The Creation of Sport Through Social Media

WARNING TO ANYONE WANTING TO VIEW THE CONTENT DESCRIBED: IT IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND FEATURES ACTUAL DISMEMBERMENT.

What is Your Problem: An individual’s effect on the development of rock climbing

How the modern world view sports has shifted from the testing of human dominance in the Roman Colosseum to throwing parties and preparing food for one of the biggest events of the year, the super bowl. Each individual’s definition of what they consider to be a “sport” varies from person to person. Football, baseball, swimming, golf, and even gymnastics has filled media consumer’s screens for decades. However, the increasing democratization of outdoor recreation has introduced a new factor to the sports media world: extreme sports. Extreme sports are usually represented with skiing or snowboarding, but the introduction of indoor climbing gyms has pushed rock climbing into the mainstream, giving the newest generation of athletes the ability to develop the climbing community and define the sport of rock climbing.

Alex Xin is a recreational, indoor rock climber located in the United States. Like the majority of people participating in the sport, he is relatively new and has found Instagram to be a creative tool to share the cool things he is climbing at his local rock gym. Alex owns a climbing Instagram account, @waxbeta, where he has the freedom to post any climbing content without facing repercussions associated with his personal account and identity. His most popular video, referred to as a reel, features a cover photo warning about graphic imagery. The video entails him climbing at his gym on a standard commercial bouldering wall (2022). Bouldering is when a person climbs without a rope but on shorter walls and above thick pads to cushion any falls. Alex reaches the top of his route when he slips off and lands on the mat. Although he landed on his feet, he fell in such a way that not only did he break his ankle, but his foot completely detached from his body. Alex got the whole accident on video, and made the decision to post it on @waxbeta.

Many may see the video and quickly swipe past with a grimace on their face. However, the graphic portrayal of climbing creates a moral dilemma that is detrimental to the development of the sport. The dilemma stems from the fact that climbing is a developing sport. The sport is extremely young, as many climbers define the “turning point” of rising popularity to have started in 2015. Free Solo, a film about the climber Alex Honnold, brought in thousands of interested participants, defining the role of media in the growth of the sport (Posner, 2020). Because the majority of Americans have no experience with climbing, their perspectives and opinions on the sport are purely based on how it is portrayed in the content they consume. Adventure journalists are media professionals that specialize in extreme sports such as rock climbing. As an adventure journalist, I believe it is our duty to portray climbing in such a way as to inspire, motivate, and eventually gain public interest in climbing. The reality of indoor bouldering walls is that they are a lot safer than most people assume; and most injuries occur from people doing dangerous things on the wall. Alex’s video not only portrays climbing in an unrealistic manner, but also solidifies any fear already present in climbers’ and non-climbers’ viewpoints. Alex’s video introduces a detrimental question that may influence the future of the sport: Should adventure journalists share horrific and graphic climbing events on social media, even if it may otherwise deter someone from the sport?

Why Not Follow the Rules: Instagram’s promotion of graphic content

When I was first introduced to Alex’s video, my first thought was “this won’t be up for long”, assuming that Instagram would remove it within the next 24 hours. However, 2 months later, the post is still being circulated throughout the Instagram climbing community. Instagram follows a moderately strict set of community guidelines that protects their users from offensive material. These rules serve as Instagram’s minimal standard code, which is a code of ethics describing a minimal acceptable behavior, or “what not to do” (Black & Roberts, 2022). The mission of their community guidelines is for Instagram to “be an authentic and safe place for inspiration and expression” (Community Guidelines, 2023). The Community Guidelines also lists specified content rules that allow them to legally remove content or ban accounts. One of the most influential rules revolves around posting photos and videos that are suitable for a diverse audience (Community Guidelines, 2023). Despite Alex’s graphic content warning, none of his viewers could have imagined the gory accident they were about to observe, especially the ones that viewed it as “recommended” content within their feed. Not only is such a graphic video not appropriate for underaged users, but to any user not anticipating the content of the video. Instagram later mentions that no posts should glorify self-injury (Community Guidelines, 2023). Although Alex in no way caused his accident on purpose, the external validation given to Alex through Instagram’s algorithm making the video go viral glorifies the graphic and violent content he is posting; instilling a belief that misevaluating risks is socially beneficial.

