Originally Posted by
RodH
I see and hear in the Media a JetStar Pilot has been arrested for an alleged crime.
Why do journalists use " sensationalism " headings such as this?
These so called journalists just have to embellish the story to grab attention so it seems.
One would be sure that if he was a taxi driver that would not have been noteworthy enough!!
Anything to make a story better even if it is irrelevant.
Very poor reporting IMOP.
As a journalist (air and road) I will step into the Lions Den that is Mr Thread Starter and try to answer his questions; my name is Daniel, after all.
Some here on Pprune may remember me as 'Dantruck' from long ago, but mine was one of those seemingly lost during the mighty changeover. But I digress
The question was first asked: "Why do journalists use " sensationalism " headings such as this?" The answer is to grab your attention. As a writer, my first thought is to get your attention, not least against all the other things demanding your gaze...your iPhone, YouTube, Pornhub.com, etc, etc.
The next question was: "These so called journalists just have to embellish the story to grab attention so it seems." My answer is, sir, you just answered your own question, which rather possess the question: why did you ask when you already knew? That said, asking is always a good thing. Sometimes it can be worth shaking the tree in case something interesting might fall out. As for being. a "so called" journalist; that might be similar to being a 'so-called' pilot. It is true there are journalists (and pilots) of varying degree, but history tells us they largely are, or they are not. In all truth there is no such thing as a 'so-called' anything.
And, true, were he a mere taxi driver - or dare I say, a plumber [see: the footballer Sala crash here on pprune] then, no, absolutely no-one would be interested, would they?
Point is: the job of pilot is a trusted, magnificent being; someone slightly higher up society's list of the great and the good. Therefore, when such a person screws up it is of course more interesting to the newspaper-buying public. That much is clear to most, if not to the originator of this post. Yet, we must not criticise him for asking, for questioning, because it is only by that action twats like me may be held to account. A wise man once stated the only stupid question was the one never asked.
Latterly: "Anything to make a story better even if it is irrelevant." I hope the above makes clear it is/was relevant given the wider issue regarding our trust in those flying us and our loved ones to and fro.
And finally: "Very poor reporting IMOP". What was 'very poor' about it, exactly? It was factually correct, was it not? Never forget the reader bears their own responsibility...you cannot blame everything on others, aka, those damned journo's. Everyone has it in their power to read and dismiss if said story stinks. The next morning that same individual will then decide to buy the same newspaper, or - shock horror - choose an alternative. My point is Mr Thread Starter should not be so quick as to dismiss the intelligence of other readers, just as no journalist should ever underestimate the intelligence of the said, same reader, We all do so at our peril.
Hope that helps...,
Dan