PDA

View Full Version : WARNING: ITV seeking pilots


False Capture
20th Sep 2006, 20:05
I just received the following Private Message on PPRuNe:I work for ITV1 and we are looking for pilots to take part in a documentary about their job. It's an entertainment programme so we are looking for funny anecdotes from your working life.
I'm not sure where you are based but we will pay for people to come to London and be filmed - it is a day's filming. Just to be clear no companies or names of those involved will be mentioned on camera.
We have the cabin crew already and need to balance the programme with a pilot or two.
If you have any amusing tales to tell please contact me on either 0207 *** **** or email me at this address.
Am I the only pilot to receive this message?
Do the ITV think my flying is funny and that I'm some sort of aerial clown?
Why don't I get request from the ITV about my brave flying exploits and my fantastic landings and my superb technical knowledge? :hmm:

No_Speed_Restriction
20th Sep 2006, 20:08
So this has nothing to do with the lack of security at airports? yeah right.

Flybywyre
20th Sep 2006, 20:15
Why don't I get request from the ITV about my brave flying exploits and my fantastic landings and my superb technical knowledge?
Because it is a documentary and not fiction :8 :ok:

Stone Cold II
20th Sep 2006, 20:46
Yeah, I have had this email from them today.

Jerricho
20th Sep 2006, 21:07
Heh.

How about posting the email address or the phone number :E :E

Human Factor
20th Sep 2006, 21:15
At Big Airways, we're not allowed to get involved with anything of this nature without the permission of the press office.

You can't even appear in Survivor in case you bring the company into disrepute, although the Pruner in question did nothing but good IMHO (and Big Airways was never even mentioned).

Big Airways won't even associate themselves directly with the Red Bull Air Race, although they are most definitely involved indirectly and once again could have great publicity for all the right reasons.... :rolleyes:

Having said all that, I'd be somewhat careful about responding to a journo on a fishing expedition.:=

brighton_rocks
20th Sep 2006, 21:17
This sounds like the messages on cabin crew.com for current and ex crew about spilling the beans.... :ugh: :ugh: cheap tv :ugh: :ugh: shame they cant do a documentary on the stupid,pointless,ridiculous and non consistant security measures imposed on airline crew already in possession of id's and the associated checks.....

False Capture
20th Sep 2006, 21:46
How about posting the email address or the phone number

I almost did, however, I decided against it as I don't want to help "a journo on a fishing expedition."

cwatters
20th Sep 2006, 21:57
It's an entertainment programme so we are looking for funny anecdotes from your working life.

Well it might be now. But it's not hard to make a program that supports any viewpoint given creative editing and a script for a presenter to link it all together. I can see it now.... ....unprofessional attitude of pilots.....laughing and joking all the time....playing practical jokes on each other....disrespect to some passengers....

Jerricho
20th Sep 2006, 22:21
I almost did, however, I decided against it as I don't want to help "a journo on a fishing expedition."

How about helping a Jerricho on a journo fishing expedition :E ;)

fireflybob
21st Sep 2006, 00:45
When it comes to talking to the media, it's a bit like thunderstorms - AVOID, AVOID, AVOID!

Two's in
21st Sep 2006, 01:05
And just think of all the hilarious anecdotes the media love to cover about pilots being breathalyzed at security - I'd be busting a gut to help them out.

Boggart
21st Sep 2006, 05:25
First post on PPRuNe but might as well pop my cherry here.

I'm SLF doing quite a lot of flying with my main business BUT I also live in a ski resort in France and have some business interests here.

So what has all this got to do with crap TV?

Well you see I also post on another board related to the ski industry and I to had a contact from someone called Helen XXXX from ITV with exactly the same message.

Looks like they are doing a series on so-called 'glamour' jobs. I've been in contact, just to be nosey, they say that they it is a paying job but I doubt if they would offer enough money for me to make a complete ejit of my self on the electric fish tank.

chevvron
21st Sep 2006, 06:09
I find journo's, TV ones in particular, are very adept at editing your words so that the meaning conveyed to viewers is TOTALLY different from what you've actually said.
But then there was this Air XXXXXX flight I was on where the a/p height lock disengaged at 350, but that's another story.

