How about a list of journalists, rated by their reporting skills?

[Danny2]

In order to try and keep some of the debates that are appearing on here to the topic rather than diverting them with outrage about how journalists manage to report incidents and tragic accidents such as the Red Arrows one yesterday, why don't we create a list of journalists and rate them on how they report aviation news.

For example, a journalist who writes about the Red Arrows as a "stunt team" and others who try to be creative and report how "the pilot managed to manoeuvre the plane and avoided a hospital/school/nursery/pedestrian" should be rated extremely low. Others who manage to report factually and with a reasonable level of grammatically correct description of aeronautical facts would be rated quite high.

I can, if necessary, create a list of journalists who write aviation articles and we could all rate them based on associated articles that have appeared on-line.

Any takers?

[cazatou]

"journalists and their reporting skills".

Is that not something of an oxymoron?

[dochealth]

I say go for it and publish list after some months monitoring...

[Danny2]

In many cases it is. Thankfully, there are a few out there who do at least make the effort and don't resort to calling an aircraft on stand to be "on the runway" or that aircraft continually "plunge" or that skilled military aerobatic teams fly "stunt aircraft". Need I go on?

[MPN11]

At the risk of being called a sycophant, nicely put Danny2. :ok:

Dare one mention "Giant Hercules transporter" and other Media dribble? ;)

[Capetonian]

Here is the full, exhaustive list :

[Wander00]

That'll be on a scale - 0 to minus infinity then. Bring back Teddy Donaldson and his ilk.

[Yellow Son]

There was an excellent letter in The Times recently (written by an ex-journalist) which picked up a point I have been grumbling quietly about for years. It is that too many Journalists like to describe theselves as 'professionals'. Not so. A profession has defined entry requirements, recognised training courses and qualifications, and bodies to monitor standards. Aircrew, for example. Journalism is an occupation. Come to that, so is politics. There are good and bad journalists, politicians, and pilots. The difference is that the bad pilots get exposed very quickly, and either retrained or fired.

That isn't to say that there aren't plenty of journalists in print and TV who do an honest and sound job. However, much of the national reporting is done by generalists who think they understand what the specialist are telling them. Sometimes this is because the specialists haven't explained clearly enough, sometimes it is down to the journalist's conviction that he has the knack of paraphrasing what he has been told - a bad case of 'a little knowledge . . . ' .

There is also the pressure of time, where there is a commercial need to get something out there. Finally, let's face it, most of the public don't really understand or care about some of the finer distinctions that exercise us as a community.

Taking all these points together, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the most respectable figures to come out of this 'survey' are those who fly, who who have flown, for a living; and are writing for a knowledgeable audience.

[Wander00]

JJ - that my have been true in the past, but I think the profession now has entry standards amd most of those entering the calling have degrees in journalism.

[Geehovah]

Has anyone else looked at the image of the aircraft behind the BBC newsreaders, which is broadcast every day of the week? I find it annoying that when our aircraft are flying in harms way in Libya, that the picture is of a French Mirage. Can we switch to a British aircraft please?

[Cuddles]

Jimmm Fergususuuuson in the Aberdeen P and J is a tremendous halfwit, rolled out at times such as this to spout reactionary nonsense.

Usually accompanying 'Near death copter crash horror' style headlines.

[mini]

I've met and been pestered (they must have been really stuck) by many Journo's during my travels, as one once cursed with being assigned to what were described as "CNN Zones"

There are perhaps a handful that faithfully represent contextual reality, and will ask for a technical review, most of whom had been resident in the particular region.

Any of the "fly ins" are to be avoided... like The Plague.

[Phil_R]

A few years ago I came here looking for advice on something I was writing which involved military aviation. I got help in spades, and it was enormously useful. If, back then, I'd read this thread first, I might not have dared raise the issue at all.

[Thelma Viaduct]

Apart from the self righteous bleatings, journalistic accuracy has to be the 2nd most boring topic on pprune.

The journalists would have to be aerospace experts to satisfy everyone on here, they are clearly not, so where is the problem???

I've worked with plenty of military and industry bods that can't tell the difference between a Gazelle and a Lynx, what makes you think a journalist can tell the difference between an F3 and a GR4???

