Question to journalists

[chief wiggum]

Are there any journalists in here? If so, my question is :

Why do you fellas give so much credence to what Dick Smith says all the time ?
Why do you continue to mis report factual events?
Have any of you ever actually flown, say a light twin in a GA environment ?
HAve any of you ever sat down and READ the GA award, or for that matter, the supplemental airlines award ?
and, probably more importantly, have any of you ever sat down and read some of the forums on PPRUNE, and wondered why YOUR take on the events is so markedly different to the views of professionals?


Imagine if we did as half assed a job as you chaps do!... well at least you might have more to report on.
just my two cents worth.

[MoFo]

Chief baby,
I hope you get some replies from our journos. Real journos that is.

But remember there are journos and journos. Would you call, (purely as an example of extremes), giggling fools like Tracey Grimshaw and Melissa Doyle journos? They probably are technically but nobody takes them seriously. I hope journos of some substance reply here.

[Tunguska]

Chief Wiggum.

Journos dont give a rats anal cavity.
Their editors are only interested in sensationalism and selling papers.

Since when does the truth sell?

Before we know it journalists will be confusing stories with facts!!!!

[tsnake]

Chief Wiggum,

To answer the question in the order posed;
1. The professionals with whom I work, and know, do not give Mr Smith any credence but he has a view which, while not necessarily representative of anyone other than himself, is nevertheless news. Therefore he gets his name and sometimes his photo in the paper. I would add that Mr Smith has superb media skills and can create news out of almost anything. It is a skill I have only seen repeated in Richard Branson. By contrast the remainder of the Australian aviation industry is riven by jealousy, petty infighting, turf protection, bastardry, lies, vicious personal attacks (just ask Gaunty) and behaviours more often seen in the playground at the local infants school. Little wonder the media treats such organisations and people with the contempt they deserve.
2. The ongoing problem with dealing with events, such as crashes, is determining just what the facts are. Very few reporters have the benefit of being able to visit crash sites, talk to police, firemen, investigators and eyewitnesses in the time allocated to gather material for a story. Try doing all of the above from a distance of 1000kms with no phone numbers and 15 minutes to file the story. And waiting until the ATSB reports is not an option.
3. Speaking only for myself, yes.
4. No. What's your point? Is there something newsworthy in an industrial award? In my experience there are packed full of jargon and legalese which can only be translated by lawyers in court rooms. Further, very few industrial squabbles get news coverage and those that do usually involve unions with many more members than those representing pilots.
5. Yes, I follow the forums on PPRUNE, some with interest, others only to read the rants and raves of the usual suspects. PPRUNE is primarily a rumours network. Rumours are not news. Verifiable facts are news.

The short answer to your final point is that what makes news depends entirely on the gatherer, the gatherer's point of view, access to witnesses, the play the story may get in the newspaper or bulletin and the competing stories in the news mix. Pilots, in my experience, and I'll add scientists, engineers and doctors to the pool, are vitally interested in every aspect of their profession, it's their job. Journalists can not afford that luxury, their job is to produce a product and compete for public attention.

MoFo
For your information both Ms Grimshaw and Ms Doyle earned their stripes as reporters in the hard schools of Melbourne and the Canberra press gallery respectively. You denegate them unfairly.

[126.7]

Tsnake," In my experience there are packed full of jargon". I think the post is asking for professional journalists. And just to add my two bobs' worth, if you, or anyone else for that matter, are far away without any credible references, phone numbers or insiders to give you the so called facts that you say make news, (not rumours), then how the hell can you inform the public of such events? The answer, if I may answer it for you, is that you cannot without misleading the very public that buy your papers.

You are all your own namesakes, SNAKES.

No harm intended to you personally. This is my opinion, based on actual FACTS that I have witnessed by your "professional" colleagues.

[NAMPS]

Agreed 126.7.


