Journalists - Professionals Or Not - Does It Matter?
I have come to regret raising this line of argument early on in this thread. It hasn't really contributed much light.
Although I stick solidly to what I said in my original post (21st August), it is really no more than a side issue in the current context. Whether or not the adjective 'professional' can legitmately be applied, the point we set out to review here is whether individual journalists are doing a sound job in reporting, particularly on aviation matters.
Unsurprisingly, some are and some aren't, as in all journalism (and any other area of activity). There has been some first rate stuff recently from people on the ground in Tripoli, for example (as well as some rubbish from others). As I also said in another post (22nd August 12.02), 'So what?' Even if we can agree on our "100 worst/best" list, that would serve no real purpose other than to get it off our collective chest. So perhaps this thread is due for burial?
As to why I aired the 'professional?' argument in the first place, that's another matter. I intended to draw attention to the arrogance of a few second-raters in claiming such status, and to the fact that the penalties for being wrong are different. I accept the argument from some of the eminent contributors here that poor journalism doesn't always escape unscathed, but being bashed in Private Eye isn't quite the same as losing your livelihood.
I finish by repeating what I said before: PPruners as a community are especially sensitive to mishandled, misrepresented stories about flying, but I have first hand knowledge of exactly the same effect in other fields . . . Let's just trust in the basic common sense of (most of) our fellow citizens, take a couple of deep breaths, and enjoy the knowledge that people like Red 4 have done a great deal more good in the world than can be undone by bad reporting.