I'd much rather read about a bunch of pprune bell-ends with nothing better to do than whine to make their own pathetic lives a little more interesting.

Leave the modding to the Mods, not a difficult concept to grasp. :ok:

[althenick]

A few years ago I came here looking for advice on something I was writing which involved military aviation. I got help in spades, and it was enormously useful. If, back then, I'd read this thread first, I might not have dared raise the issue at all.

Why? I would certainly have thought more of you for asking.

[Seldomfitforpurpose]

I'd much rather read about a bunch of pprune bell-ends with nothing better to do than whine to make their own pathetic lives a little more interesting.



Outstanding sentiment and this is one of the most bollocks threads seen on here for a goodly while :=

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

SFFP,

I would normally agree with your statement regarding this thread; however, having read Danny's reasoning behind it, I can see where he is coming from.

Duncs:ok:

[XV490]

I think the profession now has entry standards amd most of those entering the calling have degrees in journalism. Don't make me laugh. The very best training a journalist could have is the old-fashioned 'apprenticeship' of learning on the job, preferably on a local paper, initially covering golden weddings, clever pets' skills, giant marrows and Friday evening parish council meetings. And the risk of being derided by sub-editors for the simplest mistake soon tightens up a rookie's spelling skills. These days, few graduates in any subject can spell properly - and I doubt whether it's important on a 'meeja studies/journalism' degree course. More importantly, this sort of apprenticeship teaches comprehension (any other 50-plussers like me recall that as a primary school subject?).

As for journalists reporting military matters well, I would nominate BBC East's Alex D****p for endeavouring to 'get it right'. Being out in Afghanistan with the ISAF forces has probably helped his accuracy no end.

[Ex Cargo Clown]

It's a shame this thread hasn't really taken off.

There is a veritable goldmine of sh1te in the Mail today in the R.Arrows story.

Poor grammar, incorrect facts, some dreadfully inaccurate technical stuff. Surely if an article is deemed good enough to print it should be researched and written properly.

And I'm not surprised that the RAF is in such financial strife, we need to start looking around for these missing 60 odd T1s that the Mail reckon are around somewhere.....

[angels]

I talk to journalists quite often about events in the City. I used to be on the telly a lot when I was in Asia. I have no problems with them.

Why? Because they are finance specialists.

They generally know what they're talking about. They know how the markets work. Over time I've come to really respect some journalists, especially with the wire services.

But this is finance. You are in aviation.

The trouble with your industry is that it is high profile, 'sexy', far more interesting than boring old forex markets and far more appealing to your average punter.

So the sort of hack that covers a riot will be put onto a front page story about a plane crash, even though he knows bugger all about aviation. He'll probably be an arrogant prick who will expect everyone to tell him everything even though they are not in full pocession of the facts.

He will of course assume various things and probably speculate like mad about what happened. The pilot isn't around to moan. :mad:

But aren't the hacks with aviation publications like 'Flight' etc well respected? I would have thought so because I would expect them to be specialists (such as the late, great, Gainesy). Or am I dreadfully wrong?

[Wensleydale]

Does anyone else find it ironic that the slang for a journalist is a "Hack" and it now appears that this is what some of them are obliged do to get information.....(allegedly)

[Bollotom]

I remember reading a damn fine article by young Heaps some time ago, concerning an afternoon of coarse fishing. He was on the Hamble fishing when the Red Arrows flew overhead, He made just a passing comment but you could read the awe in his article that such a sport should be pleasnatly disturbed by something that flies through the air. I vote him to be a jolly fine fellow.:cool:

[Yellow Son]

"It's a shame this thread hasn't really taken off." Says Ex-Cargo Clown (Sorry, there's no 'quote' option on my screen).

He/she is right, it hasn't. But in the end, I'm not sure that making the kind of list suggested at the outset would be very useful. I've had my say (earlier) about why journalists reporting on flying topics are likely to fall into one or other of two quite different camps - those who know about flying and write about it for people who know about it, and the generalists who don't, and are writing for people who don't.

