open a conversation about the responsibilities of travel writers regarding their environmental footprints. Unfortunately, many commenters are still stuck on the personality issues, which is preventing the conversation from being advanced in a meaningful way.
↵ -
Sorry Matt, wrong again!
My legal, given name is Jeanne! I won’t go into all the other ways that you are wrong and misinformed, as others have said it better already!
↵ -
>>Of course they have an agenda….but so does Greenpeace.
True.
>>The truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Sometimes but not always.
>> and usually the right questions get to that.
Hopefully.
↵ -
As some of you know, I am new to cruising and have approached the subject with an open mind and open eyes.
In case any of you missed it, I did write a post asking your thoughts regarding Cruise Ship Environmental Impact, http://bit.ly/r6MQk before I boarded the Crown Princess.
The PR folks at Princess Cruises responded to my questions by arranging an environmental “behind the scenes” tour during our press trip.
↵ -
Hi, Nancy-
Thanks for the information and the link.↵ -
Matt is way off the mark in comparing a car or bike with a cruise ship containing 3000+ people or maybe even more. Matt thinks a car or a bike will have the same impact as a cruise ship at a destination and that the destination will have to handle the same amount of load at one given time. Matt thinks a car or a bike will consume the same amout of fuel or energy as a luxury cruise ship. How wrong. And this logic coming from a supposedly “top” travel writer?
Everything has an environmental impact, the point is avoid the one which has more of an environmental impact. But trust Matt and his ilk to bunch everything under the same roof so that he, and his ilk, can justify the environenta impact of a cruise ship. Out of the mind, really.
The tweets aboard the cruise ship must be wonderful people. No one disagrees with that. The danger many saw was in them ending up glorifying the cruise ships and cruise ship travels. It is easy to be blinded by the luxury, especially the one that is paid for and chaperoned. And Matt, garbage dumped at sea by a cruise ship, amounting to thousands of tons cannot comare to that dumped by 2-3 people traveling by car, or a bike in terms of volume. In the latter, at least it can be picked up. At sea it’ll float away to eternity.
And what’s about your comparison of a cruise ship with Greenpeace?! Just because they both have agendas they get clubbed together? Cruise ship agenda is profit, come which way. Everything be damned in the face of profits. Greenpeace’s agenda is to stop such guys, essentially saying, profit by all means but not at the cost of the environment.
Just because some lunatics “disaprove” climate change does not mean that folks criticizing what’s clearly an environmentally damaging form of travel (cruise ship) are the same as the fomer. Stupid comparisons.
And you think folks on a freebie travel aboard a cruise ship, where they’re probably being pampered like little kings and queens, will report objectively? Even if they could, do you think they are equipped to ask the “right” questions or that they know from experience how good their treatment of sewage is, or whether the cruise sewage treatment facilities are up to the mark? do you think they have good knowledge about the impact on landing ports when cruisers swarm it. When has objectivity come to be associated with freebie travel.
You dnot have to be a thief to know thieving is bad. So you do not have to be on a cruise ship to know that it leaves behind an environmenta issue in its wake.
↵ -
“How wrong. And this logic coming from a supposedly “top” travel writer? ”
EXACTLY!
I can show you tweets from Matt, Kim, Gary, Christine etc all pretending that multiple Mega-cruise ships in tiny popular ports are EQUAL to all travel, even walking and biking. HUH???
That popular travel bloggers could be so uninformed was astonishing! The ol’ “everything is bad for you so it doesn’t matter” rationalization line! Jeesh!
I often hear the same one from parents in Europe who smoke around children. Just because you believe something doesn’t make it fact!
Your points are exactly what I was trying to get across!
↵ -
Soultravelers3:
I would like to see those tweets that you say I sent saying “pretending that multiple Mega-cruise ships in tiny popular ports are EQUAL to all travel”
I never went there. My only issue has been with your tactics.
↵ -
Julie, Matt, Jeanne:
For starters, thanks for calling me a top writer. I’d never give myself a compliment like that but wow…that is great. i’m humbled.
