PDA

View Full Version : The appalling ignorance of Journalists....


Chairborne 09.00hrs
22nd Nov 2008, 07:12
Well - now you can do something about it:



BBC - Radio 4 - The Radio 4 Audience Panel (http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/news/audience_panel.shtml)




Quote:

We're looking to tap into our audience's experience and knowledge, not just their views and opinions.

We want you to help us cover the news better, by sharing your knowledge and expertise about various subjects.

We'll then take what you tell us, analyse it and distill it, and then pass it on to our reporters and editors who might follow it up with a request for more information, or even an interview, according to what you tell us.

We're starting from the premise that although Radio 4's journalists will always attempt to find the best sources and the best information to tell the stories you hear, there are a lot more of YOU than them.

And because so many of you have good information and insight acquired through your jobs, hobbies, contacts, friendships or life experiences, we can make better radio with your help.

icarus sun
22nd Nov 2008, 07:41
Its the same with most journalists.They are trained to write at school/university. When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts. Most have no idea about what they write about. The problems arise when the readers believe these clowns. For aviation very few come from an aviation background. If there are no people killed no news.

Green Flash
22nd Nov 2008, 10:48
The Rules of Dealing With Journo's

Rule 1
There is no such thing as 'off the record'.

Rule 2
Journo's write for whoever pays them.

Rule 3
There are no other rules.

Jackonicko
22nd Nov 2008, 11:42
GF, IS,

You slag journos off for commenting on things that they know nothing about, and then proceed to demonstrate that you know nothing about journos yourselves.

Icarus:

By tarring all journos with the same broad brush, you make yourself look like a twit, frankly. If you confined your criticism narrowly to the generalist reporters on TV, radio and the tabloids, you'd have a point, but your criticisms are completely awry when it comes to the broadsheets, the specialist TV and radio correspondents, and especially the specialist journos.

They are trained to write at school/university.
Wrong, except insofar as all of us are taught to read and write at school. Very few top flight journos have formal journalistic qualifications or have come from journalism courses. That's especially true in the defence field.

When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts.
Nonsense. We see our job as accurately reporting news, and informing our readers, ideally by distilling and transmitting what the real experts tell us.

Most have no idea about what they write about. For aviation very few come from an aviation background.
Again, nonsense. Most aviation writers have an aviation background, and surprisingly large numbers have aero eng degrees, or some service background.

If there are no people killed no news.
Offensive, inaccurate bol.locks.


Green Flash,

What a lot of tired prejudice!

Rule 1
There is no such thing as 'off the record'.
If we didn't observe 'off the record' we'd soon run out of contacts. This is a game where long term contacts are vital, and you need to make sure that people know that they can tell you things in absolute confidence.

I turn off my recorder and put my pen down whenever asked to do so. What's said then remains between whoever's talking and me.

My notebooks contain these abbreviations

NFP/BO: Not for publication, background only. You don't refer to it at all, it's just in the notebook as background information - helping me to understand, and to put information in context in my own mind.

CHR: Chatham House Rules. "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".

NTBQ: Not to be quoted. I can repeat the 'sense' of what's been said, but not as a direct quote, and not attributing it to a person or post holder.

Non Attrib or NA: Non attributable. Can be quoted, but without naming, describing, or isolating the source in any way.

Attrib to: Attributable using a specific description of the speaker "An industry source said:" perhaps, or a "programme insider", or "a JHC officer said".

EMB: Embargoed until a specific date or milestone. Someone might say: "They're going to stand up X Squadron in March, don't report this until that happens."

Rule 2
Journo's write for whoever pays them.
True, to an extent, but there are people you wouldn't work for, regardless of how much they paid, and there will always be things that you judge should not be written about.

Rule 3
There are no other rules.
Apart from official embargoes, clearance, D-notices, etc.

AIDU
22nd Nov 2008, 12:00
This has bugger all to with Military Aviation, it belongs in Jet Blast. Anyway why should we help the journos get a story?

Don't you just hate it when people interfere with your posts. Smacks of big brother.:mad:

Self Loading Freight
22nd Nov 2008, 12:08
There are also beasts called editors and subeditors, whose jobs includes watching for editorialising and stopping it happening, checking facts and maintaining standards. News journalism isn't blogging or writing stuff on forums.

