If you appreciated the $ value of one second of air time on the morning shows
Quote:
Rolling live news quickly makes the ill prepared look like a fool to the well informed on the given subject.
But he is not there for the benefit of the well informed! Is that not blindingly obvious? How many times do I have to say this?
Your response ignores my point that the view of professional pilots on this list that the accuracy of his information is poor. Your reply seems to suggest the public have no need or will not understand accurate technical information.
Dumbing down info to the point that is facile or even misleading is a low brow response. Espousing high tech info which public wont understand doesnt work either especially if it is innacurate.
Accuracy is a cornerstone of journalism.
The public are able to understand the mechanics and science of life.
It is critical for the interviewee to be knowledgeable on the subject! but also as critical to show restrant by shutting up and not talking crap.
Ive just heard abctv news london correspondant reporting on the terrorist seige in France, describe supa puma helicopters as "attack helicopters"
We can excuse him for that mistake as he is not an expert, but there is no excuse for an aviation expert to apparently regularly make mistakes about simple stuff.
Speaking on a specialist subject in a way the public can understand is possible!
If any ppruners are interested a good technique is to research and practice responses to likely questions relating to aircraft incidents. This is good fun and a challenge to accuratly describe what flaps do or how a pitot works.
The last page of posts about connections is very interesting when you refer to the ethics and standards that govern broadcasters and publishers.
I edited a technical trade mag for 5 years and am shocked by lack of disclosure portrayed in this thread.
Mickjoebill