For starters, why do you people keep making the assumption that these bloggers wouldn’t have brought these issues up on their own? The press trip had not even started before people were accusing these people of being eco haters. Who is to say they would be a paid mouth piece and not ask any questions? You don’t. That’s like me calling you a bad human without ever even meeting you. Moreover, who is to say they have too? They write their own blogs and do so because they enjoy it- the only obligation they have is to their readers. Not anyone else. Why not give them the benefit of the doubt and ask them to bring up these issues instead of going “press trip? well, you aren’t going to report it as it really is!” This turned into a you either love the environment and dont go on the cruise or you hate the environment and have no morals.” That is not constructive.
And I never claimed that a megaship and a bike are environmentally equal. The truth is, only when you are dead, do you not hurt the environment. Being alive and doing stuff takes a toll on the environment. Yes, a bike, a car, a coal fired power plant, a cruise ship all have a different eco impact. But they do have an eco impact nonetheless. Instead of just jumping and attacking that “cruise ships are evil” why not let the people report back on what the cruise ship has said and then square that with what eco groups said.
I spent 3 yrs working for the sierra club…I was my state’s energy program manager. I saw a lot of what you were doing with many of the members. They made preformed opinions even without hearing all the facts. You are doing the same. Cruise ships are going green….could they be better? of course! is a megaship good for the environment? not really. Is a car? nope. an rv? nope. Or even flying? no… but companies around the world are going green and we should applaud them for that..,….and push them harder to go even more green.
I find it insulting that you would think I even begun to think a cruise ship was eco neutral. And, Jeanne, you show me the tweets where I say that. I’m saying: a) give these people the benefit of the doubt and let them write then make a comment and b) let’s let them report back before you make decisions.
Like julie said, she had an opinion of Marriot then talked to the people and found something different. She found that Marriot wasn’t as bad as she thought.
Why not give Princess that chance too?
Let’s create a discussion with all parties instead of raising the pitchforks.
↵ -
Julie, you write
“What I intended to convey in this article, though, and what I wish people would take away from this whole incident, is for us to all step back and take a look at the question proposed by the article title: Should travel writers be concerned about their environmental impact? It’s a question that’s important whether we’re on press trips funded by a sponsor or whether we’re traveling on our own dime.”I think the key words might be step back. I’ll admit I am learning about this fracas after the fact, and yes, I think all travelers should be concerned about environmental impact. There are many ways to report on this, to varied audiences. Tackling it on Twitter, maybe not so much other than to suggest longer reports will be forthcoming.
↵ -
Okay, I’ve given my interpretation of what went down with the #followmeatsea debate further up the thread. Now I’ll respond to Julie’s request to engage with the bigger question. My answer is yes: I believe that travel writers should care about their environmental impact.
Why?
I believe that human beings in general should care about their environmental impact, wherever they are and whatever they are doing.
I believe that travellers should have the same concerns as human beings in general. In addition to this, I believe they should care about the impact of their travels on the places they visit.
I believe that travel writers should have the same concerns as human beings in general and travellers in particular. In addition to this, I believe they should care about the impact of their travel writing on the behaviour of other travellers.
The environmental issue is the closest one to my heart, but I also believe that human beings, travellers and travel writers should care about other important issues such as social justice.
This does not mean that every single travel article needs to be about an environmental or social issue. My rule is ‘first, do no harm’. After I’ve thought about whether my travelling or travel writing is inherently harmful and established that it’s not, then I’m free to write about fluff if I want to. There’s nothing wrong with a bit of fun.
And yes, as Matt points out, activity has an impact of some kind. Even if I sat still and ate fallen fruit, every time I breathed out, I’d still be emitting carbon dioxide into the air. I get that. I also don’t think it’s a helpful way of looking at things – if I think about it for too long I either start to feel guilty for being alive or I feel resentful and rebel. It makes me think that if my efforts are never going to be good enough, I may as well not bother, right? I know that is not what Matt was trying to suggest!
I think it’s healthy to think about degrees of harm. It’s about trying to minimise our impact with the choices we make. For example, I choose to fly to Australia to visit my family every year or two. I also choose not to own a car.
I’m not wild about the impact of cruising on the environment and I find it hard to imagine how the mega-ships can ever truly be considered green. But I also think that huge improvements are being made and we should encourage this trend. The QM2 has about a third of the carbon emissions per passenger of the QE2, for example.