Contrary to these terms, the post remains up. I have concluded it is due to one of their last rules, pertaining to the support of posting newsworthy events. Instagram claims that a newsworthy event may remain up despite graphic imagery (Community Guidelines, 2023). When applied to Alex’s video, this rule directly contradicts both previous rules and their mission; especially when justifying the video through the Rotary Four-way Test. This test asks four questions used to determine if a decision/action is ethical (Black & Roberts, 2022). Question 1 asks, is it the truth? Although the video is real, Alex’s bio describes his account’s focus to be on strength techniques and educational videos (2022). His most popular video, also the one pinned to the top of his profile, is the video in question. Alex is therefore being both untruthful about his content and misleading his viewers. The second question asks, is it fair to all concerned? The reality of Alex’s video is that it has the ability to scar viewers as well as create a negative biases to the thing he claims to adore. These effects are not fair to his viewers, especially because Alex is profiting on the reactions with likes and follows. The third question is, will it build good-will and better friendships? Inspiring fear and disgust, with a video or not, does not promote an inviting community or the foundations to build relationships through social media. The last question asks, will it be beneficial to all concerned? As the answers to the previous questions indicate, the thousands of viewers subjected to the graphic content greatly outweighs the positive validation Instagram’s algorithm has given Alex. The Rotary Four-way Test provides more evidence as to why adventure journalists should not share horrific and graphic climbing events that may deter someone from the sport on social media.

Who Wins and Who Loses: What is at stake for Alex’s media decision

The rising popularity of social media makes the content and messages shared that much more influential, causing effects that may not have been intentional by the media practitioner. Despite Alex’s climbing injury, Alex is positively affected by the popularity of his reel. Social validation is a key factor in what people post on social media. Validation is attributed to a post’s engagement, such as likes, comments, views, and shares. Instagram provided him with the social validation he consciously or unconsciously aimed for. Alex supports the belief of being positively affected through his post by promoting the video, pinning it to the top of his Instagram profile (2022). Contrary to the media practitioner’s success, there are others who are affected by his video: Alex’s followers, Instagram, The Cliffs Gowanus, the climbing community, adventure journalists, and random viewers of his video.

In addition to Alex, his followers and Instagram are positively influenced by the consumption of his content. The majority of his followers followed him after viewing his video. Although this is a small percentage of the video’s audience, the popularity of the video allowed them to find an account that provided engaging content. Enforcing the community guidelines’ rule on newsworthy content, Instagram gains the one factor that defines the purpose of social media: engagement. Whether people’s reactions are good or bad, more shares, comments, and conversations about the video increases how much people are using the app. If Alex considered the negative effects his video could have on the development of climbing and had not posted it, his followers would have not found his account, and would remain unaffected by their unawareness of Alex’s injury. Instagram would also remain unaffected, since the algorithm would have popularized another newsworthy video that could further their engagement.

Despite having a positive influence on a few Instagram users as well as Instagram itself, the potential lasting negative effects are detrimental in developing an inviting sport. The Cliffs Gowanus is Alex’s local climbing gym, as well as where his injury occurred. Alex’s video not only depicts the gym as an unsafe environment, but scares potential climbers from trying the sport; defeating the purpose of increasing the accessibility of climbing through climbing gyms. Because people’s perceptions of climbing are shaped by what they see in media, the climbing community is greatly affected by Alex’s decision. In contrast with the viewers that found his video entertaining enough to follow @waxbeta, most of the video’s engagement encompassed random viewers who were recommended Alex’s content, unaware of the video’s violent and graphic imagery. The video evokes fear and disgust in viewers, as well as validates existing fears climbers may already have, resulting in the decrease of participation and interest in the sport. Alex’s video renders adventure journalists’ goal of inspiring and motivating people to climb useless, negatively representing the sport they are paid to promote. If Alex were to use the Rotary Four-way Test to reflect on how his video may affect others, his local gym’s participation would continue to increase as the sport grows, and the climbing community would expand with the random viewers who were inspired through positive media produced by adventure journalists; rendering their goal of creating a positive sport environment a success.