The following statements:

Rumours are not news. Verifiable facts are news.

and

The ongoing problem with dealing with events, such as crashes, is determining just what the facts are. Very few reporters have the benefit of being able to visit crash sites, talk to police, firemen, investigators and eyewitnesses in the time allocated to gather material for a story. Try doing all of the above from a distance of 1000kms with no phone numbers and 15 minutes to file the story. And waiting until the ATSB reports is not an option.

have an inherent inconsistency.

The recent tragic accident near Benalla is a case in point (there are many like it). I read an initial news report that said the accident aircraft was a Navajo.

I guess that the journo must have relied on either a "rumour" or an UNverified fact before submitting the article for publication. In any event, an inaccurate report.

Sounds a lot like shoot now, ask questions later...

[Jenna Talia]

Verifiable facts are news
http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//rotfl.gif

[Binoculars]

I admire tsnake's attempt to reply with a modicum of reason to such loaded questions, since he must have had some idea of the vitriol waiting to be poured forth upon him (or her, as applicable) in the usual style of this forum. Were I a journalist I certainly wouldn't have bothered.

I remember it being 1977 when I first uttered the line that if everything I read in newpapers about my field of expertise appeared to be amateurish crap, how could I not assume everything else in the paper fit the same description? That attitude gave me the warm inner glow of a self-appointed expert who could pick holes in a newspaper article which is, as he said, composed in a limited space of time with limited facts available, and feel great about my specialist knowledge. Following that logic, I presume you all expect journalists for their 60K or whatever per year to have intimate and specialised knowledge of every subject that might ever be likely to warrant a news item? Umm, yeah right, as my kids might say.

Tsnake is quite correct in observing that certain fields take themselves very seriously, pilots being one of them. Unfortunately he is also correct in stating that the general behaviour of the whole aviation industry resorts very quickly and easily to schoolyard bickering. The fact that his reasoned attempt to state his case was immediately shouted down in such a childish fashion lends more strength to his case than the GA industry's.

I have grave problems with tabloid journalism, and I avoid it like the plague. I often wonder how intelligent people can write the crap they are asked to write and still sleep at night. On the other hand, the work of good journalists and their ability to sum up complex issues demanding lots of specialised knowledge as well as they do often amazes me.

So someone called a Cheyenne a Navajo? Well, ding my chimes! May as well read no further; the journalist is clearly a mug! In fact, I would have to ask the critics why they bother reading newspapers at all?

Think how long it would take you to compose a succinct article about a field you are not expert in given the amount of information available after an aircraft crashes.

Beware of high horses, people; you look a bit silly when you fall off them.

[NAMPS]

I presume you all expect journalists for their 60K or whatever per year to have intimate and specialised knowledge of every subject that might ever be likely to warrant a news item?

No, all I want are "the verified facts". As tsnake correctly states, verified facts are news.

A "specialised knowledge" of a journalist in a field the journalist is reporting can (although not always) be dangerous. It is possible that a journo can inadvertently put their "spin" on the facts using their specialised knowledge they hold.

I also have no problem with a report containing no jargon, or describing, for example, an aircraft system in less than precise technical terms, or quoting witnesses verbatim of an event those witnesses saw. A quote is a quote, and is no less a fact than the event itself.

What I do have a problem with is inaccurate FACTS. It undermines the veracity of the whole report - what other facts then, do you take as correct when a stated fact is incorrect?

A report that dogmatically states as fact something that is not correct cannot be "news" by the very definition given by tsnake.

Therefore, binos, your following statement:

So someone called a Cheyenne a Navajo? Well, ding my chimes! May as well read no further; the journalist is clearly a mug! In fact, I would have to ask the critics why they bother reading newspapers at all?

though dripping with sarcasm, has merit.

A journo is a mug when the journalism is sloppy, not because they do not have specialist knowledge.

As you say

I have grave problems with tabloid journalism, and I avoid it like the plague. I often wonder how intelligent people can write the crap they are asked to write and still sleep at night. On the other hand, the work of good journalists and their ability to sum up complex issues demanding lots of specialised knowledge as well as they do often amazes me.

it's just a matter of identifying the good from the bad - which is not that easy.

