If a journo dredged back 26 years to describe an incident that showed a particular military pilot in a very poor (and unrepresentative) light and then extrapolated Flight Lieutenant X's behaviour to justify some outrageous slur against the entire profession, we'd all be outraged.
Would it be fair to suggest or imply that RAF pilots were unprofessional fools with no judgement, and that most routinely buzzed Open Golf Tournaments, took women passengers for jollies in their SAR helicopters, and that they routinely clip lighting towers during impromptu flypasts?
I'd be first in the queue to label such accusations as being a disgraceful distortion of the truth, based on a simplistic interpretation of exaggerated and unfairly selected, entirely unrepresentative stories.
And yet judging all journos on the basis of isolated and unrepresentative (and often highly embellished or even invented) stories is OK?
Catch yourself on, chaps.