Not really sure why we're having a go at the press here. If you're going to release a photo to news agencies then presumably you're hoping that they will run it because it is eye catching and will attract custom to their publication. However, the clue is in the name. They are
news agencies and, eye catching or not, they're somewhat limited to publishing content with some news value (whether purported or real. Obviously most media use this term very loosely).
The real victim here is the poor bloke at the paper or the agency who had to contrive some bollocks about 7c+ being newsworthy in order that they could justify running the photo (and paying the photographer his commission) at all. The victor is the photographer who made a buck from something that, had the climber and his peers had their way, would have been run under the tantalising banner "Amateur climber goes on holiday and has an average day". Possibly followed by the sub-headline "Local tapas lacks a certain je ne sais quoi".
