Originally Posted by flyblue
Ho trovato finalmente il tempo per leggere tutto l'articolo in questione, e se devo dire la verità, a parte qualche ingenuità sull'età degli aerei, mi sembra che copra la situazione abbastanza bene. Anzi, purtroppo si limita a denunciare "solo" le cose più macroscopiche e non quelle che abbiamo davanti agli occhi tutti i giorni e sono problemi ben conosciuti dalla categoria.
Hi flyblue and all,
Albeit the article itself may have been informative and correct the point in dispute is the timing, the photos and the manner in which it was portrayed to the non-flying public. Unfortunately, I am not able to grasp exactly the words you write nor understand them fully, but from the "context" I see you wrote that, in effect, the article covered, rather well, the situation of the lack of security/safety in the aeronautical field today. I understand the gist of your statement to say that the writers "attack" a small portion of that which really is in jeopardy at the moment. (If I have understood incorrectly please tell me as my understanding of Italian is really surface proficiency.)
If this is the case, that the article is well represented I am all the happier. I would be pleased had they presented it in an intellectual and intelligent manner without the grotesque images and portrayals of doomed flights. (There was a study on the portrayal of images in the media that concluded companies in Europe must promote European aircraft as it sells more and is accepted positively. Ironically, there is a Boeing on the front of the magazine.) I am all for the general public being informed of breaches of security, failed safety measures and lack of initiative by the authorities and management but in a professional manner. Disturbing photos and senseless, exaggerated headlines to me are media ploys to make a buck. This causes more collateral damage than any monetary value.
Best to all,
PE