Australian Aviation v Australian Media

[somniferous]

Had an interesting conversation with a journalist friend the other day. I asked the questions "why do the media continually get the details wrong in regards to aviation?" and "why do they always quote Dick Smith, when it all comes down to it he is just the Average Joe pilot with a well quoted opinion?"

I got the following response and it is food for thought. Aviation is somewhat facinating for the average person, because most people don't understand the ins and outs. How many people think that ATC are the people with the bats on the ground.... How many people really understand how aircraft fly? So when it boils down to it and something goes wrong the media jump on it. The problem my friends says is that when something goes wrong, we close our lips.

The journalist that I was speaking to also said that QF's spokes person Olivia Worth (hope the spelling is correct) is a godsend because she gives quick (as in well times) reassuring answers that provide information. Rather than remaining tight lipped.

On the subject of Dick Smith I was informed that the media go to him because he is willing to talk and when they need a comment they will go where they can get one. Unfortunately I can't argue with that response, he is willing to talk and if they have a story to sell they need an opinion to go with it.

So maybe they need some education rather than a complete bashing by the aviation community? Thoughts....

[Shark Patrol]

Yes Olivia is the pillar of integrity.

Serious aircraft incident:

"Qantas pilots are amongst the best trained professional airline crews in the world."

Industrial unrest:

"Qantas pilots are the biggest bunch of overpaid, whinging, prima donna scumbags the world has ever seen."

[rodchucker]

The most important aspect is that she gives a journalist what they need in a digestable form (well sort of anyway for some).

Many on this forum have been shouting into the wind for the same tactic from the other side, but alas not much visibly happens.

While AIPA and the pilots hold their powder dry, the Rat keeps doing what it is doing and keeps getting headlines and their spin told to an uninformed and misled public.

[The Bunglerat]

Most employers have strict policies regarding staff providing information to media. Whilst we, as professional pilots, are rarely short of words in expressing our opinions, anonymous forums (such as this one) provide just about the only outlet to do so without negative consequences from those who issue our pay packets. The issue of pilots being free to voice their concerns without fear of recrimination was certainly a recurring theme in the recent senate inquiry into aviation safety & training standards - as I'm sure most of us are very well aware.

That said, it's still no excuse for lazy journalistic standards. There are many things that could be more accurately presented in the media, if they just did a little more research & paid attention to detail. And don't get me started on the issues of spelling & grammar; the bastardisation of the English language - in particular the written word - is a sore point with me, & nothing bugs me more than journalists who can't spell. In their profession, they should be held to a higher standard than anyone!

[Worrals in the wilds]

The most important aspect is that she gives a journalist what they need in a digestable form...

Or in already digested form, as in eaten, swallowed and processed. In other words, she writes the stories for them and the lazy little swine just stick them in their newspapers. You could see evidence of that when the Murdoch press ran pretty much the same article in three different newspapers about the pilots' EBA claims from a 'document that was brought to the Daily Moron's attention', i.e. probably hand delivered in a Qantas van with a cover letter signed 'with love from the Qantas PR department':yuk::}.

They do it to people in other industries too, so don't feel that aviation is special. Ask anyone in law, entertainment, science et al about what the media do to information. By and large journalism is no longer a profession, and with a few notable (and ageing) exceptions, these days they are often just hacks who rebadge press releases and advertorials.

[theheadmaster]

Or in already digested form, as in eaten, swallowed and processed

You could add one more step to that process and say that she is feeding them sh!t.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

When I clicked on this thread I wondered what my friends at Australian Aviation magazine had done wrong this time...but alas, it was Australian aviation you were talking about... :suspect:

Speaking of pillars of integrity...putting quotes around this statement is totally malicious unless you have it on record that she said it...

..."Qantas pilots are the biggest bunch of overpaid, whinging, prima donna scumbags the world has ever seen."...

