Back on February 4, I posted an article linking out to a story published by National Geographic that examined the claims and accomplishments of Colin O'Brady, the American adventurer who skied across Antarctica in 2018 and early 2019. Nat Geo's story-written by Aaron Teasdale-was entitled " The Problem with Colin O'Brady, " and was quite critical of O'Brady on a number of fronts, including the possibility that he exaggerated elements of his story, failed to recognize previous expeditions that were longer and more difficult, and outright fabricating certain items. The piece paints him in a highly negative light, indicating that he is a self-aggrandizing person more interested in fame and fortune than outright telling the truth. Now, ten days after the initial story was first published, O'Brady has responded to the article directly and is demanding a full retraction.
On his website, O'Brady has shared the full letter that he has sent to Susan Goldberg, the Editor in Chief of National Geographic. In that letter, he responds directly to some of the biggest claims that the published article made against him, most notably the use of a road in his crossing of the Antarctic, which he says was part of the plan all along and not something that he tried to hide. O'Brady also indicates that his route was acknowledged by other polar explorers ahead of time, giving him the thumbs up to proceed. He goes on to defend his description of a section of the route that he says was labeled as a "no rescue zone," despite the fact that other Antarctic explorers have gone on the record saying that simply isn't the case.
As the letter continues, Colin points to two quotes from his book that he says were taken from two different pages, and referencing different topics, but were cobbled together to make him look bad. He even contends that he has only had one "meaningful" conversation with Teasdale, which took place over a year ago. Two subsequent phone calls were short and at a point where-according to O'Brady-he couldn't take the time to talk. That's a different tale than the one in the article, which says the Antarctic adventurer stopped taking the writers calls at some point.
In total, the response that O'Brady has put together is 16 pages in length and attempts to address many of the major issues raised by Nat Geo. This document was also posted to Colin's website in .pdf format and can be accessed here. In it, you'll find all kinds of links and references that were meticulously put together to help defend his case. Essentially, he is offering his side of the story for those who are willing to weigh the perspectives of both sides.
Originally, O'Brady had intended to ask for changes to the article that he felt were inaccurate. Now, he's calling for a full retraction, claiming that the journalist involved didn't do his full diligence in researching the story nor did a fact checker reach out to confirm anything in the article.
Personally, I'm still sorting through the response and examining what O'Brady has to offer. Right now, this is starting to feel like a he-said, he-said situation, with readers left to decide for themselves who to believe. In some cases, from what I've seen, O'Brady has a few points. In others, he doesn't adequately address the questions at hand. In the end, the court of public decision will probably eventually decide. Generally speaking, the vast majority of "mainstream" individuals have a highly favorable view of O'Brady, not knowing the intricacies of the situation. Meanwhile, those in the adventure community seem to take a dim view of his claims.
Something tells me, we probably haven't heard the last of this story.
