I have to say that this is what I've come to loathe about journalism on the internet. Someone who has personally invested no effort in achieving expertise in an area taking the role of teacher/mentor/commentator in that field. There is a proverb, if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. That said, you can almost certainly take this lack-luster, half-hearted type of journalism to a career at Yahoo. They do so love to publish half-formed and hair-brained ideas under the guise of 'articles', 'news', and 'journalism'.
That said, you know nothing about survival? GREAT you're in the perfect shoes to do some great journalism. Might I recommend:
A) Buy a survival book, read it, and practice it's skills. Do some 'survival experimentation' put yourself in a 'situation' with a support network in case it fails you, and see how well you do. Do you make it through the night/s? Do you make it back? Do you last until help comes? What skills worked? What didn't?
B) Interview EXPERTS, not the internet. Interview SAR teams. Interview people with established reputations as experts in the field of survival. Interview survivors.
C) Take a class or two. Acquire the skills, practice the skills, and then create another situation and test the skills? What works better with more experience since your book/s trials? What skills/tools have you ditched as worthless or impractical? How do you feel now compared to having read the book. Maybe the books and classes both contained the same knowledge/recommendations, but maybe the hands on instruction made the difference. Maybe it didn't?
Now, good luck, and go do some real journalism!