Also, many news journalists also write opinion pieces, blogs, columns, analyses and other kinds of articles where an opinion is appropriate, so they're aware of the difference. The only personal opinion that is appropriate -- in fact, essential -- in news is that "This is worth telling the readers about". Yes, that does include things that to the experts is no news at all.

Such distinctions matter and are observed, often with some vigour.

Also, journalists hang around places with people who know what's going on, and do try to learn stuff that helps them do their job better - amazingly, I know, some hacks take pride in their work, and not just because everything they do appears in public with their name on it and, these days, is Googleable forever. (How many Ppruners would be comfortable with that as a working practice?).

This includes places like here, where one does tend to be told on a regular basis that one's profession is entirely composed of dangerously incompetent twerps with loaded keyboards and no sense of aim, and it'd be far better if one just went away and left the real men to it. That's usually a good sign that it's worth sticking around!

R

Wensleydale
22nd Nov 2008, 12:11
Jacko,

Try to justify if you wish, but that is the typical journalist response. In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts. I speak from my own experience of stories in the media - the articles rarely mirror my knowledge of the subject, and I have been there!! The result is that although there may be some good facts out there, unless you are in the know then they are difficult to separate from the make-believe and speculation that is added to make the story exciting/sensational/follow the political leanings of the readership.

tucumseh
22nd Nov 2008, 12:36
I’ve only had to brief a journalist once in my career – about a new system designed to enhance aircrew safety. Beforehand, I had all the reservations mentioned but what I did was invite him down to Farnborough to use the system himself and then insisted on having final say on what was published. No problem whatsoever.

The most disturbing aspect of this experience was (a) Why I had to engage the journalist (JDW) in the first place, and (b) Subsequent MoD reaction.

You see, despite Boscombe Down and the Users saying this system was the dogs bolleaux, my ####wit boss and OR (now DEC) wanted it cancelled, despite it being designed to clear a critical operational constraint. Still got the letter from OR telling me I was wasting money. You’ll have to ask them why, but it boiled down to not wanting to upset higher ups who had been saying “no” for many years.

The article was, as usual, read by a certain MP on the Defence Select Committee, or at least his army of researchers, and questions were raised in the House. Basically, wanting to know how much the system cost and why it wasn’t in every aircraft. Good questions, simple answers, but the MoD spin doctors had to have their say and the resulting answer was nonsensical. So much so that the next logical step, addressing the wider fleet, was ditched…… until…..

Fast forward 10 years and the Defence Technology Strategy mentioned the same critical constraint and promises to fund research into how it can be cleared. A quick call to the author telling him the research and development isn’t necessary, as it’s been in service for 10 years. Not interested. Such knowledge would upset the higher ups. Two years on, and MoD have recently issued an Invitation to Tender to….. Research and Develop a “solution” to this problem. Another phone call to the commercial branch. Not interested. Cancellation would make the higher ups look silly.

So, on an aviation forum, where at least some are interested in safety, could someone please tell me who the term “scum” should be aimed at in this example?

Jackonicko
22nd Nov 2008, 12:37
Wensleydale,

Try to criticise if you wish, but that's just a typical ignorant, prejudiced slow-witted twit's response......

Chairborne 09.00hrs
22nd Nov 2008, 13:06
:(

Should I be disappointed that no-one seems to have read my post, or followed the Link?

Much more fun to trot out the old cliches, I suppose....

Flt Lt Mac
22nd Nov 2008, 13:25
And because so many of you have good information and insight acquired through your jobs, hobbies, contacts, friendships or life experiences, we can make better radio with your help.

Well maybe this has something to do with the responses.

The Ministry of Defence has introduced new guidelines to prevent military personnel talking about their experiences as members of the Armed Forces.
Soldiers, sailors and air force members will be prevented from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public or posting on bulletin boards. (Of course due to the high numbers of retired Service personnel on here this won't count).

If Radio 4 need information then they should contact the Media Communications Officer of the Station concerned.

icarus sun
22nd Nov 2008, 13:43
Jackonicko, I used the word most not all. Most people get news from tabloids or TV or Radio. They do not read flight or aviation week or the broadsheets.

L J R
22nd Nov 2008, 13:47
Your own problem:

Media Communications Officer of the Station concerned.