Now if only we could get the commercial shipping industry to green up as well – I might have a bone to pick with cruising but I’m not wild about tankers spilling oil in San Francisco Bay either!
↵ -
First of all, let’s end the distinction between traveler, travel writers, and human beings. We’re all human beings, first and foremost.
↵ -
>>First of all, let’s end the distinction between traveler, travel writers, and human beings. We’re all human beings, first and foremost.
Carlo, if you go back and re-read my comment, you will see that this was, in fact, my point!!!
Travellers and travel writers have additional impact and therefore responsibility but this is AS WELL AS (not instead of) the basic responsibilities of every human.
I’m glad you agree with me.
↵ -
Christine,
I wasn’t going to say anything more on this because I don’t want to escalate, but feel I must speak to a few of your points to help clarify. You say you agree with Caitlin, yet I found her comment much more neutral than your perspective.
As Caitlin said “There’s been enough criticism and defensiveness on both sides” and I think “BOTH SIDES” is a key phrase. Just like you said to me in your DM (as you were about to embark on your own press trip) comped travel is a sensitive trigger with travel writers.
And as I told you during that private DM conversation, I was absolutely stunned by the reaction from people I considered friends, people I had helped and collaborated with (like i have with you when you have asked). I had no idea why they were (in my view) misconstruing what I was saying as if it were a personal attack on them.
I was flabbergasted by all the personal attacks on me and others ( who were DMing me about the attacks and punitive actions that were happening to them if they spoke up about the environmental issues or RT’d me).
Even Pam said on Blogher:
“I’m curious about how the PR folks feel about some of the language coming from those on board. You pay for someone to attend your trip and then, they get into a brawl while they’re on it.”
I DID apologize twice before you ever mentioned it and even apologized a third time after speaking to you. My intention was NEVER to hurt anyone, but also to stand up for what I believe based on lots of direct experience in this matter. No one has apologized to me or any of the people who voiced environmental concerns about the mean things said and done.
It is difficult sometimes to communicate in 140 characters and it’s not uncommon to have some confusion trying to discuss deeper issues. Yes, you heard sarcasm in my “I’m so sorry if you were so hurt” yet I had said it from the depths of my heart and meant it sincerely.
I am truly sorry for all the hurt feelings on both sides. I am sorry I could not have done a better job at what I was trying to do. I am sorry this is such a sensitive issue that polarizes, because I think it is an important one that should be discussed. I’m sorry that many like you misunderstood what I was trying to do.
You said; “how cruising is environmentally bad (no one was arguing with that”
But people WERE arguing with the fact that Mega-cruise ships are bad for the environment over and over. Matt did it again here with “If you want to be eco-neutral, go die” which Julie addressed. I’m not going to post all the tweets because it’s silly and the early ones are not even available now on my twitter search.
They were also asking questions about how we travel and accused us of not doing green travel because of all the travel that we do. When I answer back that we happen to travel very green and have extremely low carbon footprint, then they mock and twist that around as being holier than thou.
I actually had stopped tweeting a few times, but then someone would post an accusatory style of questions using the hashtag, so then I’d feel obliged to answer.
We all have very different styles of tweeting & part of the great thing about Twitter is there is no one right way to do it. A person following 10 people will have a very different experience than a person following 100,000. Some people hardly tweet and some tweet heavily. When I am online, I tend to be a very heavy tweeter.
You wrote, “That first week she posted 106 tweets in less than 7 days” which seems very significant to you. One of the bloggers on the ship had over 500 tweets in that hashtag during that same time period. Why didn’t those numbers bother you? Because they were all pro Mega-cruise ship tweets?
Did you count ALL of my tweets during those 7 days (in and out of the hashtag)? That 106 tweets were probably less than 5% of my tweets and more likely around 1%. At the moment my dominant right arm and hand are paralyzed, so there is not much I can do but tweet or swim, so my total volume was up even more than usual.
“why continue tweeting over and over about the environmental impact?” you asked.
My intention was to educate. People often look at a hashtag stream. I did not want a mega-cruise ship to just have ALL positive tweets about how wonderful a cruise is. I wanted some tweets showing that there was another side to the story.
