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!