What’s it Worth: Responsibility versus achievement

From an outside perspective, Alex’s motivation to capitalize on his gory injury seems obvious. Instagram’s algorithm labeled his post as newsworthy, leading the social platform to spread the video to climbers across the country. The nature of Alex’s injury was so peculiar and unnatural, the odds of it happening, let alone catching the accident on video, were slim to none. No one could question it, not even Alex himself. The video was newsworthy. As the post gains traction in his growing audience, Alex continued to capitalize on the horrific event by participating in actions that could further his engagement, such as pinning the photo to his profile, sharing it to others, and even creating follow-up videos for the chance to grow his following (2022). Alex’s actions display his values clearly: popularity and achievement.

The instant gratification that comes with Instagram likes, comments, and follows, creates a feeling of achievement and satisfies an internal need to be liked. In the world of media creation, engagement is good. The goal of creating climbing content is to gain the interest of viewers and educate audiences about rock climbing. Popularity and achievement are values that define what drives adventure journalists to create the content necessary to the growing sport. Despite Alex’s display of these core values, he forgets the impact that his personal gain could have on the community as a whole. When making the decision to post his content, he failed to acknowledge a few of my personal values: truth, empathy, fairness, and his responsibility as a climbing media producer.

Whether moral or non-moral, values are detrimental in decision making. Individuals judge what values they prioritize based off of specific situations such as Alex’s case (Black & Roberts, 2022). Alex received instant gratification through the heightened engagement on his video, pushing him to prioritize non-moral values such as popularity and achievement, while forgetting crucial moral values, such as truth, empathy, fairness, and responsibility. Alex misleads his audience by labeling his profile as “educational”, conveying his failure to value truth in his decision making. While his engagement increases, he does not consider the short- and long-term effects that his video could have on the individuals who view it. His failure to understand how viewers’ perspectives of the sport are affected and how he negatively portrays the sport shows his lack of empathy. As someone who loves and actively participates in the sport of climbing, it is not fair to ruin the sport for others simply to receive engagement on social media. The responsibility, another key value, of adventure journalists is to foster a welcoming climbing community and promote the growth of the developing sport. Alex made the decision to depict the sport as dangerous and scary, directly contradicting his personal responsibility to promote climbing.

Alex’s decision stems from his values of achievement and popularity, bringing the morality of his decision-making into question. Promoting such a graphic video results in his audiences basing their perspectives of climbing on Alex’s injury; therefore establishing fear and disgust in the thousands of people who saw his content. As an adventure journalist, I would use the Rotary Four-Way Test to conclude that the moral decision is to not compromise the moral values of empathy and responsibility. Alex lets non-moral values such as popularity and achievement cloud the lasting effects he could cause on individuals and the development of the sport.

Who’s Whispering in Your Ear: A flawed moral compass

Along with justification tests such as the Rotary Four-Way Test, schools of philosophy are used as tools to help evaluate the morality of our decisions. Philosophers offer rules or concepts that help followers apply specific thought processes to their own personal situations. In Alex’s case, a moral compass established by a philosophical school could have helped him consider the effects of his post beyond how it would affect him personally.

John Stuart Mill followed in the footsteps of a fellow philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, to develop and grow the school of utilitarianism. Also referred to as consequentialism, utilitarianism focuses on the possible end results of a decision. When making a decision, one should prioritize the benefits of the action outweighing the harms. Mill expands on Bentham’s concept and creates rule utilitarianism. Rule utilitarianism focuses on one rule that is generalized to making decisions in any situation. When making a decision, Mill teaches that the result should produce the greatest balance of good and evil, distributing the good as widely as possible (Black & Roberts, 2022). When applied to Alex’s decision to post his video, Alex would have weighed the personal benefits he receives from the increased engagement on Instagram with how it negatively impacts the climbing community as a whole. With Mill’s perspective, Alex would have concluded that the moral decision is to not post the video.

Taking into consideration the effects of decisions on a community is prioritized in the ethics of care, along with rule utilitarianism. Carol Gilligan provides a feminine perspective to schools of philosophies by offering a moral compass centered around caring for others. Her teachings emphasize the golden rule; treat others the way you want to be treated. Similarly to Mill’s ideologies, the ethics of care focuses on the end results. However, instead of establishing a balance between the harms and benefits of a decision, care ethics prioritizes how a decision could impact others, along with the community as a whole (Black & Roberts, 2022). Making decisions under the ethics of care requires a high level of empathy, directly contrasting Alex’s decision to prioritize the value of achievement over the value of empathy. Gilligan would have advised Alex to make the decision that would result in building a community through compassion and connectedness.