People come to twitter from all over the world, so many like Guy Kawasaki , repeat tweets. It’s a useful style of tweeting as one catches different people at different times.
My tweets were not meant for the writers or cruise lovers, but to inform the public, someone who might not know much about cruises who happens to stop by. I hoped to catch some people on the fence to look a little deeper and I think I did (as some told me so),
I (and many others) OFTEN repeat important tweets with the same links ( which are often RT’d by different people in different time zones). It’s just part of my Twitter style like how I often use hashtags. I have a lot of happy followers, so it’s working for me, but everyone has their own way.
Sheilas said this today on twitter (and it was Rt’d):
“Questioning something is not “hijacking” a hashtag,- civil discussion/disagreement IS possible. Twitter is public forum.”
Travelrants said this during the #followmeatsea discussion:
“but problem with blogging/journo trips is its often one-sided. (positive)”
I’m using their words because I agree with them and no one seemed to have a problem in how they said it, so my way of stepping on eggshells to express my view without offending.
Some of the problem has been “eye of the beholder” and perspective. I’m not passing judgment on people who cruise Megaships (my aunt is one!), just as I’m not judging any of the writers who were on this trip.
Like Julie, what I had wanted to advocate is “that we all be a little more thoughtful about our travel choices and to think about how our travel decisions affect the environment” and our responsibility to educate those who don’t know all the different types of damage the cruise industry does.
.
↵ -
ST3:
I don’t think you’ve clarified, but rather restated your position yet again. You see, this is how you operate. If people don’t agree with you, you’ll post again and again and again until you drown out the other position.
Your response to me: 1120 words. Julie’s original post, just 597 words.
The point about you sending 106 tweets/week: the significance is two-fold, you’re not on the cruise, so comparing yourself against some one who is, is apples/oranges. Secondly, you didn’t have 106 unique tweets but RTs of the same links over and over. This is the part that isn’t a discussion. It’s spamming a hashtag.
You do the same thing with comments. In the 38 comments you’ve left on my blog, how many times have you recited the, “we’re a family on the road # years, # miles # awards” I’ve known you a year and yet you spam my own blog– not talking to me, or addressing the post but copy/pasting a few paragraphs about yourself. That’s fine, I let it go.
If there’s a top 10 list, and you’re not included (which you’re frequently not) you comment saying you should be included and implying that the author doesn’t care about family blogs. (Like this week’s 50 top travel blogs post)
This is what you do. You jump into people hashtags and repost the same links over and over. You comment on people’s blogs to point out your blog. You insist that you should be on every list. It’s always been all about you and your blog.
Right now it’s working for you.
But the same people (like me) who have linked to you, profiled you and generally ignored your obnoxious attention seeking techniques have their eyes open now. Hopefully we’re not the only ones.
You jumped all over some writers before their press trip even began, and accused them of not covering a topic when they hadn’t even picked up a pen yet.
How many words will you have to write to convince me or anyone else that this isn’t about you?
↵ -
Unfortunately, @soultravelers3, your own tweets disagree with your comment here. What you say here is not what you communicated to us on board or to those watching in horror as you harassed us all by sending relentless tweets, some with pointedly slanderous things like:
– “My concern is not w/ travelers who are unaware of greener travel, my concern is w/ travel writers who promote mis-info 4 freebies!”
– “#followmeatsea is a free trip by polluting megaship @PrincessCruises 4 bloggers to do travel porn PR in exchange 4 trip.”
– “What is too vocal? Almost all of my readers have been supportive & no REAL convo would have happened otherwise on”
[Note that not only was that a false and presumptive statement, you also lost hundreds of readers in a couple of days -- many of whom chose to block you. So no, they weren't all supportive.]Not to mention repeatedly tweeting links titled things like:
– “The Scrumptious Lies of Travel Writing”
– “Princess’ Cult of a Cruise”Or selected quotes like:
– “The people will believe what the media tells them they believe.” George Orwell
– “Get your facts first, then you can distort them as you please.” – Mark TwainAnd on and on… Gee, how could we have misunderstood that you only meant to “educate” the masses rather than personally attack us — or just try to attract as much attention to YOURSELF as possible?
