Dane Reynolds made his opinion of Stab's latest feature pretty apparent. Image: MarineLayerProductions.com

Dane Reynolds made his opinion of Stab's latest feature pretty apparent. Image: MarineLayerProductions.com


The Inertia

In June of 2010, General Stanley McChrystal was relieved from his command in the U.S. Military after Rolling Stone published an article featuring McChrystal and his men making openly insolent remarks about the Obama administration. Truth be told, there were probably a stack of reasons behind McChrystal’s dismissal, but that article presented the proverbial last straw. Such is the power of the press. While McChrystal probably regrets his interactions with Rolling Stone reporter, Michael Hastings, it’s difficult to deny that when a small man with a press badge, tape recorder, and notebook observes you for the better part of two weeks, certain truths will surface – for better or worse. And although it’s essentially laughable to draw comparisons with the McChrystal debacle to anything in surf media…I’m doing it. Right now.

A few days ago, I read a small article on Stab Magazine’s website that prophesied the retirement of Dane Reynolds from the ASP World Tour at the end of this season. “Dane tells me why the Pipe Masters will be (sic) almost certainly be his last world tour event, why he feels ‘surfing is in a weird place’ and will bare more of his soul than anyone in his position has ever done before,” writes Stab’s Jed Smith, describing the takeaways from a three-hour interview with Reynolds.

“Bummer,” I thought. What a loss for the World Tour.

Then a funny thing happened. Apparently, Dane didn’t appreciate the fact that Stab chose to leverage his indecision about the World Tour to sell magazines, and felt compelled to say so on his blog. Below a handwritten note featured on Marine Layer Productions reading, “Stab = Sensationalistic Scummy Journalism,” Reynolds penned the following defense:

“Sure, this has been on my mind a lot the past few years. it’s not cause the tour aint rad or i don’t like competing, it’s simply wondering what climbing up and down the ratings for the next 10 years of my life is going to benefit. It’s a serious commitment doing the tour for a whole year. that’s 8 months of it right there. i just wonder if i could be doing something more personally fulfilling with that time. i’ve never made a decision and i enjoy going to every event and it’s a shame that Stab wants to exploit me in this way to sell magazines. surely in their article i say some critical things, because for some god forsaken reason i have trouble not saying whats on my mind when a sports writer provokes it, but at this point in time i’ll save my harshest criticism for Stab because this was a sleazy way to advertise they’re upcoming issue. (sic)”

Sleazy? Maybe. Stab’s done sleazier. Like kicking off an issue with Hitler’s Mein Kampf or running a feature with Dion Agius chugging bottles of liquor while driving a Porsche. That’s sleazy. Aside from a relatively groundbreaking feature on gay surfer Matt Branson and several imaginative and bold pieces that defy surf media norms, I have little to say in their defense. And Smith, the same writer who referred to Jamaican surfer, Icah Wilmot, as a Negro in a sarcastic article about the fall of white supremacy in professional surfing, does little to substantiate his credibility as a journalist, but interviews are usually strong indicators of truth. They’re “quotations” from a firsthand source, right? “Right?”

So that brings us to today.

Unless Dane Reynolds, in fact, did not tell Jed Smith that the 2010 Pipeline Masters will most likely be his last event on the World Tour during the course of a three-hour, recorded interview, it seems unfair to call Smith’s article an act of “scummy, sensationalistic journalism,” or even to lament it as exploitation. I’d argue that allowing companies to place pictures of your head next to pairs of striped boardshorts is far more exploitative than printing a direct quote from a conversation that (by definition) will be published. Of course, as Stab’s track record has proven, I may be giving them too much credit. It’s feasible that Reynolds told Smith nothing of the sort, and if that’s the case, such an irresponsible misrepresentation deserves criticism, and I applaud Reynolds for using resources available to him to speak his mind.

But for some strange reason – mostly because Dane never denies the fact that he made such claims – I suspect that’s not the case. And as such, it’s feeling quite McChrystalish. Especially after reading Surfing Magazine’s take.

The following day, Surfing’s Travis Ferre posted a cryptic piece entitled From the Editor: Dane Was Afraid of This that neither confirms nor denies the Stab article’s premise, but instead offers this email exchange between Reynolds and Ferre: “‘I’d prefer if you didn’t run it,’ [Dane] told me…. ‘I don’t have a good feeling about that one.’ And all I can really tell you at this point is that we’re not going to run the piece.”

Travis is a nice guy. I’ve worked alongside him, surfed with him, and I like him, but I can’t help but recall a quote from Matt Taibbi regarding the McChrystal debacle when thinking about this interaction. It goes something like this:

“Hey assholes: you do not work for the people you’re covering!”

Excuse Taibbi’s French, but a simple quote from Dane regarding his intentions – not how he feels about what should be published – would put the issue to rest much more effectively than highlighting Dane’s ability to influence editorial decisions. Ferre’s piece actually reads a lot like longtime war correspondents’ reaction to the McChrystal debacle: sympathetic towards the General and dismissive of the journalist.  Complacent war reporters called Hastings’ article egregious, but, in reality, they felt threatened by Hastings’ willingness to…well…report.

And therein lies possibly the greatest offense in this situation: Reynolds referred to the charade that is surf media as journalism. It’s fun, and it earns free surf trips. But very rarely is it journalism.

