I think the issue here is sensationalism. The simple job of gathering and disseminating the facts are no longer adequate. Reporting that an aircraft plunged is clearly more exciting than an aircraft descending to a safe altitude as per SOPs in a controlled manner...
Therefore suggesting that a journo should google "depressurisation+aircraft" and get some facts on why the aircraft descended are irelevant. Why bother? - the ticker accross the news looks much better if your news channel has it up there first. The facts can be sorted with later, the scoop is the win.
Unfortunately by the time the facts come to light, aside from a small group of people the only thing that the general public will recall when someone mentions 'that Qantas incident', is the plunge and chaos and near disaster...
Now I am not qualified to fly and airliner or write a column or come up with any suppositions on what happened to that aircraft, but I am in a position (thanks to a 3 second google)to show my elderly nervous SLF Mother that there was a standard descent to breathable air and in time we will more than likely see that the pilots always had it under control once the facts are established.
So will she get onboard her Qantas jet next week to come home? Probably not... and guess what - thats down to crap journalists with little regard for how their reporting affects the lives of other people. There are simply no excuses for some of the reports I have read over the past week, but I am sure they have shifted plenty of the black and white.
So Jonny - I have put my foot in as 'an ordinary SLF' and guess what - we don't like it either.
AGOW