Rather than putting the boot into the journo, shouldn't this thread be used to acknowledge that this copy, flawed or not, could have been avoided had the RAF had a half-descent
PR machine that was briefed-in on the incident and knew what it was doing?
If you don't have an effective
PR machine then it is inevitable that the Press will have to draw its own conclusions; conclusions that might upset people (as is obviously the case here). So, instead of pointing the finger at journos who will write about incidents such as this no matter what, isn't it time that those who feel aggrieved by this ask their employers what they are going to to do avoid a repeat in the future?
Whether it be local CROs/PROs or the dinosaurs at Strike Command 'Corporate Communications' (now, there's a misnomer if there ever was one), the RAF needs to get with the times and start working *with* journalists.
The Americans are very familiar with this and, by-and-large, it works to their advantage. Perhaps the RAF should take a leaf out of their book?