[Binoculars]

NAMPS, You make several valid points and it is hard to disagree wtih your basic argument. I suppose my point was that if our newspapers contained only verified facts they would be very much thinner than they are now, and many breaking stories that the public demands the right to know about would be reduced to one sentence; "A light aircraft crashed today at XXX. Casualties are unknown."

I think we have to accept that there will be a certain amount of padding, opinion based on limited knowledge and perhaps even mild speculation based on witness interviews and all the other staples of news gathering. While that leaves the door open for the excesses of the tabloids, I think it's a little unfair to tar all journalists with the same brush in such a personal fashion as is often seen here, simply because the journalist concerned is not intimately conversant with technical minutiae.

A fair go, in other words. The main whingers in all probability have even less understanding of a journalist's job than vice versa, but it doesn't stop them complaining bitterly. As in most fields, making the effort to understand the other person's job makes for a better-educated viewpoint and ultimately a system that works better.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Would it not also be correct to say that the papers' sub-editors have a lot to say when it comes to what is printed? Hence even when a journo does do a relatively accurate piece, it may be embellished after its left his/her keyboard. Its therefore not just the writing journalist under fire here.

'If it bleeds, it leads' springs to mind. So if a journo can't put some angle, some point to the story they may end up as a journo who is factually very correct but never in print. (speaking more about the tabloids than respectable broadsheets!)

[dude65]

The main point here is the bending and fabrication of facts. If a TV station sends a reporter to the scene of a story it looks very stupid to cross live to the scene only to have the reporter tell the audience what they already know.

Watch almost any news story on different networks and you'll see what I mean.

The "facts" change. Suddenly a hold up where 30K was stolen becomes a robbery where 40K was stolen. The car was seen doing 160kph. No it wasn't, it was doing 140kph. This is the problem.If they have 30 seconds to fill ,they'll fill it, be it fact or fiction. As any ppruner would know,speculation is an unhealthy pastime. Why then do we as a society tolerate it every night in out living rooms. As far as aviation goes it's open slather. Single engine, landing gear fairure and watch them swarm. If the pilot survives you'll catch it after the weather. If it's fatal it'll lead.

My suggestion:Get Foxtel and watch Mr Ed. A talking horse is a lot less insulting than a preening newsreader. If you want to see real journos watch 4 Corners or Sunday.

NOTE TO ALL JOURNOS: A supermarket price comparison is NOT journalism

[CoodaShooda]

dude
Sadly 4 Corners is no less susceptible to unbalanced reporting than any other current affairs show. Its just a bit more polished in its presentation than those that have a 24 hour turnaround time.

The news media is not about providing accurate information, its about grabbing the entertainment dollar (if commercial) or presenting a particular social viewpoint ( if community owned).

As an earlier poster alluded, a great part of the problem is in the editing, which can turn a finely crafted and deadly accurate but otherwise bland piece into a wildly innacurate but sensational head line.

The owners prefer the latter as sensational sells.

If you want to be educated, try a school or library.
If you want to be entertained, access the news media and play "Spot the Glaring Gaffe".

[takeonme]

i really hate melissa doyle, who cares about tahlia?

[bigfella5]

