ABPJ:. .Please, spare us the wounded defence of the Fourth Estate. You hit the nail on the head with your closing statement - "It is also worth bearing in mind that if reporters wrote stories in the matter-of-fact, technically-worded language of the log book, no-one would ever buy newspapers in the first place.". .No-one expects newspaper reports to be written in 'the technical language of the log book.' But it is legitimate to expect the story to accord a passing nod to the facts. Instead, we see a piece of scaremongering drivel about a "near disaster" which perpetuates and plays on the public's ignorance of aviation for the profit of newspapers.. .I've got news for you. I don't care if no-one ever buys another newspaper. I care that paying passengers are conveyed safely through the air, despite occasional occurrences such as the one that began this thread - technical aberrations in complex machines, competently dealt with according to procedures, at no risk to anyone.. .Journalists are massively ignorant of aviation. When I did a survey ten years ago, not a single aviation correspondent in Fleet Street could fly an aircraft, and as to the run of news staffers, they still resort to the world of Biggles - eighty years past and fiction even then - for their terminology.. .What worries me most of all is that journalists are equally ignorant of every other vaguely technical subject.. .Newspaper circulations show a long-term downward trend, reflecting I think the fact that the public is more knowledgeable and less inclined to swallow the nonsense you peddle. I've got no sympathy for your young reporter toiling against his deadline. Have him instead crank out some left-handed piffle about Popstars or Naomi Campbell; I'm sure it would keep the readers reaching for their money, and it would certainly be less fraudulent.