Captain Kirk
25th Jul 2004, 18:26
Increasingly it seems, threads are being generated by journalists intent upon digging up a story and the failure to recognise them for what they are demonstrates a certain naiveté from some PPRuNers; look at the ‘Jag Incident’ (Stormshadow2) or ‘Which RAF Stations will Go’ (Styron) threads; both posted as first posts with no profile, obviously fishing and still PPRuNers take the bait.
When Stormshadow2 didn’t get the response he needed he even added ‘There's a story out there that may involve a senior officer flying lower than he should have been and getting caught out’, deliberately and quite cleverly designed to inflame prejudice and loosen tongues. It still failed to light up some people’s CWP - come on guys and girls, let’s wake up to the threat!
I am well aware of the inherent, unregulated nature of PPRuNe but find it intuitively distasteful that SOME journalists resort to such devious means - perhaps I’m now being naive! Styron’s thread is innocuous enough – why not just post ‘Hi, I’m a journalist researching this story, please help me get the facts straight so I can support the Armed Forces accurately.’ For contrast, Jackonicko makes no attempt to hide his credentials and, most refreshingly, Mike Smith (Daily Telegraph Defence Correspondent) appears in the ‘Defence Cuts’ thread under his own name.
Although now swamped with non-mil/non-aviators, PPRuNe is still great for banter, unloading some frustration, getting an early heads up on issues or sounding out kindred spirits. I do NOT think that it should only be for airing the party line – indeed, I think it serves a useful purpose in highlighting issues that matter to the boys/girls at the coalface. However, neither do I think, quoting Jackonicko, that issues that are just ‘embarrassing, politically embarrassing or might damage careers’ should be ‘fair game’, with caution reserved only for information that could ‘cost lives, or if it might help an enemy defend himself’.
The airing of dirty laundry in this forum is usually inappropriate – my opinion. The willingness of some PPRuNers to highlight the specific mistakes of others, be they of judgement or circumstance, and invite uninformed comment/judgement is selfish and unprofessional. Our professional environment cannot be entirely understood by those that have not been there/done it – it also happens to be an environment that routinely puts young men and women into difficult circumstances. We are all prone to mistakes and revelling in someone else’s misfortune is extreme conceit. Mistakes will be made and SHOULD be discussed – objectively, positively and PROFESSIONALLY. That is not always the case here.
My point? Most of us are pretty proud of our Service, profession and the job we do – irrespective of, and not to belittle, some well-grounded frustrations. Let’s not compromise our broader view by stupidly providing ammunition to deceitful journalists that are determined to show us in a poor light, irrespective of the facts.
PPRuNers (Mil) - you spot a baited hook, let’s tag it for the not-so-insightful and let it stale out.
Professional journalists – show your colours and, within the bounds of professional judgement and, obviously, genuine security considerations, you may get a surprisingly helpful response.
When Stormshadow2 didn’t get the response he needed he even added ‘There's a story out there that may involve a senior officer flying lower than he should have been and getting caught out’, deliberately and quite cleverly designed to inflame prejudice and loosen tongues. It still failed to light up some people’s CWP - come on guys and girls, let’s wake up to the threat!
I am well aware of the inherent, unregulated nature of PPRuNe but find it intuitively distasteful that SOME journalists resort to such devious means - perhaps I’m now being naive! Styron’s thread is innocuous enough – why not just post ‘Hi, I’m a journalist researching this story, please help me get the facts straight so I can support the Armed Forces accurately.’ For contrast, Jackonicko makes no attempt to hide his credentials and, most refreshingly, Mike Smith (Daily Telegraph Defence Correspondent) appears in the ‘Defence Cuts’ thread under his own name.
Although now swamped with non-mil/non-aviators, PPRuNe is still great for banter, unloading some frustration, getting an early heads up on issues or sounding out kindred spirits. I do NOT think that it should only be for airing the party line – indeed, I think it serves a useful purpose in highlighting issues that matter to the boys/girls at the coalface. However, neither do I think, quoting Jackonicko, that issues that are just ‘embarrassing, politically embarrassing or might damage careers’ should be ‘fair game’, with caution reserved only for information that could ‘cost lives, or if it might help an enemy defend himself’.
The airing of dirty laundry in this forum is usually inappropriate – my opinion. The willingness of some PPRuNers to highlight the specific mistakes of others, be they of judgement or circumstance, and invite uninformed comment/judgement is selfish and unprofessional. Our professional environment cannot be entirely understood by those that have not been there/done it – it also happens to be an environment that routinely puts young men and women into difficult circumstances. We are all prone to mistakes and revelling in someone else’s misfortune is extreme conceit. Mistakes will be made and SHOULD be discussed – objectively, positively and PROFESSIONALLY. That is not always the case here.
My point? Most of us are pretty proud of our Service, profession and the job we do – irrespective of, and not to belittle, some well-grounded frustrations. Let’s not compromise our broader view by stupidly providing ammunition to deceitful journalists that are determined to show us in a poor light, irrespective of the facts.
PPRuNers (Mil) - you spot a baited hook, let’s tag it for the not-so-insightful and let it stale out.
Professional journalists – show your colours and, within the bounds of professional judgement and, obviously, genuine security considerations, you may get a surprisingly helpful response.