Well well,
I can't believe the drivel and rubbish posted here in the defence of those carriers and bastions of truth hereunto known as tabloid journalists/media etc.
After being involved in the aftermath of a well known accident from a couple of years ago in Sydney, I can say in no uncertain terms that the vast majority of media types that reported on the accident were nothing more than more than ill informed and brainless grubs.
1. "Ill informed" due to a basic ignorance in regards to all things aviation.
2. "Grubs" because in the rush to get a "story" these pieces of filth resorted to various tactics that ranged from making telephone calls to staff members home phone numbers in the middle of the night to get the "scoop" to (and I'll never forget this low dirtbag!) to essentially threatening to put a bad slant on one of the businesss involved in the sorry affair if he wasn't given an interview giving "something that may be interesting to Joe Brainless of the general public at 6 o'clock" (his words)
The best part was after a long and trying day that commenced at dawn and due to the accident was close to ending after 10 that night....I walk to my car only to find some ugly, brainless,ill mannered, rude,pushy young punk female journalist leaning against my car and on seeing me......demanded....yes demanded an interview!!!!!!
The really maddening thing was that whilst aforesaid person was being told that enough was enough, I noticed she had her mobile phone sitting on her bits and pieces and it was recording our conversation!!!!!!!!!
At that point I lost it just a bit, grabbed the phone and turfed it!
The really funny thing was that her repost was that " YOU GET THAT SOMETIMES!!!"

Nahhhhhhhh................they can't be trusted!

[Chimbu chuckles]

Nup sorry tsnake...EVERY single news article I've ever watched or read that was about something I had intimate knowledge of was about 95% horse****...therefore by logical extension 95% of everything that passes for news is also horse****!

The ONLY part of a news paper/broadcast which might be accurate is the headline...'Plane crashes 10 feared killed'...or 'Shark attack leaves man badly injured'...or "John Howard caught misleading public (again). If you read or listen to the next sentence after that you are reading/listening to ****e!

To my mind the situation got really out of control when 'journalists' became celebrities in their own right.

24 hr 'coverage' as in CNN etc is a major problem imho...it's never 24hrs of news..it's 30 minutes of 'news' repeated 48 times a day....with embelishment where deemed necesary.

I have found I live a much happier and less stressed life by virtually ignoring news broadcasts and only reading news papers if it's the Australian...and only then if I'm in a magnanimous mood.

Bring back James Dibble!!!!

Chuck.

[1DC]

Bigfella 5 is right, the attitude of journalists during accidents and emergencies is a disgrace. I was asked, by a journalist ( who had a contact at the hospital) for the name of a person who drowned just minutes before, I refused to say because next of kin hadn't been informed. The response was that "they are few and the public are millions". The journo then demanded that i tell him before the next newshour, he was ignored but managed to get the name from contacts at the hospital anyway. I have seen a TV cameraman lay down on a beach and film a patch of oil 1 meter long, on the TV news programme the oilpatch had grown to 500 metres, and the story was exaggerated accordingly. The journalist with the camera man searched the rock pools until he found a crab and then threw it in the oil, that was filmed as well.
There is a solution.
All journalists should be given 12 points, everytime they report something that is not correct they are fined 3 points, when they have lost all points they are suspended for a month. That way we only get newspapers etc. for four days and then a month of peace..

[Plas Teek]

Here's something from left field!

Do any airlines actually run courses for journalists?
So everybody gets the story straight?

Or should I take off my rose coloured glasses now:O

Just curious.

And if thay did would journalists go to learn about some aspects of aviation?

[OzExpat]

Every year, around this time, I'm in the UK doing family history research... among other things! :E Anyway, at some stage during each visit, I will be reading a newspaper article from the late 1700s or early to mid 1800s. This was before the days when photographs became common in newspapers, but you wouldn't know it from the way the journalists of the era described the events they were reporting.

Using nothing but words, they could produce a very clear picture of the event in the reader's mind. I found that it was like being there myself! The prose, the turn of phrase and even the now rather dated expressions of the era produced, for me, a clearer idea of the particular event than is seen in newspapers today, even WITH photos.

I think that the media lost a vital component of its' craft when it stopped using real words to describe real events so succintly. :sad: Maybe the reporters were more "worldly" in those days? Or maybe they simply did their homework on each event? They certainly had a control of the English language that we never see these days, more's the pity.

[BrisBoy]

The Australican, Chumbu chuckles!!
For me it would have to be an incredibly magnanimous mood.
As a birthday gift last time round my wife gave me “The Murdoch Archipelago” by Bruce Page. I would recommend it on those days the aforementioned ‘newspaper’ is a little too much to stomach.