Fliegenmong
21st Sep 2006, 06:23
Posted by Human Factor:


You can't even appear in Survivor in case you bring the company into disrepute, although the Pruner in question did nothing but good IMHO (and Big Airways was never even mentioned).



A pruner was on Survivor? Who was it - I never watch the show, and so never followed any survivor threads, or took notice.

Who was it? Go on Go on tell me :{

tyne
21st Sep 2006, 08:29
Woooooooo Big Scary Journo Alert! PANIC!!!!

So, when journos get it wrong becasue they don't check their facts they are the devil. When they bother to get in contact to get help on a story they gan B****r off.

That makes sense. Real sense.

As a journalist heavily involved with media training - often with pilots - I worry about the "AVOID" mentality.

You guys are supposed to be calm rational people. I know a lot of you are. I've seen a lot of you do fantastic jobs, do things that I could only hope to do in another life.

Yet you behave like this when someone asks a question.

Sounds like a daft cheap idea for a telly prog to me. However, if it raises the profile of aviation in a positive way, it may do some good.

The person's obviously making some sort of entertainment show. Nothing wrong with that. So why say they should make a programme abo0ut this that or the other. That would be as daft as me telling an exec jet pilot he should be flying SAR ops becasue that's more important than flying pop stars around.

So either ignore the mail from the journo. Reply back telling them no thanks, direct the emailer to your PR department or get in touch and see what they have to offer.

Regards

Dan.

Say again s l o w l y
21st Sep 2006, 08:55
Considering the general quality of journalism about aviation in this country. It's hardly surprising people are wary.

If the standard of reporting about "normal" news is the same as the dross we usually read about aviation, then no wonder the world is in such a state with half truths and innuendo being paraded as fact.

I'm sure there are some fantastic journalists out there (infact I know a few) but it doesn't certainly doesn't come across very often when flying is involved.

Pilot Pete
21st Sep 2006, 09:20
As a journalist heavily involved with media training - often with pilots - I worry about the "AVOID" mentality. Well Dan, perhaps you need to go on a crusade to stop the journalists firstly writing crap about our industry and then stop them making stuff up and get them to do what they are supposed to do, which is REPORT, not fantasize, glamourize or generally just sensationalize the slightest thing to make it sell newspapers. Our industry is always reported on in a sensationalist way because it sells print. If you get your industry to change their ways, then perhaps our industry would be more open to your advances. In the meantime I will remain calm, rational and in control, oh, and I will avoid journalists seeking comment.

PP

p.s. And I speak with some authority having been at the centre of a media story (although not named) which ridiculed and sensationalized an incident where I made a decision based on SAFETY (which my employer completely agreed with) that lead to an hour or so delay. The journalist made up some stupid 'quote' as a headline, filled a page of his tabloid with a picture of one of our aircraft, and then told how passengers were left 'stranded' in a terminal building, when infact they were taken off my aircraft and re-boarded onto another company aircraft and hour or so later.:rolleyes: And you reckon I should have talked to him and offered the facts? He had his agenda and wasn't interested in facts, the story ran and was then forgotten.:D

tyne
21st Sep 2006, 09:49
Pete, first of all on a personal level, sorry that happened to you.

Your company should have a PR department to fend off direct cotnact. Misquotes are wrong and are can be actionable. A drastic course of action but it is there.

If you have a problem with a newspaper reporter there are channels to complain through but they tend to be to bodies that have little teeth like the PCC.

But when dealing with broadcasters you have far more come back.

Assuming we are talking about UK broadcasters then you have the ability to report their activities to OFCOM and the Broadcasting Standards Council. Both bodies can levy heavy fines on broadcasters that get it wrong. Journos can get sacked and all sorts of S*** can potentially happen. Broadcasters have to take your complaint seriously because they can get further fines for not being helpful with your complaint etc.

When I am training I urge caution with the media. Unguarded comments and all that. But you can use the media too.

If you want to PM me I'll gladly give you a few tips - if you think I can be of help.

As for lauching a crusade. Well I can't do that, I don't have the time. However where journalists I come into contact are concerned, I always, always have a go at them when the facts are wrong.

