GF, IS,
You slag journos off for commenting on things that they know nothing about, and then proceed to demonstrate that you know nothing about journos yourselves.
Icarus:
By tarring all journos with the same broad brush, you make yourself look like a twit, frankly. If you confined your criticism narrowly to the generalist reporters on TV, radio and the tabloids, you'd have a point, but your criticisms are completely awry when it comes to the broadsheets, the specialist TV and radio correspondents, and especially the specialist journos.
They are trained to write at school/university.
Wrong, except insofar as all of us are taught to read and write at school. Very few top flight journos have formal journalistic qualifications or have come from journalism courses. That's especially true in the defence field.
When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts.
Nonsense. We see our job as accurately reporting news, and informing our readers, ideally by distilling and transmitting what the real experts tell us.
Most have no idea about what they write about. For aviation very few come from an aviation background.
Again, nonsense. Most aviation writers have an aviation background, and surprisingly large numbers have aero eng degrees, or some service background.
If there are no people killed no news.
Offensive, inaccurate bol.locks.
Green Flash,
What a lot of tired prejudice!
Rule 1
There is no such thing as 'off the record'.
If we didn't observe 'off the record' we'd soon run out of contacts. This is a game where long term contacts are vital, and you need to make sure that people know that they can tell you things in absolute confidence.
I turn off my recorder and put my pen down whenever asked to do so. What's said then remains between whoever's talking and me.
My notebooks contain these abbreviations
NFP/BO: Not for publication, background only. You don't refer to it at all, it's just in the notebook as background information - helping me to understand, and to put information in context in my own mind.
CHR: Chatham House Rules. "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
NTBQ: Not to be quoted. I can repeat the 'sense' of what's been said, but not as a direct quote, and not attributing it to a person or post holder.
Non Attrib or NA: Non attributable. Can be quoted, but without naming, describing, or isolating the source in any way.
Attrib to: Attributable using a specific description of the speaker "An industry source said:" perhaps, or a "programme insider", or "a JHC officer said".
EMB: Embargoed until a specific date or milestone. Someone might say: "They're going to stand up X Squadron in March, don't report this until that happens."
Rule 2
Journo's write for whoever pays them.
True, to an extent, but there are people you wouldn't work for, regardless of how much they paid, and there will always be things that you judge should not be written about.
Rule 3
There are no other rules.
Apart from official embargoes, clearance, D-notices, etc.