You sent exponentially more tweets than most people on board the actual ship (with one exception, who we razzed in person for tweeting so much). Regardless of the average number of tweets on your own stream, you have to realize how that impacted the hashtag — and our perception of your intentions (particularly when coupled with the pointed personal attacks). It was not a simple case of misunderstanding.
In addition, every time me or another user answered a question, you still relentlessly re-tweeted the question (which often involved outdated & sensationalized “facts”), even though it had already been answered. And let’s not forget the tactic of constantly re-tweeting people who unsuspectingly agreed with you off the hashtag (out of context), without realizing you’d add their name to the relentless tweets. They would DM me and others, just horrified.
As Christine says, you did your very best to make this whole thing all about you. And it was quite a spectacle. Very sad for all involved.
↵ -
>>My tweets were not meant for the writers or cruise lovers, but to inform the public, someone who might not know much about cruises who happens to stop by.
Jeanne, I think this might be the root of the problem. I can see your argument that people look at hashtag streams and it’s nice to inject some balance into the debate. I can also see why the writers on the cruise thought it was directed at them.
You know that I largely agree with you on cruising and the environmental issues so I’m sympathetic to what you were trying to do. At the same time, had I been a writer on that cruise, I would have thought and felt that the tweets were directed at me.
↵ -
Soultravelers3 makes the following statement:
“I can show you tweets from Matt, Kim, Gary, Christine etc all pretending that multiple Mega-cruise ships in tiny popular ports are EQUAL to all travel, even walking and biking. HUH???”
This is a bold faced lie.
Notice that she never actually does show the tweets, just says she can. At no point did I ever talk about the environment. I was only talking about her and her abuse and spamming of the hash tag. I think anyone who was following the tag will know the direction in which my comments were directed, and it wasn’t at the cruise industry or the environment.
All my comments were in response at the personal attacks made by ST3 towards me the other people on the cruise. We were accused of bias BEFORE THE CRUISE EVEN STARTED! I have never met ST3, I have never been on a cruise before, I have never been on a media trip before. There was no basis for that sort of attack on my integrity, let alone a blanket attack on everyone on the ship in a public forum.
This was never a debate about the environment. Only in the mind of ST3 was this about the environment. This title of this Matador post is sort of insulting. It is a totally loaded question. Why didn’t you ask about “Should travel writers attack other travel writers in public forums?” or “Should travel writers constantly repeat the same thing over and over in public forums until people are sick of what they are saying?”
I also think the whole “concern about the environment” is pretty disingenuous. She never bothered to write a post on her blog this entire time on the subject. You’d think if you really cared about something you’d write about it on your own website. I guess there is no need to write out a coherent arguments with support for your points when you can just throw 140 character bombs in a public forum.
↵ -
Gary, in fairness to Julie, the article isn’t really about the “conversation” that happened at Twitter. She used that as a launching pad to discuss exactly what the title suggests. The discussion here has devolved into a continuation of the Twitter conversation.
But I think she’d rather have people here commenting on the actual issue at hand (should travel writers care about their environmental impact?), and not defending their stance as to the Twitter debacle.
↵ -
Carlo
I understand from Julie’s follow up comments that she was going after that, but she really cuts the line close in her original article. Her lede:
“Ego and ethics are important points of the discussion. But would the environment have been important if an onlooker hadn’t brought it up?”
So she’s skating the line. I think the question is leading and many people thanked Julie for clarifying what the hubbub was about. Obviously it appeared to others that her piece as an accurate representation of what happened.
I don’t think it’s unreasonable for people to clear up some misconceptions about what actually occurred.
We can be fair to Julie, because I don’t think she meant it that way, but on the other hand I think we need to be fair to the people who have been slandered, both directly and indirectly.
↵ -
Hi Carlo, I wasn’t going to comment again…but um, being a stickler for the facts and all, couldn’t help it. Julie’s title is about the environment, but most of the article is about the conversation on Twitter…even the subtitle includes the question: “would the environment have been important if an onlooker hadn’t brought it up?” (referring to the Twitter conversation).
But as to the bigger question of whether travel writers should care about the environment: Yes of course. Whether attempting to force them into caring or expecting that every one will car is quite another question though. And I appreciate Julie’s position on those topic(s), which she clarified in the comments section (not the original article).