There are a lot of specialist journalists out there. But most are run-of the-mill hacks who one day are doing a story on car manufacturing, the next day one on health and so on. No excuse for getting facts wrong I know, but if I could draw a similarity to aviation here (And I'm not excusing bad reporting.) it's like type ratings. One person knows how to fly an Airbus.....and the next day they're not just dropped into the seat of a 737 and told to do the same thing.

The topics journalists cover are very wide and very varied....Too much to expect everyone to be a speicalist.

Give journos the facts....State that these are the facts and stick to them. A very good example I have is a card produced by SAR helo crews in the UK. It explains how peed off you would be when you came back from a job in your RN Cab to find a headline about an RAF helicopter rescue.

The card lists the stations and who runs what. It has 'phone numbers and encourages hacks to call and check. Good work.

What your - and other businesses - need are good on the ball robust press officers to engage with the media, do the talking and manage the story from your end.

As I say, if I can help please PM ME.

Dan

Strepsils
21st Sep 2006, 09:49
An "entertainment documentary"? Surely it's one or the other?

In saying that, if it was done in the style of BBC's "Trawlermen" or "Seaside Rescue" it could be pretty good. Sadly, I fear it will be more like "Airline" or possibly even "Airplane";)

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
21st Sep 2006, 10:09
"a PR department to fend off direcdt cotnat. Miquotes are wrong and are can be actionable."

"they tend to be to bodies that have little teeth lice th ePCC."

"you have the ability to reprot their activities to OFCOM"

"As for lauchign a crusade."

"Too much to expect everyone to be a speicalist."



Tyne

Just curious but do you write for a living?

tyne
21st Sep 2006, 10:12
Beat me to it...Busy covering the Richard Hammond story and posting on here at the same time....Spelling - or rtaher typing skills - go to the wind.

Dan

GOLF_BRAVO_ZULU
21st Sep 2006, 10:14
Tyne

Sorry; launched before you edited. The teeth lice were really scary, though.

Best regards,

GBZ

Carnage Matey!
21st Sep 2006, 10:26
So, when journos get it wrong because they don't check their facts they are the devil. When they bother to get in contact to get help on a story they gan B****r off.

That makes sense. Real sense.

Your damn right it makes sense. When they don't get in touch they just write whatever they please with no prospect of any comeback ther than maybe a small retraction printed on page 26 of some newspaper on a slow news day. When they do get in touch they have to work a bit harder as they they need to load their questions to get the responses they want which they can then edit into the program they planned to make all along. The press aren't interested in what we have to say, they are only interested in finding somebody in a uniform to give some credibility to their programming.

A few years ago BA were contacted by a TV company about a program about the glorious years of Concorde, with a working title of something like 'Concorde: The Legend'. Some decent guys in BA put a lot of time and effort into helping this firm out. So, you can imagine their surprise when the program was aired with the title "Concorde: Anatomy of a Disaster" , with their interviews cut and pasted into some botched up conspiracy theory documentary. And you wonder why we don't trust journos?

tyne
21st Sep 2006, 10:39
Carnage, if that happened then you should have shouted the hosue down. Or at least your corporate affairs people.

You might have had a serious case against the broadcaster. Usually when you are interviewed by TV people there is something you have to sign. it's all about broadcast rights etc.

That should have been checked.

I will re-cycle interviews, but make it clear that is was in the context of "Speaking to us last June.....Cpt X said it was ete etc." Nothing wrong with that if you as a broadcaster make that clear.

If however the team were doing a prog on Concorde, prior to the accident, then it could be argued that the whole programme had to change. You are not going to do a show about the legend of Concorde without reference to the accident. However any interviews should make it clear that the people talking were doing so before recent events.

So I understand your position. But just ignoring future press contact isn't gong to make that situation change. It happened. Next time - I doubt there will be from what you say - Make things clear.

Most peopel don't know the difference between an A330 and an A340....Journalists are people, just jo public with a particular job.

If they aren't told then many will go their own way. That's not right but its' the way it is.

Why not try to lessen the risk of getting it wrong by talking to them? Tell them what you think of them, that you mistrust them. But give them the facts.

