PDA

View Full Version : Press Speculation.


ukdean
8th Aug 2008, 10:49
Guys is their any chance that we can drop all the threads which continue to go on in relation to words used by the press when describing an incident. We all know the wording is inadequate but rather than talk about the incident that has occurred we spend thread after thread saying how the press have reported it. So rather than moan about the press [me included] and their exaggerated use of words can we keep it to the point in hand, ie aviation..., or is it me missing the point and this has become the Press pilot rumor network.

Guardsman
8th Aug 2008, 11:35
I can see your point, but I think that Pprune can be a very useful tool for getting a better aviation press.Whilst the education of the press is not a primary objective of this website, good reporters (they do exist) have learned, and will continue to learn to report aviation matters more accurately if they are fairly criticised in these pages. Many journalists log on. In spite of the popularity of routine air travel these days, aviation, to most of the general public, remains an exciting and romantic profession which is why some of the more lurid reporting of incidents occurs. Whilst it is obviously irritating for pilots to read over-dramatised reports of what to them are quite routine practices, pilots are still big heroes to millions of people who want to read of their skill and daring Hollywood style, rather than be told that standard operating procedures were employed to overcome a problem, with no danger whatsoever to passengers, crew or people on the ground.

So, all of you slim, tanned, dazzlingly white-teethed boys and girls out there, keep avoiding the schools, orphanages and children's hospitals!

ukdean
8th Aug 2008, 11:43
Guardsman excellent point, the question seems to be why don't we seem to get the good press reporting here. ps the latter part of your thread did make me laugh... wilko that one...

BlueWolf
8th Aug 2008, 13:08
A generation ago, and only a generation, the news was reported as impartially and as impassionately as was possible.

Today, it is all emotive and controversial, and everything is reported in as sensational a manner as possible.

Disaster. Tragedy. Unprecedented. Worst, Best, Biggest, Coldest, Hottest, Deadliest, Fear, Panic, Worry.

There is nothing stopping you as a journalist from telling your editor that you will not sensationalise the copy, nor is there anything stopping you from venturing out on your own, as a crusader for Truth and Fairness, should he or she inform you that your continued employment is dependent on such sensationalism.

The buck has to stop somewhere, and since you have identified the problem, it stops with you. If it doesn't, then you are part of it.

The world continues to rotate when you go freelance, I can promise you that.

Follow your conscience and do the right thing.

Or don't complain about the status quo.

The choice is yours.

UniFoxOs
8th Aug 2008, 13:45
Beats me why they call it "NEWS". 90% today (and the TV channels are the worst) is speculation, not news. We don't want speculation - we can do that ourselves, we want facts. We certainly don't want (as seen lore than once recently) interviews with bystanders who say "Well, I wasn't close enough to see, but I think I might have heard a noise".

Seems to me they should all get a dose of the Trade Descriptions Act, calling it "NEWS"!!

UFO

/rant mode off

con-pilot
8th Aug 2008, 17:24
I blame it all on the "Watergate" affair. :p

(Since then every reporter, TV or print, has the unquenchable, passionate, all consuming desire to break the 'Big Story', even if they have to create said story.)