Cheers,
Kim↵ -
Carlo-
Thanks– that’s precisely what I was getting at.
Christine-
I think that for those of us who stepped into the “conversation” in the middle of the fray it was nigh impossible to trace it all the way back to its beginnings–though I spent a good hour or more reading back through the #followmeatsea thread to make sure I *wasn’t* misrepresenting anyone–much less to parse out whether any of these writers had written (as Nancy Brown did) about the topic of cruising and the environment before they went on the trip. What I *did* notice, though, as I was scrolling through the thread was that there wasn’t really a mention of environmental issues before Jeanne raised the subject. There were lots of yummy drinks, powdery beaches, crystalline waters comments…and as one onlooker tweeted, after a while, that’s kind of a yawn. After all, that’s what people expect on a cruise ship, right?
I’m not saying that any of these bloggers should have stepped onto the ship brandishing their Blackberry or iPhone to start tweeting about fecal coliform matter or where cruise ship waste ultimately ends up. And I certainly wasn’t interested in the ego and personality struggles that ensued. What I was interested in–and what the whole notion of a Twitter press cruise raises–is whether it’s time for the members of this profession to talk about our responsibility to the environment. I don’t mean that that conversation is or should be limited to the people on the trip and the defensive responses–not just here but in the blogosphere in general–are fascinating to me.
I really did want this article to be a way to restart that conversation. Instead, in many ways, it’s simply recapitulated the whole twitstorm, which is a shame.
↵ -
Julie,
If it was “nigh impossible to trace it all the way back to its beginnings” then don’t write about.
I seriously have no agenda here. I wasn’t on the cruise, I don’t cruise, I’m an independent traveler, I don’t have a beef with ST3 before this (last month I posted a profile of her on my site) and I’m not inclined to defend any particular blogger. But I did read it from the beginning.
↵ -
>>What I *did* notice, though, as I was scrolling through the thread was that there wasn’t really a mention of environmental issues before Jeanne raised the subject. There were lots of yummy drinks, powdery beaches, crystalline waters comments…
Sorry, Julie, but I think this is only partially accurate. I acknowledge that @soultravelers3 was the first to raise the environmental question specifically in connection to #followmeatsea on Twitter, although she was not the only one.
But all this was several days before the trip actually started, so there had not been any tweets about “yummy drinks, powdery beaches, crystalline waters” at this point.
↵ -
I’m not Julie (obviously), so this is just how I read this. The first half of the article she discusses at length the Twitter incident (for the record, I had no idea what happened there, so this article cleared it up for me too), I would say to give readers a grounding on what it was that spurred her to bring this topic up.
But she spends the good part of the second half asking the questions about the environment and stating her stance, and not just in the comments as Kim suggests (although she dives into much more detail there). She started a discussion with the article, and she continued it in the comments. I just don’t think her intention was to carry the Twitter conversation here.
Again, just my interpretation…I’ll slowly back away now…as you were.
↵ -
I think the reason there is not more discussion on the second half and the question posed in the title is two-fold.
1. It’s not controversial. To most of us here, the answer to the question “should travel writers care about the environmental impact” seems to be: “Yes, of course.”
2. The version of facts given in the summary of the Twitter conversation is not wholly accurate. Like Christine, I don’t have an agenda here either but I did watch it from the beginning. Replaying the Twitter debate here is pointless, and frustrating to see, but setting the record straight on what actually happened is useful. Especially since you and others say you didn’t know much about it and the article “cleared it up for you”.
↵ -
Gary Arndt you say here “At no point did I ever talk about the environment.”
I take these tweets of yours as part of the “pretending” game that tries to imply that Mega-cruisers are not the least sustainable travel method:
@everywheretrip
@soultravelers3 What about population? That is the worst environmental threat of all. I have no kids…@everywheretrip: @davidhfe what about the carbon used the days not flying? The energy isn’t just for moving, it’s also living for a week
@everywheretrip: People who live in a CO2 spewing vehicles should not throw stones #followmeatsea
@everywheretrip: @davidhfe lift and thrust. Land and water transport don’t have to lift
You also said “You’d think if you really cared about something you’d write about it on your own website”
I have MANY times. Check out my posts about our experiences in Capri and Mykonos Town and this one for Earth Day that was very specific to Mega-cruise massive environmental harm:
http://www.soultravelers3.com/2009/04/family-travel-photohappy-earth-day.html
I also wrote about this on Travelrants blog on Impact of travel on the environment :
http://www.travel-rants.com/2009/04/23/earth-day-impact-travel-environment-debate/
There is no reason for name calling and anger. There are no good guys or bad guys, we just disagree.