When a journalist boards an aircraft he/she as a member of the general public expects the crew to operate that aircraft to the highest possible standards. Is it too much to expect that the same apply when a journalists work is reviewed?

tsnake, it is some time since we last crossed paths in this forum and had the pleasure of exchanging views. Unfortunately now, like then, perhaps we must agree to disagree.
Whilst appreciating the unique pressures associated with journalism I still believe that one principle above all else should be observed. Just as pilots cannot ever compromise on safety, journalist should never compromise on truth.
I have an immense amount of respect for many journalists, and perhaps I could give two examples.
During the invasion and war in Iraq (sometime between “Let’s Roll” and “Mission Accomplished”!) a market was hit by a missile with loss of life and injuries suffered by innocents. The official spin at the time went along the lines that this was an Iraqi missile somehow gone wrong.
Robert Fisk to his credit refused to be ‘embedded’ or report the official line from The Bubble. He went to the market, spoke to the people and recovered pieces of metal from the ordinance. Incredibly he found the serial number of the device and immediately dispelled the official line.
Robert Fisk reported the truth.
The truth may not be what I would like to hear, or match my political persuasion, views, or slant.
However the truth is what I WANT to hear.

John Pilger in his book “A Secret Country” provided an amazing insight into graft and corruption in the chapter on “Mates”. Among the individuals mentioned were some of the lowest scum this earth has ever produced. In the thread where we last debated, an astute respondent accurately observed that had Pilger’s account been any less than completely factual he would have been sued for libel. Abeles, Murdoch, Hawke et al remained uncharacteristically silent.

Many other cases of amazing diligence, such as incalculable hours spent sorting through declassified CIA documents or chasing leads with unimaginable tenacity have led to the truth exposed, but sadly we need to bypass our mainstream media to be aware of this.

Unfortunately, tsnake, far too many Australian journalists instead of pursuing their honourable profession with skill and integrity float like flotsam on the Murdoch tide.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Yet there are times when investigative journalism is to thank for exposing the lies and hypocrisy of government, the cover-ups and so forth a la Woodward and Berstein.

Then, the readership silently nods in agreement that someone is 'keeping the bastards honest'. Now I know that the thread theme is on incident/accident reporting and that my example doesn't bear scrutiny in that context, but I personally would like to balance the opinion of journalist scum with the broader view that art of journalism is stacked with pros and cons.

It is not yet time to burn them all at the stake.

[The Enema Bandit]

Brisboy, you don't believe everything John Pilger writes do you? He is typical of all the left wing journalists. Why are so many journalists so left wing? The so called "stolen generation" has been proved to be a myth and then they give sympathy to all those illegal immigrants who tried to hijack the Tampa. They should have charged the mongrels with piracy.

[oicur12]

Actually, a lot of Pilgers documentry work is quite factual and informative - take a look at his work regarding Cambodia. It was his documentry that stirred the Australian Government, in particular Andrew Peacock, into pressing the wider global community to assist the people of this poor country. (Kampuchea at the time)

My favorite moment with Pilger was the infamous interview with Under Secretary John Bolton on the subject of Iraqi sanctions. Bolton was so "put on the spot" by Pilger pushing for answers that he finally responded with "what are you, a communist". About a decade too late mr Bolton.

Re stolen generation. I suggest you do a little more research. I could put you in touch with some folks in Bachelor that would strongly disagree with you.

[BrisBoy]

Enema,

I gave up thinking in terms of left wing/right wing a long time ago. What I do believe is what can be substantiated. You should not discard what John Pilger writes just because of a preconception any more than I should believe everything he says just because I have found a great deal of fact and reason in his writing in the past.
Remember our CRM training. It’s not who’s right, it’s what’s right.

These forums I feel are an excellent example of argument standing on merit. In the VOR/Dick Smith debate it was easy to cut through self - serving propaganda, erroneous information, diversions and irrelevance. A well reasoned argument backed up by fact shines through every time.
It is the content of a post that counts. If this is applied to the media then you can replace pre - disposed prejudices of left/right with a simple is it true or is it crap.