You are right, as far as many news organsiations are concerned, they are just interested in the suit, or the talking head. In a fast moving news environment that is what a lot of hacks need. Someone in authority telling you what happened, then moving on to the next story.

But if you were misled over that TV programme, try taking it further - if it's not too late.

Cheers

Dan

potkettleblack
21st Sep 2006, 11:25
Perhaps if it was a broadcaster other than ITV then people would take notice and be more inclined to help. But lets face it no matter how they spin it you just know it will be a sensationalist, hyped up fly on the wall bit of crapola like the vast majority of their programmes are these days. Unfortunately they assume that the audience they serve is unable to digest anything which requires an average IQ. Therefore they need to package things into little byte sized bits of sensationalism to get whatever message they feel needs conveying. Balance gets thrown out of the window.

Anyone who followed the Ryanair "documentary" and read through the legal letters between the production company and Ryanair then contrasted these with the actual programme aired and the adverts prior to this will know what I mean. Pure drivel.

GuruCube
21st Sep 2006, 11:55
Most peopel don't know the difference between an A330 and an A340....Journalists are people, just jo public with a particular job.
If they aren't told then many will go their own way. That's not right but its' the way it is.
Hi Dan,
Yes, thats true. They are just normal people. But NOT doing normal jobs. Maybe thats the problem? The journalism industry has 'normal people' doing jobs which can have incredibly drastic results! Hell, in terms of damage, Im sure a journalist can do significantly more financial and emotional damage than any of us here!
I guess many journalists think of it as a job and dont think about the consequences of their actions. As a few people here have said, its about them getting the story and the fame, regardless of what happens because of it!

Disclaimer: This obviously doesnt apply to all journalists as Im sure there are many, many good ones. Its just speculation... :)

paco
21st Sep 2006, 12:40
Well, the classic is the guy who stitched up Michael Jackson, isn't it? Can't remember his name, but the guys in the States showed the footage he actually took and what he twisted and it was absolutely disgraceful (not to support MJ, but nobody should be treated that way).

I've been involved with journos many times, and read reports after an event that were absolutely nothing to do with what actually happened, and have been wary ever since.

I'm sure there are reputable ones, but they also have sub-editors who know even less.....

Phil

SpringbokDreamer
21st Sep 2006, 13:15
I guess many journalists think of it as a job and dont think about the consequences of their actions. As a few people here have said, its about them getting the story and the fame, regardless of what happens because of it!

They need to be held accountable to every last 'FACT' they publish. SO many inaccuracies and SO far from the truth is neglegence IMHO.

Don't comment on a subject if you haven't done the research..

Mind you if the pay's right and I'll be a pop star and be rich and famous and can be drafted in on the Beeb to be an expert on their, now Shite News Channel COUNT ME IN... sounds like a right blast:D

Mick Stability
21st Sep 2006, 13:50
The trouble is, the programme you think you're making is never quite the one that appears on the box.

JW411
21st Sep 2006, 13:53
I have always had a healthy suspicion of journalists. One of them once told me that a good journalist was a superb craftsman of words. I would agree with that.

Ergo; how can you take one who cannot spell for toffee-apples at all seriously?

I can usually smell a sciolist from a very long distance!

tyne
21st Sep 2006, 14:42
JW411 - Indeed my spelling is poor. My typing skills worse. And you are right....I have great gaps in my knowledge. I don't however pretend that they don't exist.

All the best

Dan

ChocksAwayUK
21st Sep 2006, 15:17
I have always had a healthy suspicion of journalists. One of them once told me that a good journalist was a superb craftsman of words. I would agree with that.
Ergo; how can you take one who cannot spell for toffee-apples at all seriously?
I can usually smell a sciolist from a very long distance!

I know several broadsheet scribblers who can't spell at all. It's really not part of the job. That's for sub-editors. In fact thinking about it, there seems to be an inverse corellation between spelling ability and journalistic career success.

JW411
21st Sep 2006, 16:16
If you say so dear boy, if you say so.

TURIN
21st Sep 2006, 17:09
You learn something new everyday. I had to look sciolist up in a dictionary.