↵ -
“What I *did* notice, though, as I was scrolling through the thread was that there wasn’t really a mention of environmental issues before Jeanne raised the subject. There were lots of yummy drinks, powdery beaches, crystalline waters comments…and as one onlooker tweeted, after a while, that’s kind of a yawn.”
Yes, Julie, this is accurate.
The conversation can not really move forward unless there is more honesty and less emotional charge and blame game around the THREE issues here: social media,environmental issues and comped travel.
I concede that I am not a perfect person, i could badly use an editor, I do believe everyone should toot there own horn, I can be too passionate and opinionated but one of my greatest attributes is my willingness to speak the truth as I see it even when no one else wants to and even when I will take all kinds of heat for doing that.
I was happy to hear that Chris Elliott also spoke out about the harm of Mega-cruise ship on Gary’s blog. It was interesting to hear how the cruise industry went after him when he wrote about them some years ago.
I concede that travel writers are in a hard position and understand that those who do press trips are very sensitive about it, but I do think it should be discussed.
As Chris said in this great post on the topc:
“But when trips are on the house, even the best journalists find it difficult to offer an objective report. And even if they accurately describe what they see, their experience may not be all that authentic, since they’re often getting red-carpet treatment from hotels, restaurants and travel bureaus seeking good coverage ”
“A story that’s written based on a press trip doesn’t quite have the credibility of one that isn’t,” she says. “A free trip colors the writer’s experience. We want the story to reflect the kind of trip a reader would take. And the more someone else pays for your trip, the less authentic it is.”
http://www.elliott.org/the-travel-critic/can-you-trust-a-travel-writer/
And as the NPR post that Kim talked about that IS very relevent to my mind, it’s not just press trips and it certainly isn’t about the people on that cruise who were good friends until the Twitter blowout happened:
The Scrumptious Lies of Travel Writing
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17804543
This information is even more true today, especially with Twitter and blogs and google making it all part of the record.
It’s also not just happening in travel as this same kind of heated discussion is going on in the mommy blogger community.
What we write and what we tweet has an impact. Not enough people spoke up before we went into Iraq ( and those that did got punished). Nor before the current financial crisis. Yes, money did influence what was written.
No, this is not on the same scale by any means, but the principal is the same. Social media and citizen journalists lets more voices into the conversation. Can’t we move past the drama and get to the essential question and look to more ways that we can make that triad work FOR all of us instead of against us?
↵ -
It’s been a few days since the last post so thought I’d add my 2c now…
Whilst ST3 may have started off as a attempt to make people aware of the environmental impact of cruises, just like some greenpeace campaigns, it went on too much and was more an example of how to successfully take over a twitter conversation using guerilla tactics.
This is not the only website/blog which has featured this twitter fued spilling over, it is getting ugly. It could certainly have been done more tastefully rather than in punk rock fashion getting in everyones face, or in the virtual world – their blogs.
A side note to NomadicMatt – I suspect being alive and planting a tree is more ‘green’ than being in the middle of a cremation, so I totally agree with you that assumptions on people shouldn’t be made
It would have been nice to see how much the environment would have been mentioned if cruises wasn’t attacked so early on, however it’s now become the focus instead of the actual trip itself, and brought much more attention to Princess cruising than they ever hoped for.What was we talking about again? Oh yes, should travel writers care about their envionmental impact?
Yes, but so should everyone, whether you are building eco lodges, running your own cruising company or writing about them both.
↵ -
Phew, I’ll have to think about taking those press trips if I’m expected to save the world as well as write, tweet, video, podcast and photograph it all!
↵ -
I think you hit the point of this article well. We SHOULD be trying to save the world as well as write, tweet, photograph, etc. (or should we?)
↵