....and there lies most of the problem. Your Station Media dude is often not fully informed about what the station actually does (ie the technical bits) that often makes the difference to undertanding the fact or giving innocently mis-leading snippets that the journo often clings to, etc..

Some Journos are 'understanding' of this piece, but often they cannot come to grips with the need for some security in the information that is passed. (or left out!) Due to this they often either 'theorise' - without stating this, or refer to mis-informed snippets of the past to form an apparent authoritative previous source (full of out dated info).

I personally have seen every news piece that I have ever read on my own platform(s) - get some form or mis-quote or mis interpreted 'fact' that leads to a wrong story of some sort. Often this erroneous bit is not a big deal, but when Joe-bag-of-donuts reader puts this and other articles together, the facts become more erroneous.


Other journos and 'writers' are occasionally ex mil (from a long distant past) - and they still think that flying at barnstorming heights is the way ahead etc, 'cos that is how we did in in '53...unfortunately it takes a lot to un-do these sort of mis interpreted or mis-represented opinions.


...so, how are you RAF types going to join the Radio 4 panel. I thought you were banned from such involvement - I also heard somewhere that you are not to contribute to pprune...et al!..as per fltlt mac's post.

off centre
22nd Nov 2008, 13:48
Ox.

Gored.

Sorted.

Flt Lt Mac
22nd Nov 2008, 13:56
...so, how are you RAF types going to join the Radio 4 panel. I thought you were banned from such involvement

Not Just the RAF but RN and Army as well.

Ivan Rogov
22nd Nov 2008, 14:23
Chairborne 09.00hrs, I hear you :ugh:

Wensleydale
22nd Nov 2008, 19:59
Jacko,

You have your opinions, and I have mine. What I know is that events that I have been directly involved in were completely mis-reported and/or mis-represented in the press. This is fact and therefore not based upon ignorance. And as RAF aircrew I do not consider myself as slow witted as you claim. So, to resort to personnel insult inevitably means that you have lost the arguement and therefore you can be seen to have lost your case (and by doing so you have proved my opinion of journalists).

Jackonicko
22nd Nov 2008, 20:14
You forgot the:

Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.....

(..... and I'll judge your slow-wittedness on what you post, not on what you do, and your comment that: "In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts" is dim-witted, prejudiced stuff).

Donna K Babbs
22nd Nov 2008, 20:30
Jackonicko,

Having worked with the written and TV media on a regular basis for a number of years I can see truth in most of the previous comments. There are many press journalists who are extremely accurate in their reporting and take pride in researching the facts and listening to the interviewee.

On the other hand there are also a fair number who completely ignore detailed description of a particular situation and, apparently, change the story to suit.

I can understand the first few hours of a breaking story leading to reporting errors in TV news coverage, but there is little excuse for the press to cock things up as dramatically as I have seen in the past, hours before the evening deadline.

Like all walks of life, including the military, some people are more professional than others. I understand, and agree with, your defensive posture as a journalist to some of the earlier barbed comments, but you must agree that some of the reporting we see in the newspapers is very poor.

Jackonicko
22nd Nov 2008, 21:22
Of course I agree! There are incompetents, lazy tossers and back-stabbing chisellers in every walk of life. What hacks me off is when people make stupid generalisations about journos, and utterly ignorant and uninformed comment about the journalistic 'process'.

Some of the criticisms levelled are fair enough, if levelled at a very specific slice of the media - others are simply stupid prejudice.

Had Icarus Sun made his target more obvious and specific, I'd have no argument with him, but Green Flash and Wensleydale's input has been kindergarten level stupidity.

Articles are not "written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts." :rolleyes: :yuk: := :ugh:

Pontius Navigator
22nd Nov 2008, 21:47
Articles are not "written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts." :rolleyes: :yuk: := :ugh:

Er actually I think that statement is actually correct.

The Photo editor of the Peterborough Evening newspaper showed a photograph from a feature about RAF training at Wittering. It featured two men in CS95 running from a huge fireball explosion. It was actually a dramatic composition with two images superimposed.

It was done to dramatise the feature and sell papers.

He received nothing but criticism from one of the MCO at the briefing who accused him of being untruthful, distorting the facts etc etc.

He admitted that it was a composition but said it was not a 'news' photograph purporting to tell the truth but one created to tell the story.

I think the majority, ie over 50%, thought his story was reasonable but a significant number thought it had been morally wrong.