I thought JW made a typo and was having a go at socialists. :O

PPRuNe Pop
21st Sep 2006, 17:31
We have had at least three contacts from a TV organisation who wish to hear 'anecdotes' from FD crew. They say they have a lot from CC.

Choices choices!

HOVIS
21st Sep 2006, 18:22
Bl00dy good job they don't want to hear from the engineers thats all I can say. Make their hair curl so it would!:eek:

Bernoulli
21st Sep 2006, 21:03
Whilst I share the scathing view most of my profession hold of Journalists, I've got to say that Tyne is doing a pretty good job of defending their corner. If only all his trade were so reasonable.

False Capture
21st Sep 2006, 21:18
Bl00dy good job they don't want to hear from the engineers thats all I can say. Make their hair curl so it would!
HOVIS, are you saying their hair would be curling at the funny anecdotes from engineers?

Avman
21st Sep 2006, 22:45
If he's going to use words like sciolist, JW411 should be banned from this forum (I had to go look it up too)! ;)

keepin it in trim
21st Sep 2006, 23:25
I was interviewed by sky news, over the phone, after a particularly tragic sar op. I was told the interview would be live, so I asked what questions I would be asked, I was assured that they would be of a general nature, and strictly relating to the facts of the incident.

Once the live interview started it rapidly turned into an attempt to get me to apportion blame for the tragic death of a young child. I kept my temper, and reminded them that I couldn't speculate on the cause but the important thing was that a young boy was dead and our thoughts should be with his family. Incidents involving children are always deeply upsetting for eveyone involved, such crass behaviour by journos in the aftermath shames them (the interview was not given because I wanted to, I had little choice)

You wonder why we are cynical about journos, how many more factual tales of deceitful and underhand practices do you need before you realise.

Jerricho
21st Sep 2006, 23:47
Tyne, good for you for sticking your neck out to give your side of it, but unfortunately your attitude is a very dim light in the quagmire of "Journalism".

I have been involved in three aviation occurences that have been reported in the media. The first occasion was a go-around at Heathrow where an A340 excuted a missed approach because the preceeding Citation stopped on the runway. Now, the report was downright sensationalist bullshit. A quote from a passenger was "We nearly landed on the one ahead. I could see it out the window!" There were then references trying to draw parallels to this incident (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/750148.stm) :rolleyes: The other two were so far from what actually occurred it wasn't funny.

Some friends of my wife are investigative journalists. One was actually quite proud of himself in relating to me how he has gone through garbage cans in the name of his "profession". :mad:

paco
22nd Sep 2006, 03:16
Look at the post by Thomas Coupling in the Copper-chopper thread under Rotorheads for reasons not to trust the media.

Phil

212man
22nd Sep 2006, 11:33
http://www.worldwidewords.org/weirdwords/ww-sci1.htm

SCIOLIST: A superficial pretender to knowledge.

Some dictionaries mark this word as archaic, and indeed it may be so, since I can’t find a recent example from a printed work. And it was always in any case a scholarly or literary brickbat to throw at a rival, one hardly likely to appear in your daily newspaper..........

........Store it in the back of your mind—you never know when it might come in handy, simultaneously showing your own word power and your opinion of your opponent. By the time he has found a sufficiently large dictionary to discover you’ve insulted him, you can be well away.


They got that right!!!! :ok:

Oldy
22nd Sep 2006, 12:25
Whilst I was working I had fairly regular calls from our press department asking for a professional comment from a pilot for the benefit of some journalist. The questions were normally naive (OK), the answers usually got lost in the translation process between all interested parties. In the end the stories were all good press fiction. Everyone be careful out there. Dan I may even have talked to you, through our own press department. No hard feelings.

London legend
24th Sep 2006, 13:29
I think the term 'journalist' is a very broad one. It's important to remember there are many types.

Here, many posters have been using it to refer to a television researcher - probably a very junior, inexperienced one - digging for dirt for a 'tell-all doc' - the formulaic type I've seen several times on ITV of late - I seem to remember a particularly sensationalist one about cruising a few months ago. They might have little or no journalistic training and probably don't belong to the NUJ or any recognised journalistic group. They may do, of course, but probably not. More than likely they just work for TV production company, and this is not news journalism, it's entertainment, pure and simple.