Over the last fifteen years I have spent a great deal of time living and now just working overseas. I have missed much of what has gone on at home.
I was under the impression that in our history there was a time when young part Aboriginal children were taken from their parents and placed in special purpose institutions or foster homes. As a parent I cannot even begin to imagine how I would feel if this were to happen to me. I also understand that this government practice was not one of malicious intent, however I still believe it occurred.
Enema, you intimate that this is a myth and then just shut up. Just because you say something or a President, Prime Minister or anyone else says something does not necessarily make it correct, or for that matter incorrect.
This is where balanced and accurate journalism is essential.

There are many, many incredible journalists. I have the upmost respect for someone who takes the time and in some instances almost super human effort to report accurately. Some can ride around in humvees getting fed and reporting horse**** whilst others uncover a lie with a serial number.
Unfortunately in far too many cases we have to by pass our mainstream media to find the latter.



PS : Enema, from these pages I gain the impression that the aviation employment scene in Australia is far from healthy. I also know from personal experience that there are many good jobs overseas. I can thoroughly recommend the move for both career advancement and personal development.
Perhaps when it is your turn to be the wop, the wog, the spic, the round eye, the white devil or the mongrel you may just develop a little compassion for the plight of other human beings on this planet.

[The Enema Bandit]

Did I say anything rascist? What pisses me off is all of these illegal immigrants that try and get into this country at the expense of the reffo's waiting in line and doing the right thing. I have no objection to them coming in legally but why should Australian taxpayers have to support those that chose to come here illegally? Particuarly when many are exposed to be economic refugee's such as that family that lost their case in the High Court when it was proved he was a plumber from Pakistan and not from Afghanistan. No, stuff them I say. Let them join the cue.

[Metro Boy]

I have to agree with the Bandit on this.

[Binoculars]

A well reasoned argument backed up by fact shines through every time.

Only those with their eyes open can see the light though, BrisBoy. You're wasting your breath here.

[Pinky the pilot]

The only real contact I had with journos was when I read the report of my prang in PNG in the Port Moresby published Post Courier. Whilst the basic facts, ie there was a crash, were correct the reporter misspelled my name!
What really stands out in my memory is that I was absolutely overjoyed that he had done so!!:ok:

You only live twice. Once when
you're born. Once when
you've looked death in the face.

[Dantruck]

Too many questions to answer easily so, if I may, can I offer a little advice to one and all on the obviously touchy subject of journalists.

First, always remember you are under no obligation to answer a journalist's questions. Likewise you are not required to return their calls, acknowledge their emails or do anything else if you don't want to. If you respond, even to say "no comment" you are choosing to do so. In that case be aware anything you say will be taken down and may well be used against you, etc, etc. DO NOT be concerned that you will appear rude or unhelpful by not responding.

Secondly, ask yourself: does your organisation have an appointed spokesperson, and have employees been given instructions on what to do if approached? If you are that employee I suggest you ask your boss for clear guidance on how to handle media enquiries in the case of, for example, an accident involving one of your aircraft. As an editor I have lost count of the number of genuinely concientious and helpful employees who have been hung out to dry by their employers for telling the truth. Owners and senior managers are very good at inventing rules on talking to journalists just at the moment something goes wrong, and not before.

If anyone has a genuine question about journalists and journalism I will try to answer it here, or via PM if you prefer. Similarly, if you're having a problem with the media I will try to offer you advice...all for free, gratis and for nothing.

Why am I doing this? Well, maybe it will prove to some people in here we are not all a bunch of non-thinking non-caring, ground-huggers

Don't all rush at once

Dan

[AerocatS2A]

...and then they give sympathy to all those illegal immigrants who tried to hijack the Tampa

Illegal immigrants did not try to "hijack" the Tampa, you're welcome to provide evidence that they did.