By my estimation, journalism is man’s exhaustive pursuit and dissemination of the truth. It takes into account facts, figures, context, and conflicting perspectives as it distills complex events down to their essence.[1] Inherently, it has flaws and inaccuracies. Inherently, it is exploitative, and it usually conflicts with somebody’s interests.

Alternatively, surf media does not. Unlike the truth, surf media usually serves everyone’s best interest, which gets to the heart of Dane’s gripe: in this instance, the truth did not serve him, and instead of filing complaints against more powerful forces who have undoubtedly exploited his image over the years, he chose a more dispensable outlet, and strengthened his authority over the rest of the pack in the process. Because, let’s face it, no self-respecting surfer (or surf writer) wants to get called out by Dane Reynolds. (Gulp.)

Which explains Surfing’s unsolicited, kowtowing response. “We’re all on the same team, right?” Matt Taibbi could’ve delivered his message more politely, but it stands: “You do not work for the people you’re covering.” Dane doesn’t need an editor to clarify or champion his direct quotations. He’s got himself (and his management) for that.

Regarding Dane Reynolds’ future on the World Tour, the issue that incited this catty little spat: Reynolds’ manager told me that he is unavailable for comment, and has yet to make a decision about competing next year.

Bummer.

So we’re back to speculative square one, and a singular, undying truth – one that Dane Reynolds and Stanley McChrystal can surely verify: Be careful what you tell reporters. It might just end up in print.


[1] In case you were wondering, this isn’t journalism. It’s an opinion.


  • Fred H

    Great article. It serves to remind us of how incestuous the surf “industry” is, when the forums that cover the pros are dependent on the same sponsors and manufacturers who outfit those pros. It reminds me of an article a couple of years ago by a writer (forgive me, I’ve forgotten his name) who was detailed by a major mag to accompany 4 or 5 young hell-raisers to Fernando de Noronho. The waves were bad and the surfers got drunk half the time and spent an hour or so each day taking off into close-outs to get some images for the mag. The writer, who was supposed to “document” the trip, was so disgusted with the surfers and the situation that he took off into the hills, met some locals and wrote about them, and then wrote the truth of the trip for another mag. He was a major writer, so one assumes he had the bona fides to pull that off, but it’s easy to understand how a young writer trying to make his way might just write the trip up as if it had happened according to the plans. So even the so-called journalists are, in a way, instruments of the sponsors.

    • Kimball Taylor

      In an effort at full disclosure, I am the writer of the Fernando de Noronha piece described above. I mention this because I’d also like to point out “full disclosure” as a pillar of journalistic integrity—something Zach Weisberg should have been mindful of in this instance.

      I’m referring Weisberg’s reporting on another Stab magazine bombshell—when one of their reporters baited Mick Fanning into anti-Semitic remarks. Weisberg wrote a piece about the controversy for Surfermag.com. It drew commentary from important people in the surf world, and looked to be a healthy conversation until an advertiser complained to Surfer magazine, and Weisberg was forced to take the story down.

      To his credit, Weisberg left the magazine shortly afterward, but the institutional cover-ups performed by the surf magazines on a monthly basis, and Weisberg’s direct knowledge of these practices, should have been mentioned here. —Kimball Taylor

      • Zach

        Thanks for the input regarding disclosure, Kimball. To clarify, although that piece was removed from Surfer’s site, I refused to delete it.

        Otherwise, I think you make a solid point that will be addressed with the attention it deserves later. This particular opinion piece didn’t seem like the appropriate place.

        Also worth noting is this story’s footnote.

      • Zach
  • theman

    droppin’ bombs

  • Pingback: World Spinner

  • http://www.mattbauerdesign.com MBauer

    I don’t usually like to read, rather look at pictures and doodles but I like I’m reading. Keep it up wordsmith!

  • Bill Rosenblatt

    Excellent perspective on “surf journalism”. The marriage of surf/clothing lifestyle corporations,
    professional surfing, and most of the “surf media” has created something akin to Rupert Murdoch
    owning media outlets that espouse, promote, and financially support his political philosophy while
    at the same time posing as legitimate news outlets.

  • stuu

    Very well done. Chris Cote would choke at the thought of having to write a mag without brooperation from the pros…

  • Pingback: Surf Media: Living the Dream? | TheInertia.com

  • Pingback: Surfing in 2010: The Good, Bad, and Ugly | TheInertia.com

  • effer

    A journalist spouting out “dont trust journalist’s”?
    You sound like a bible bashing boy scout chatting about the naughty boys doing interesting shit…
    Stab and Smith provide surf journalism that makes you think, makes you annoyed, makes you laugh. 
    It breaks away from the other generic rubbish that often reads and plays like a fox news presentation crossed with bogan shite.
    Read more.

    • Steven

      You realize that this article defends Jed Smith and his piece about Dane, right? If anyone is called out – it’s Dane Reynolds (who made that graphic above the story) and Surfing Magazine. And you and Dane made same mistake: they’re not journalists

  • VTA

    Ha!!! Well as we see now, we can tel it was true. 

  • Gorik Badinskas

    But now you count the very same journalist you attacked as one of your contributors?

    Please make sense of that one to me Mr. Wiseburguer…