There are also tabloid (print) journalists, driven by deadlines and the desire for a 'sexy' story, keen to look at all the quotes they have and inevitably pick the most 'grabby' one, keen to get your attention when you scan the pages. They will probably, however, have had proper journalistic training, and should therefore be expected to check their facts. Not doing so is inexcusable, but I know it happens rather too often for comfort.

Then, there are broadsheet journalists, often given more time and less under pressure to get the disgruntled passenger pic and the doomsday quote. They'll also be properly trained, and should also check their facts.

Finally, there are radio and TV journalists. But even this title is broad. You might come into contact with any of the following - a broadcast assistant, a researcher, a producer, a reporter, an editor, a presenter. Sometimes, in the case of a news channel, several. For example, if, like one of the posters above, you're asked to do a phone interview following an accident of some sort, you'll first of all speak to a producer and be given a basic idea of questions, and then to the presenter, who may or may not choose to stick to the producer's brief.

I know this, because I'm a journalist, in fact a producer for a well known news channel. I can tell you that I do my darndest to get *every* fact I write right. When I'm on shift, and there's an aviation story, I make sure I sub it myself for accuracy. As Tyne pointed out, not every journalist can be a specialist at everything, and it's best to realise that and defer to whoever in the newsroom *does* know what's best, and that tends to happen here. It's good practice. I'm sorry that the Sky News presenter sensationalised the interview. I know that happens sometimes, and it makes me cringe too. But I'm sure the producer you spoke to *was* being honest. They didn't expect the presenter to take that line of questioning.

But I'm glad you did the interview anyway - because all too often the 'avoid' mentality kicks in and nobody from an airline will talk to our channel - leaving us in the dark. It's much better that someone comes on, gives us the basic info and then refuses to be drawn (as is their right) than refuses to talk to us at all. Like it or not, there's a huge appetite for aviation stories out there - as of course pilots know too well when faced with well versed passenger horror stories at social occasions - and so journalists will always want to cover them. But if you help us, or at least, your PR dept does, then we can get the facts out without having to guess.

So - just a little plea for understanding and an unbiased reaction from a producer who does, and is doing, her very best to change the way aviation is reported in her corner of the journalistic spectrum....

Lx

757manipulator
24th Sep 2006, 17:50
Mr Legend,

Thanks for that insight, its nice to see that there is still some journalistic integrity out there:ok:

Unfortunately however, your comments are also very revealing in the instance relating to "sensationalized" stories.

Can it be a surprise that the majority of us view journalists, researchers, and anyone similar with such suspicion?
I am certain that for every thoughtful and well researched journalist/presenter/producer (such as yourself appears to be), there exists at least an equal number who would quite happily run roughshod over anything resembling integrity to get the scoop.

So until such time as this situation doesn't exist (probably shortly after hell freezes over) I will continue to view journalists in the same fashion as politicians, used car salesman and estate agents.

Jerricho
24th Sep 2006, 18:50
.....don't forget ambo-chaser solicitors. ;)

Bernoulli
24th Sep 2006, 20:38
757 Manipulator. You didn't read Mrs Legend's post to the end did you?

757manipulator
24th Sep 2006, 21:27
757 Manipulator. You didn't read Mrs Legend's post to the end did you?

ahhhh yeah I did...the trouble is I got distracted halfway through my reply, and edited the "s" out of Mrs..ooooops! :ooh:

JackOffallTrades
25th Sep 2006, 23:38
Clearly all journos are stupid and False Capture has a complex about his flying skills!!!??

End of story... G'nite!

False Capture
28th Sep 2006, 19:46
JackOffallTrades,
I think the only journos you respect are the ones with publications on the top-shelf.::}

JackOffallTrades
2nd Oct 2006, 19:06
Oh False One.

That's right!

HOVIS
5th Nov 2006, 21:46
"But if you help us, or at least, your PR dept does, then we can get the facts out without having to guess. "

Why do you have to guess?

Ah, yes I remember now. 'Never let the facts get in the way of a good story':rolleyes: