Actually it does matter. like Donini said some time ago: "style matters". Climbing is a type of sport, where we don't have a bunch of referees watching what we really do. So honest reporting is a key. It used to be a golden standard, where after a writeup in Mountain Magazine, there used to be a 3 sentence summary. Now it's blogs and reporting garbage, where the reporting party will always claim "we were misunderstood". This leads to bullshit ascents, like "Golden Lunacy" in Greenland by Kaszlikowski and Kubarska in 2007. The description in magazines (Alpinist, AAJ) made it sound like a fucking unreal epic. The team travelled 80 km by sea kayaks with all the gear and then climbed 2000m route (1500 vertical terrain) on one of the largest cliffs on the planet. The route was graded 5.11d, with a lot of climbing in 5.10 range.This was the report they submitted. But there were enough inconsistencies to trigger Polish Climbing Federation investigation. They actually send a team to repeat the route.
First of all, there was no 80 km kayak odyssey. They chartered a boat and used sea kayaks to cross a 2 km bay to the base of the climb. The climb was indeed almost 2 km, but the crux was not 11d, but more like 10b/c, and the whole route had only 5 real pitches of climbing- the rest was low 5th class, which was either soloed or simul-climbed by the repeating party. No so big epic after all.
In the era of instant media, satellite phones, internet and blogs, we have more Maestries and fewer Doninis. I think pointing out liars is all we have left.
Agreed.