Yes - sell the paper - tell a story - but not the facts.

Mmmmnice
22nd Nov 2008, 22:03
As someone who has had the experience of being misquoted/misrepresented by the press, in both civilian and military life, I still feel entitled to use the old nickname of 'reptile' for the gentlemen of the press. Probably unfair to tar them all with the same brush, but as that seems to be their SOP I thought I'd join in!

Incidentally does anyone know the origin of the 'reptile' sobriquet?.....Private Eye possibly?

Sorry Jacko, I'm sure you're perfectly honourable, just misunderstood.......

Two's in
22nd Nov 2008, 22:06
Mind you, this Radio 4 "experts" view has all the hallmarks of becoming a pedigree spotters corner;

"Dear Sir, last night's article on the C-130J clearly played the soundtrack from a civilian L100-30 in error. The beta range on the L100-30 is only..."

"Your piece on Aircrew Rations contained calorific values for Snickers, some basic research would reveal that Snickers were withdrawn from..."

These are the usual hanging offences committed by the Wattisham Gazette's finest hack, thank goodness justice can now be done courtesy of the BBC. We can all sleep a little more soundly now.

PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.

Mick Smith
22nd Nov 2008, 23:18
The Photo editor of the Peterborough Evening newspaper showed a photograph from a feature about RAF training at Wittering. It featured two men in CS95 running from a huge fireball explosion. It was actually a dramatic composition with two images superimposed.


If that happened he should have been hauled up before the press complaints commission and exposed in the Media Guardian immediately. The only time I have ever heard of anything quite so scandalous taking place was the Mirror's fake prisoner abuse photos. You have no idea how badly that would have been received across the journalistic world had it been made known.

But to try to suggest that this is common practice is complete and utter nonsense. I have spent a bloody long time in journalism and on no occasion have I ever known of a journalist writing an article simply to sell papers. My only concern is to write the story as best as possible. The articles are written by journalists to report the facts and issues in that story. It is of course true that newspapers want to sell copies, they aren't bloody charities, but that is not the same thing at all.

There are often good reasons for criticising news reports but they are necessarily put together on the hoof with conflicting reports coming in and reporting on the armed forces is hampered by very necessary opsec and often ludicrous and very unnecessary attempts to cover up issues that it should be in everyone's interest to publicise.

People have every right to raise specific issues that are inaccurate in specific articles but the periodic rants against journalists on this thread are all too often led by numbskulls whose willingness to spout out on subjects they know nothing about only raises questions about them.

It's a bit like me saying most RAF pilots love flying really low on training to scare horses and cows, or use enormous amounts of public money to fly military aircraft to stag parties, or that most US pilots dont care who they shoot up on the ground. It is complete and utter nonsense and it is highly offensive.

scarecrow450
22nd Nov 2008, 23:59
The press this week stated that HRH was going to be a Royal Navy SAR Pilot, if they had checked the press! they would have got it right, but then thats a fact so thats no good. :mad::mad::mad:

Pontius Navigator
23rd Nov 2008, 07:38
Mike, thanks for that but I confirm every word I said was true. We had the briefing from him and his editor in April at Brampton. His defence was that it was a 'feature' and not news.

I realise, as you say, that that might be a rare event. You say you know of only one instance. Well that must have been the 'journalist' of the New York Times that was found to fabric articles as if he had been there.

Then there was that Pulitzer photograph of the young Vietnam girl running naked from a mis-directed US air strike. Except it was a Vietnamese scripted fire-power demo that went slightly wrong. One clue is the casual nature of the two Vietnamese soldiers strolling away from the explosion. Another clue is if you examine the images on the web. The impact from the one that is closest cropped supports the story. The one that is nearest to full frame another.

{deleted}

There are Walts who say they have been in the military and I am sure there are equivalents in journalism.

Clockwork Mouse
23rd Nov 2008, 08:04
My prejudice against journalists, or rather the "news" media, began in Belfast years ago when we saw film crews, albeit foreign, paying local yobs to throw bricks and bottles at us to start a film-worthy incident. B*st*rds!

BEagle
23rd Nov 2008, 08:15
But a few years ago, there was the sport of 'Donaldson baiting' in the RAF Club...

The Torygraph's Air Correspondent would be fed all manner of guff by a few mischievous folk from Adastral House after he'd bought them a few drinks.

You have to be careful though. One chap told an American reporter that he spent much of Gulf War 1 sitting around waiting for something to happen and "smoked a few fags" most days.... He had to explain to the horrified reporter that this didn't mean killing homosexuals!

Wensleydale
23rd Nov 2008, 08:35
Jacko,

I repeat - in my experience, the use of personal insult, rather than by using factual evidence, during an argument is the sign of a week position and an attempt to belittle the other person in order to strengthen your own argument. We have never met, yet continued insults about my intelligence, together with no supporting facts just shows how desparate Jornalists become to justify their writing. I rest my case.

He who shouts loudest has usually lost the argument.

Jackonicko
23rd Nov 2008, 08:44
Wensleydale,

I'm sure you're a nice chap. I'm laughing at and insulting your witless anti-journo tirade - not you, yourself.

Chairborne 09.00hrs
23rd Nov 2008, 09:03
Quote: Two's In:

PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.


Mea culpa, Two: perhaps it was a little too mischievous a title.

Donna K Babbs
23rd Nov 2008, 09:22
Mick Smith:
[The MOD makes] very unnecessary attempts to cover up issues that it should be in everyone's interest to publicise.

The MOD would never consider covering up issues ...............oh hang on..............disregard!:}

dallas
23rd Nov 2008, 10:35
It's institutional in the military to think journo=trouble, unless a story is naturally positive and/or of use as good PR. Anything else is dangerous.

One of the principle reasons is the otherwise gagged military man, often knowledgeable in classified information and armed with personal opinions, is faced with a one-way portal to the unfamiliar world of free speech, controlled by a journo gatekeeper who he has probably only just met. Once the words leave airman's mouth he loses control of them, and cannot redress any misrepresentation with anything like the same coverage in which he may be originally exploited. It's the same for non-military types who meet the press, except civilians can generally speak freely and/or sue if they are wronged.

Common sense also needs to prevail. My instinct, even though I haven't met him, would be to essentially trust Jacko, while journos from Flight, Eastern Daily Press and The Sun all have different motives (and readers' attention spans) to cater for. That said, the military/MoD are inundated with monday morning quarterbacks - the Iranian iPod captives story being a very recent and extreme example - where every word is regurgitated and re-examined; even if I was quoted as saying "I love being in the RAF", someone would undoubtedly query why I didn't say 'Royal Air Force' in full - that's todays litigious world.

But going back to the original point, as Jacko says, every trade has unscrupulous people, and the best defence is common sense. Don't say unqualified, stupid things to people you don't know, and blacklist violators. In the mean time don't expect The Sun to be interested in Tornado radar upgrades for anything other than a government-wasting-money story, nor expect JDW to want to know about piss-ups in Afghan. As an extra line of defence, if you do worry about misquotes, why not tape the interview yourself and/or ask for a draft article - I don't see why a reasonable publication would object, while a dodgy one, not wanting you to tape things, should only cause shields-up, surely?

Vox Populi
23rd Nov 2008, 10:45
Then there was that Pulitzer photograph of the young Vietnam girl running naked from a mis-directed US air strike. Except it was a Vietnamese scripted fire-power demo that went slightly wrong. One clue is the casual nature of the two Vietnamese soldiers strolling away from the explosion. Another clue is if you examine the images on the web. The impact from the one that is closest cropped supports the story. The one that is nearest to full frame another.

There was also a fake report by BBC East Midlands Today on the first day of the first Op Fresco. They had only one or two outside broadcast cameras yet they purported to show the military taking over in several towns across the region. There was no camera available in Birmingham.

The reporter, on her own initiative, got two off-duty squaddies and drove them to Pebble Mill. They were instructed to walk about in the car park 'waiting for a shout'. Meanwhile she did her 'news' item to a camera on a lead out of a window.

PN, This is a serious accusation (the BBC Midlands fake story), care to shed any further light on the subject? I will look into it as I cannot find any note on the BBC file.

As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.

If there is as much truth on the BBC accusation, you are 2 for 0, which is a pretty good strike rate for someone criticising the accuracy of news reporting.

VP

Sand4Gold
23rd Nov 2008, 12:06
A question of balance......


Wasn't it Steve who dropped the RAF's first bomb on mainland Europe in anger when he bombed a Serbian tank.

you make yourself look like a twit, frankly.


AA

Tappers Dad
23rd Nov 2008, 13:01
Since the crash of XV230 I have met and spoken to a large number of journalists, they have all shown compassion and understanding.
I have only once had cause to complain to a newspaper about an article which had inaccurate information in about my son. This information was not given by a family member so I put in a complaint. The editor wrote an apology to me and said they would run any other articles by me first.


"No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." (Sophocles) and I get the feeling those complaining just don't like bad news being written about.

Pontius Navigator
23rd Nov 2008, 15:39
PN, This is a serious accusation (the BBC Midlands fake story), care to shed any further light on the subject? I will look into it as I cannot find any note on the BBC file.

The talk we had was under CHR so perhaps I said too much.

As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.

It is not the veracity of the picture but of the story that I was refering to. The image, as far as I can check, is unvarnished. What varied was the way it was cropped and presented.

spheroid
23rd Nov 2008, 15:50
The press this week stated that HRH was going to be a Royal Navy SAR Pilot, if they had checked the press! they would have got it right, but then thats a fact so thats no good.

I think that the news that HRH was going to be an RN SAR pilot was a secret that was leaked by the MOD press office.

goneeast
23rd Nov 2008, 15:58
Although I feel, with a limited contact with journalism, that I am not qualified to comment. How many people in their lives are "interviewed" by journos?
My particular interview was over a particularly nasty murder case. I went to court and told the truth,(defence witness) I then told the same truth to a journo after the not guilty verdict.. Distorted lies then appeared in print.

Jacko, I know that you cannot tar all people.. but come on, admit that there are liars and libel merchents in your trade.. and they make the rest of you look bad.

LowObservable
23rd Nov 2008, 16:37
Journalists are people, as are aircrew, groundcrew, junior officers, flag-rank officers, politicians, defense executives, butchers, bakers...

There is a really strange thing about people. They are all different.

Measure any characteristic (competence, ethics) and you'll find a bell curve for everyone.

Some journos are excellent at what they do, some continue to strive to do things at which they frankly suck. Some are ruthlessly impartial to the point of dullness, some are prejudiced and some simply have strong opinions based on experience.

The result is that there is only one generalization that is always accurate, as water is wet and sparks fly upwards, and that is the following:

Any statement that begins "All journalists [fighter pilots, air marshals, stamp collectors...] are..." is wrong.

That is all.

goneeast
23rd Nov 2008, 16:44
Well if stamp collectors etc spout crap, its treated as such.. A bad journo can ruin a life (for a period of time). for what? Gossip? Been there, done that

scarecrow450
23rd Nov 2008, 17:10
But the point is he's joining the RAF SAR guys n girls, is'nt he ?:mad::mad:

Vox Populi
23rd Nov 2008, 18:29
Originally Posted by Vox Populi View Post
PN, This is a serious accusation (the BBC Midlands fake story), care to shed any further light on the subject? I will look into it as I cannot find any note on the BBC file.

PN:
The talk we had was under CHR so perhaps I said too much.


Then it's not true.

These stories banded about in Military PR briefs are ten a penny. No doubt you've all heard about the journos in GW1 (and updated for GW2) who look bewildered when the NBC kits went on around them, because they left theirs in the hotel. That story isn't true either.

There is a cliched, inaccurate view of the media that pervades much of the miltary media training. It does great harm to what can be a normal, working relationship in my opinion.


VP:
As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.

PN:
It is not the veracity of the picture but of the story that I was refering to. The image, as far as I can check, is unvarnished. What varied was the way it was cropped and presented.
[/QUOTE]

But the picture is of that event, no one seriously doubts that (as I said, apart from Nixon). Were you told that in a military PR briefing? I really dispair at the crap that is passed around. No wonder you have no time for the press.

The culture difference here is massive. In a newsroom if you make some sort of statement about a picture or tell a story about reporters in theatre, people immediatley want to know what your source is and where the story came from - how many of you ask that of your 'Media trainer' when they trot out these great sounding, but apocryphal stories.

VP

juliet
24th Nov 2008, 01:05
In every experience I have had with the media I have felt let down, whether it be as an observer or as a participant.

I only have to think of the reporting of XV179 for the first 2 days and the same again for the first day of XV230.

The utter lies put forth in the interests of selling a story were disgusting.

Add to that having journos on the flight deck taking photos when instructed not to and printing quotes that were meant to be expressly off the record (for a variety of reasons they had heard things that they should not have). I dont trust them, and if that upsets the honest journos out there too bad, better that than letting more crap come out from the dishonest ones.

aviate1138
24th Nov 2008, 07:13
juliet ......."honest journos"

Surely an oxymoron?

juliet
24th Nov 2008, 08:39
fair one, aviate, I was trying to be balanced and fair, but you are right, stuff em!

Jackonicko
24th Nov 2008, 10:15
That's like saying that all RAF aircrew are narrow-minded, prejudiced and lacking in judgement. You two prove that such stereotypes exist, but the vast majority are broad-minded open and intelligent, just as most journos do their job to the best of their ability, with honesty and integrity.

LowObservable
24th Nov 2008, 15:57
Juliet, aviate...

Go right ahead, dudes. If and when you reach senior rank and stonewall every question because you dislike journalists as a group, don't be surprised when out-of-context, misleading stories emerge with, somewhere buried in them, the statement "the RAF had not responded to repeated enquiries".

You live in a nation where the government (to which you report) theoretically does what the people decide to do. If you want an informed decision to be made about what you do, you have to inform them. Since you can't send MoD press releases to 60 million people, that's where the media comes in (and indeed that what medium means in that context).

Disengage from the media and you disengage from the people and accept the consequences.

Now, on the other hand, if you're just having a little whine and trying to yank the chains of the journos on this forum, you're being immature and petty, and wasting our time, but on the other hand there is hope. Because if what you really mean is that you don't like some stories, and some journos, that's quite natural (see my post above).

The secret to media relations (from the institutional viewpoint) is to reward and reinforce good journalism (by answering questions promptly and responsively) and to defend against the bad.

You do the latter by addressing bad data - that is, if the journalist has been fed a line by someone else grinding their own axe - quickly, clearly and professionally, and setting clear rules for access. For instance, if a 60 Minutes or Panorama shows up and wants an interview, you insist on pre-written questions and brief the hell out of the interviewee.

Access rules also include all the variations of "off the record" that my learned colleague JN talked about. And we all know that we will never get access again if we break those rules, which leads to another principle of media relations: if the journo has a professional interest in not having that happen, you can trust them more.

LowObservable
24th Nov 2008, 16:02
goneeast

Bad journos can ruin lives.

Incompetent pilots kill hundreds of people.

I hate pilots.

http://images.barnesandnoble.com/images/14630000/14633828.JPG

juliet
24th Nov 2008, 18:14
Low,

I didnt say I was all for stonewalling journos, nor did I say that the public should be kept in the dark.

I said that I didnt like journos, because in my experience they tend to lie a lot, put their spin on things, and always look for the catch that isnt there so as to make a story more sensational.

If I ever have to deal with the media it is with the advice of the PRO (or whatever they are called now), assuming I cant shift the duty to someone with more stripes and a bigger pay cheque.

Im all for appropriate info going out to the public so as they are kept informed of the challenges that are faced by the military, I just dont want to be the one dealing with the guy making up the story.

brickhistory
24th Nov 2008, 18:20
So, let me get this straight:

Some journalists have/will screw up the story whether intentionally or through ignorance.

The ones who get blamed/are at fault are those who'd rather not deal with such.



Ok, got it.

taxydual
24th Nov 2008, 18:41
Hmm, The Fourth Estate.

As in all walks of life, there are good guys and bad.

I think we have all, at some stage or other, seen garbage written, words changed and misquotes to make a story a 'story'. 9 times out of 10, the glamour pants in front of the camera is there for 'eye candy', not for reporting the 'truth'.

Then we get the likes of Adey, Hastings, Pincher and their ilk. Professional, accurate and impartial.

There is a thread about RAF Aces and another about Walts, doing the rounds.

We have to accept that there are Journalistic Aces as well as Journalistic Walts.

To have a free society, we have to have Aces and Walts.

And in that society, you cannot please all the people all the time.

juliet
24th Nov 2008, 18:42
No, not all journos will lie to get a story, but with my journo strike rate I would rather not give another one the benefit of the doubt. Surely at some point it is fair to say "enough, Ive been bitten too many times"?

brickhistory
24th Nov 2008, 18:52
taxy,

Fair statements.

