Should this be in the sports section?

I haven't seen The Star in print for a few months. I know Brent Frazee is the outdoors editor and each Sunday in the sports section he usually has a page or two for outdoors stories. During the summer his picks for best fishing areas would run on the agate page once a week.

I don't know if I'd play this in sports, but depending on when it came in, it might have been to late to go in one of the features sections. This guy spoke at the KC Sports show, and it was covered by a sports guy, which is why I think it went in the sports section. Obviously, just because you write sports it doesn't mean what you comeback with has to go in that section.

Can anyone in the coverage area tell us how this played in print? Was it on the front page? Centerpieced? Buried on the inside?

KC's Web site is screwy. When I checked it earlier today, I think this story was the main one. When I went a few minutes ago the top story was NHL scores and standings, now it's a Chiefs story. Granted, I know Web publishing takes some time, and this is probably when things are being updated.

 

I think you're reading that wrong. The "he" in the second half of the sentence is Hillary, not Norgay. Hillary got to the top first, but always said (until Norgay's death) that they arrived together in order to allow his partner to share in the glory.

 

Brent is the outdoors editor, went to an "outdoors" show and came back with his story.

Put it in the Sports section or the Outdoors section. Big whoop.

Hillary's accomplishments of knocking off Everest is News and not sports. If he were topping a 14er in Colorado then it belongs on the outdoors page.

 

Is it just me or does "topping a 14er in Colorado" sound like something that gets you a face-to-face meeting with Chris Hanson?

 

My belief: This is no different than doing a feature on a track kid who has the world's largest stamp collection or a basketball player who has an antique car collection.

He went to an outdoors show (runs in the sports section) and featurized it with a freak. Still mentions the guy's outdoors program or whatever. It's a featurized sports feature-thing.

I'm sure it was on like page 8 or something. Not a big deal.

 

That's because Norgay was first. After Norgay died, no one could dispute Sir Hillary.
It would have been a "He Said, He Said," and one of the "Hes" was dead.

 

I hate to cite Wikipedia, but Norgay apparently said Hillary was first in his own autobigraphy. "If it is a shame to be the second man on Mount Everest, then I will have to live with this shame."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenzing_Norgay

 

But the stamp collection and the car collection do exist, we can see them. We can run a photo of the person with his collection.

Running this story is like writing a story about someone who claims he was abducted by aliens or has a poltergeist in his home. We can do that, but why should we?

 

I read the autobiography.
It is exactly what you expect from a Nepalese Sherpa, a former yak herder who finished his life in relative quiescence.

Now, let me ask you to think critically for a moment:
In 1953, if Edmund Hillary was first, would we have ever heard of a Nepalese Sherpa or would he have become a footnote. An inconsequential Buzz Aldrin?

From the NY Times Hillary obit:

Anyhow, I love this debate.
It's one that has gone on for 55 years, and we're not going to solve it here.
But, especially this week, it was just so one-sided I thought I would leak a bit.
Sorry the tangential threadjack.

 

Well, I think that Norgay became famous partly because there are no pictures of Hillary on the summit, only of Norgay. Hillary claims this was because Norgay didn't know how to work a camera. That sounds kind of flimsy, but I guess it's possible that a Nepalese man wouldn't know how to work a camera in 1953.

The only two guys who know for sure who got there first are dead. Norgay and Hillary both publicly claimed that Hillary was first, so that's all we have to go on. To say that Norgay was in fact first is a fine conspiracy theory, but there's really no proof.

 

It's a DEBATE. Not a conspiracy theory.
Damnit, don't do that to me.

 

Relax. Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not out to get you.