[chief wiggum]

the remainder of the Australian aviation industry is riven by jealousy, petty infighting, turf protection, bastardry, lies, vicious personal attacks (just ask Gaunty) and behaviours more often seen in the playground at the local infants school. Little wonder the media treats such organisations and people with the contempt they deserve.

Hmmm... sounds like politics... but THEY are given a lot of coverage!

Surely when one gets a group of FOCUSSED, INTELLIGENT individuals into a heated debate, then the argument will be vehement, and reasoned and will eventually be decided on SMALL points and TECHNICALITIES.

I suppose my point was that if our newspapers contained only verified facts they would be very much thinner than they are now, and many breaking stories that the public demands the right to know about would be reduced to one sentence; "A light aircraft crashed today at XXX. Casualties are unknown."

... How about " A light aircarft crashed today at XXX.Casualties are unknown. What IS known, is that the aircraft, a (insert a/c type) had departed XXX at xxx(Time).
The weather here in XXX isGood/Fair/Bad. Police and ATSB crew arrived on the scene recently and have started their investigation.
Rather than uninformed speculation, we will end the report here, but you can see by the photos/video footage, that the aircraft suffered substantial damage and our hopes and prayers go to anyone involved."


Bit more than one line?

Another question wrt DICK SMITH though....

YEs, he is a media manipulist, and yes he has/had the ears of the minister, but surely when SOMETHING is debateable and newsworthy, then there is more than one point of view? WHY then does DICK get MORE spotlight on HIS points of view than the respondant receives when TRYING to reason debate on his diatribe ? IF a NEWSWORTHY item cannot be FAIRLY aired in its allotted time, then either MORE time should be allocated, or the debate NOT aired as a one sided view is NOT real journalism ? but propaganda!

[MAXX]

I worked for a company years ago where we had a pilot leave and a few months later had a crash flying for another company.A local jurno wanted to print a story about the pilot and our company.Our management statement was along the lines of ,the pilot hasnt worked here for several months,however our thoughts and prayers go out to the pilot and family for a speedy recovery.

The jurno in question ignored this and our company name in a photo was on page two with the headline former"our company name" crashes aircraft.The rest of the story was just as beefed up,including our company statement according to the jurno was no comment.If thats not poor journalism i dont know what is.

But what is it they say never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

[Northern Chique]

On some counts I agree with Tsnake, and there are some good journos around, who are a pleasure to read, and research their stories. The average bad, ambulance chasing, story manipulating prat does make the news industry a bit difficult to fathom. The cruelty they so blithely inflict is also difficult to swallow. For instance, the publishing of names prior to immediate relatives being notified of a death or serious accident, implicating a person in a dangerous or criminal act when in fact the situation was innocent, and so on. Trial by media is still very common. The political bias of some media is all too obvious as well. I happily agree folks are entiltled to formulate their own opinions based on facts at hand. Why then are the facts so manipulated from the truth!?!

A good journo is hard to find. We did have a decent one up here in Darwin for a while, but allegedly through his constant insistance that his stories be printed as they were written and not changed for sensationalist purposes, he was encouraged to leave. He was about the only one who would source good will stories about emergency services as well.

Enter the new journo... well heres a new experience... in the middle of a 000 call this journo rings up every couple of minutes over a minor prang while I am try to assist a family doing CPR on their loved one! After a number of "I dont wish to comment"'s, the journo persisted so I passed that journo onto the police sergent who quite happily tore strips off it!

Notable though probably not provable, was the degeneration in police reporting for some weeks thereafter!

The other thing, is why oh why when you ask them to get out of the way at a scene, do they further insist on getting under your feet. The last thing a patient in a car prang needs is a flash going off in their faces. Then to read later in the paper or see on the news a very different account of events. If theyd only waited until the media unit gave them the correct info, theyd be somewhat less embarrassed.

Although I did like the "seige" up the road from my house the other day.... It kept em all tied up for at least 4-5 hours :D