Given that there are 'walts,' then it does seem reasonable for most to do a threat assessment, determine that the possible good is largely not likely to be better than the possible bad, and avoid the situation altogether if given the choice.

taxydual
24th Nov 2008, 18:58
Brick.

The bad have to please their editors. The good have done so already.

All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.

It's a no-win situation.

Regards

AIDU
24th Nov 2008, 21:49
The bad have to please their editors. The good have done so already.

All I'm saying is, there is good and bad wherever we go.

It's a no-win situation.


Can we have a few more clichés please? Here are a few of my favourites.

Against the grain.
As welcome as a skunk at a lawn party.
I wash my hands of the whole matter.

Pontius Navigator
24th Nov 2008, 21:59
There was an incident in GW1 where the TV reporter, I can guess but can't accurately recall the channel, deliberately broke the opsec rules.

You may recall that the British brigade was relocated across the battlefront from the east to the west. There was a massive movement of material with trucks and aircraft.

The reporter was allowed to report the event but not the location. what he did, and it was clear that he knew what he was doing, was have as a backdrop a barber's shop with the name of a small town. His reportage showed a C130 landing on a strip parallel to a road. A check on the map showed a runway, adjacent to a road, in the town with the barber's shop. He smirked.

I have no idea if he was 'caught'.

aviate1138
25th Nov 2008, 07:29
Slight thread creep but still relevant I feel.

When these 'journos' get front page banner headlines for something so hyped up/lied about/plainly invented, can the newspaper concerned be made to print the retraction on the same page as the original article and using the same font and size?

And why not? The retraction is usually to be found buried amongst the classifieds and in the smallest size.

It would hopefully make the scribes become more accurate in their reporting to avoid the ensuing embarrassment.

creep off.......

parabellum
25th Nov 2008, 08:46
Following on PN's story in post #57 above I believe it was a Mirror journalist in the Falklands who, unable to contact his office by other means, got into a telephone box and blabbed the entire pre attack briefing on Mt. Longdon and subsequently Port Stanley to London, oblivious, (we hope), to the fact that the Argentinians could have listened in and got the complete lowdown on things to come.:rolleyes:

Jackonicko
25th Nov 2008, 09:24
If a journo dredged back 26 years to describe an incident that showed a particular military pilot in a very poor (and unrepresentative) light and then extrapolated Flight Lieutenant X's behaviour to justify some outrageous slur against the entire profession, we'd all be outraged.

Would it be fair to suggest or imply that RAF pilots were unprofessional fools with no judgement, and that most routinely buzzed Open Golf Tournaments, took women passengers for jollies in their SAR helicopters, and that they routinely clip lighting towers during impromptu flypasts?

I'd be first in the queue to label such accusations as being a disgraceful distortion of the truth, based on a simplistic interpretation of exaggerated and unfairly selected, entirely unrepresentative stories.

And yet judging all journos on the basis of isolated and unrepresentative (and often highly embellished or even invented) stories is OK?

Catch yourself on, chaps.

Lyneham Lad
25th Nov 2008, 09:41
Mods - is it not high time this thread (and it's appalling title!) was moved to Jet Blast or even locked. After all, 59 posts and the main contestants are still deeply entrenched and will clearly never see eye-to-eye on the subject of journalistic accuracy :ugh:

Grabbers
25th Nov 2008, 09:42
Wise people once sang:

We All Know That People Are The Same Where Ever We Go
There Is Good And Bad In Ev'ryone,
We Learn To Live, We Learn To Give
Each Other What We Need To Survive Together Alive.

ooh oooooooooh

parabellum
25th Nov 2008, 09:57
Jacko get real please! My post simply demonstrated that even when it matters most there are some, maybe only one, journo that won't play by the rules (and in the case I mention could have blown the whole operation and cost a lot of lives), it happened then and still happens now.

Ewan Whosearmy
25th Nov 2008, 14:10
Grabbers

Was that The Monkeys? :ok:

Flash2001
25th Nov 2008, 16:59
See also my post #54 in "Stewardess demoted to F/O" in the R&N forum.

Of the many things to understand in this life, I know something about only 3 (Aircraft, motorcycles, physics). Every time one of these is mentioned in the press they get it wrong. Why should I assume that they get it right when he's writing about something I don't know about?

After an excellent landing you can use the airplane again!