Originally Posted by jondc9
Roadtrip, have YOU ever had to cover a crash on national TV? Have you ever mis-spoke?
I've been close to a few accident investigations, and I know enough to keep my mouth shut until the facts are known. So, NO, I haven't mis-spoke. What's wrong with reporting the FACTS, then STFU? . . . "A xxx aircraft crashed in xxxx at xxxx hours today. The cause of the accident is unknown. The aircraft broke up into several pieces, but did not burn. As the accident is only minutes old, there are no reports of casualties."
When the so called experts like you start speculating, usually about an aircraft that you're not qualified in, then you're just selling soap. Speculating about birds, weather, the fuel on-board the aircraft, and then coming up with 37 different scenarios of what might have happened is just plain exploiting the situation. The purpose is to titalate the average viewers (an imbecile when it comes to aircraft operations) imagination, and scare them. The other major problem is so many of these hired-gun "experts" with inflated titles and credits aren't experts at all, as evidenced from what I've heard come out of their mouths. The reporting with the anchors and "experts" sounds a lot more like a bunch of women sitting around gossiping than responsible journalism. My favorite scam by "experts" is when they sit around and make the 37 speculations about what probably happened, then make a quick caveat about "But, you know Bob, it's really too early to tell exactly what happened and we shouldn't speculate about the cause of the accident" 3 seconds out of a 10 minute report almost all of which was spent SPECULATING about the cause. The news media and "experts" depend upon the lack of critical thinking skills of the average viewer.
When that CNN guy pulled out the 'ol high tech, wiz-bang telewriter and started circling engines as "tails," that's when I couldn't take anymore BS, and the remote went "click" before he might try to find some casualties to circle.
I just wish all you hired-gun "experts" would report the facts, then shut-up instead of trying to embellish everything. CNN's initial reporting on the C-5 was up to it's usual low standards in aviation reporting.