Stones...glass houses etc :hmm:

[breakfastburrito]

Spinning the Media: Key findings in a week in the life of the media
by Wendy Bacon, Michelle Loh, Alex Taylor and Sasha Pavey

2203 separate stories were analysed across 10 newspapers between September 7 and 11, 2009 to see whether they were initiated by public relations or promotions.



The study found that nearly 55% of stories analysed were driven by some form of public relations — a media release, a public relations professional or some other form of promotion.



The 10 newspapers were the hard-copy editions of The Australian Financial Review, The Advertiser (Adelaide), The Courier-Mail (Brisbane), Daily Telegraph, Herald Sun, The Mercury (Hobart), The Australian, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and The West Australian.



Sydney’s Daily Telegraph, which topped the week’s study with 70% of stories analysed triggered by public relations. Australian Centre for Independent Journalism student researchers identified media releases behind 44% of The Daily Telegraph’s stories analysed.



The least PR driven publication for this week was its competitor The Sydney Morning Herald with only 42% PR driven stories. Melbourne, the only other Australian city to have two metropolitan newspapers, followed a similar pattern: stories analysed in The Age were 47% public relations driven compared to 65% of The Herald Sun.



In this week, papers owned by News Ltd, which controls more than two-thirds of the Australian metropolitan print media market, were more PR driven than those owned by Fairfax Media.



Articles were identified across the Australian print media in which journalists put their by-line on stories that were republished press releases with little or no significant extra journalism work. Of 2203 articles, more than 500 or 24% had no significant extra perspective, source or content added by reporters.



News and feature stories were analysed across health, medicine, science, technology, business, politics, rural, arts, entertainment, environment and energy and motoring rounds. Different publications focus more heavily on different rounds so for this reason; we did not have the same number of articles in each round or across each publication.



The business and politics rounds had the lowest concentration of PR-driven journalism, with business coverage being half public relations driven (50%) and politics at more than one third at 37%. The lower figures for politics may be because more public relations activity happens behind the scenes through journalists’ relationships with politicians and their advisers and for that reason is harder to identify.



The highest levels of PR content were found in the innovation/technology (77%) and police (71%) rounds.



Other rounds were health/medicine/science (52%), education (63%), arts/entertainment (61.80%)
.
Spinning the Media: Key findings in a week in the life of the media (http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/03/15/spinning-the-media-key-findings-in-a-week-in-the-life-of-the-media/)

Coincidently I was listening to an interview with the head of thenational "Communications" association about this study. When asked about the 55%, he replied that he was surprised - if "media professionals" (AKA spin doctors) were doing their job properly & representing their clients interests he would have expected the number to be closer to 75%! He was disappointed!

[CoodaShooda]

What a coincidence.
I was wondering who the charming young lady sat next to me on this afternoon's Canberra/Sydney shuttle was.

Quick check of Google and, yep, it was OW herself, way back in row 17.

For the record, she appeared both intelligent and astute, with a realistic appreciation of the issues facing QF staff and management.

I'm a practising grumpy old man and confirmed cycnic but I must admit she impressed me as being a genuine asset for Qantas rather than a rampaging ego, grey management hack, disassociated bean counter or shallow spin doctor.

[truth_seeker]

While we're on the subject of aviation media, do any of our media-savvy PPRuNer's know if an article written in one magazine can appear in another magazine, with say an international reach?

I haven't seen this practice done in aviation magazines, but so long as the author name, byline and original publication are displayed in the second magazine, surely this would have benefits in terms of overseas exposure?

Would appreciate your thoughts on this.

[FoxtrotAlpha18]

Only if you have permission from the original publishing magazine I suspect.

[Worrals in the wilds]

IIRC, back in the day most publications would only accept articles from authors on condition that they hadn't been previously published somewhere else. That was before media 'stables' became common place, and you have a setup like the Murdoch press who all share articles between papers. You'll see a lot of the UK's Daily Mail articles re-run in a couple of papers here and similar sharing of articles in the women's magazines, but they're always cited as such.