Adventure journalists are responsible for educating and inspiring people to try sports like rock climbing. Both schools of philosophy would provide media practitioners a frame of thinking to conclude that the harms on the climbing community caused by the video outweigh the instant gratification Alex receives from Instagram. To uphold the responsibility of fostering a welcoming environment, Gilligan’s ethics of care would allow Alex to evaluate beyond personal effects and consider how his video may impact the climbing community and the development of the sport. Gilligan’s perspective would be more suitable in determining the morality of Alex’s dilemma compared to rule utilitarianism simply because Mill fails to assess the nuances that come with specific situations (Black & Roberts, 2022). The ethics of care takes into account how new the sport is, while Mill’s perspective is too generalized to apply to the specific circumstances.

How’s Your Decision Going to Look: The morality of Alex’s decision-making

As someone who values empathy, I understand why Alex made the decision to post and capitalize off his graphic video. When using social media, it is hard to gauge the effects of a post as well as how serious the effects may be. Alex could not have predicted who would have seen his video or how popular the video would become. However, Alex should have evaluated how his injury could shape a viewer’s perception of risks in relation to rock climbing. Instagram’s fast-paced design pushed Alex to focus on instant gratification over how his decision impacts others and the community as a whole.

Alex’s situation provides a moral dilemma that is crucial in the development of climbing: should adventure journalists share horrific and graphic climbing events on social media, even if it may otherwise deter someone from the sport? When taking into account Instagram’s community guidelines, the Rotary Four-Way Test, effects on stakeholders, personal values, and the ethics of care, I would decide not to post the graphic content to Instagram. Journalists should only share content if the context is explained, the content is educational to viewers, the context calls for the graphic imagery, and the effects on viewers are taken into account. Every situation offers its own set of nuances that would affect the morality of the decision. In some cases, the content may provide necessary lessons in risk management. For example, if Alex cut out the graphic imagery in his video and turned his content into a lesson on managing risks while indoor climbing, he could have maintained a welcoming climbing community while still receiving external validation.

Overall, it is the duty of the media practitioner to take the time to evaluate the possible benefits and harms their decision may bring onto them and their community. Alex portrayed himself as a credible source of educational content, affecting how transparent he is about the values that drove him to promote his injury. If Alex used tools such as the Rotary Four-Way test or the teachings of John Stuart Mill and Carol Gilligan, he would have anticipated the harmful impact of his video on the climbing community; taken accountability for how his posts affect others; and remembered his responsibility as an adventure journalist to develop the sport of rock climbing.

As a member of the climbing community, I have personally seen how depictions of the sport are crucial to gaining interest and inspiring current climbers. Friends, colleagues, and fellow athletes truly love the sport just as much as I do; causing them to support decisions that positively impact rock climbing’s image and environment. Fellow adventure journalists would agree that engagement is crucial when creating content for social media. However, engagement with graphic content such as Alex’s video would contradict their goal of inspiring and motivating individuals to go out and climb. The people who make up the climbing community know how much happiness the sport can bring to someone. Alex’s focus on personal achievement blocks others from experiencing the sport we love, as well as deterring people from the welcoming community that climbing fosters.

---

Work Cited

Black, J. & Roberts, C. (2022). Doing ethics in media: Theories and practical applications (2nd ed.). Routledge.

Community guidelines (2023). Instagram Help Center.

https://help.instagram.com/477434105621119/?helpref=hc_fnav

Posner, L. (2020). Virtually invincible: The impact of social media presentation on rock climbing. UNLV Thesis, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones. https://digitalscholarship.unlv.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=4949&context=thesesdissertations

Xin, A. [waxbeta]. (2022, December 31). [video]. Instagram.

WARNING TO ANYONE WANTING TO VIEW THE CONTENT DESCRIBED: IT IS EXTREMELY GRAPHIC AND FEATURES ACTUAL DISMEMBERMENT.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/Cm2F3gDsKGS/?igshid=Zjc2ZTc4Nzk%3D