Look, lets be direct here.
A TV journalist believes that there is a safety issue with low-cost airlines.
As an industry outsider, this journalist hasn't just dreamt this up, he has been fed information/opinions.
Now based on the information before him, this journalist has made the correct moral judgement and wishes to expose the perceived situation to the public. Part of this will obviously involve research to (amongst other things)
a) confirm what he has been told and
b) try and make a decent, balanced but well informed programme
Now the decision before us imho is not whether we accept journalism as a bona fide occupation or whether journalists have in fact got fathers but rather whether those directly involved in this premise i.e. low costs are pushing safety to the limits and beyond, believe this to be the case.
Now the decision in my opinion is simple.
If you feel that low costs are pushing the safety limits in a negative direction then you should perhaps give assisting this journalist some real thought.
If on the other hand you are completely happy with the behaviour of low costs then ignore this request.
It just seems to me to be a pointless, double standard exercise slagging off journalists. When there is something positive we want in the press, who do we call......yes the journo's. Yet whenever they behave in a balanced manner and also report the down side, we question their parentage.
So in a sentence, just make a decision on the issue.