Nothing I've read here suggests that anything very different would be revealed by this exercise. And the key question everybody should ask themselves before starting research - what are you going to do with the information? Send snotograms to the bad ones? See how much they willl care. Expose them to the public? See how much they will care. Reward the good ones? There is at least some virtue in that, but it isn't obvious how it would be done.

I'm as rabid as the next man/woman when it comes to an instinct to confront really bad journos and beat them senseless with one of their own limbs which I have previously torn off, but in the real world I guess we must just learn to tolerate that which cannot be changed. 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 - sailing, science, crime, social services departments, almost no end to it.

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.

[XV490]

Reward the good ones?

Actually, yes. The one I mentioned is signed up to Pprune, and I'd be quite happy if he saw my compliment. Which makes me wonder - how many more are signed up (apart from those who admit it) in order to probe?

[Jig Peter]

Judging by the results, the "courses" at these teaching institutions seem to exclude knowledge of the subjects the students are going to journalise about. So what use are these "degrees" ???
"Technical" periodicals like Flight International or Aviation Week have always covered the ground pretty well, but otherwise .... And there's always the potentially disastrous effect of the "sub-editors" on what might originally have been passable copy.
Years ago I knew and admired Thurstan James, who once said his job was to know what he was going to write about and make sure the finished article fitted the space he'd got for the piece. That's Craftsmanship .

[airpolice]

John Jeffrey:(Sorry, there's no 'quote' option on my screen).


I suspect that to be a bit of shabby reporting.

Just like the "Gentlemen of the Press" who seem to be getting a bit of a bashing here, I think you are including a terminological inexactitude in your post.

I understand the difference between them being paid to get it right and you expressing your belief, but I also think that they believe they are right when they spout such pish as we have read recently, just as you believe you are right when you say there is no quote option.


The truth may well be that you don't know what it looks like. That's not the same as it not being there.

If you did even a small amount of research, you would find it, just as the journalist will find facts by employing the same tactic.

[Yellow Son]

Well, I've checked through FAQs and also emailed the Moderator for advice, which I think counts as 'research', but clearly not enough to meet your high standards.

You could of course have chosen to explain, instead of indulging in point-scoring, but no doubt you feel better now.

[airpolice]

In the toolbar at the top left of the pprune page, click on UserCP

At the bottom of the list click on miscellaneous options and select the full wysiwyg option.

Now that you can see the Quote option, let me know if you need any help on using it.


FAQ

Reading & Posting Messages

This section ends with a link to bb codes. That makes interesting reading. If you still can't get the quote option, just type the codes and it works.

Duncs,

airpolice missed a couple of steps. User CP - settings and options - edit options - misc...



well spotted.

[Duncan D'Sorderlee]

airpolice missed a couple of steps. User CP - settings and options - edit options - misc...

I think.

Duncs:ok:

[Yellow Son]

Dear AirPolice & DuncanD. Tried all that long ago, thanks, but still no joy. Which is why I've asked Mods for help..

[airpolice]

For the benefit of JJ and others who may have the same issue.........


Type [ that's an open square bracket, followed, without spaces by the word quote and a closing one.

Then type some text. Then do the square bracket thing again but this time type /QUOTE in between the brackets.

Go on, try it now and post for us all to see what you get.

I'm expecting to see this kind of text.

[Yellow Son]

Type [ that's an open square bracket, followed, without spaces by the word quote and a closing one.

Then type some text. Then do the square bracket thing again but this time type /QUOTE in between the brackets.

Go on, try it now and post for us all to see what you get.


Well, this is what you get. So thanks for that, problem 90% solved. But what is really twitching my tail is the fact that I used to see an icon to do this easily, but now it's gone! Still, I taught myself computers, whereas the Queen taught me to fly . . . .

[Goprdon]

I nominate Frank Gardner. Does he write/talk about aviation matters? I do not know but I do know that what he reports about is well researched and well presented. So I hope, if he has not already done so, that FG can turn his hand to aviation.

[airpolice]

So thanks for that, problem 90% solved.


I do like a happy ending.
:)

[LowObservable]

Teddy Donaldson?

You owe me a keyboard and screen wipes. The Air Cdre was a wonderful chap, but even he would tell this story about himself....

Teddy was a keen sailor. Moored on the Hamble one evening, another bloke asks to tie up alongside. Drinks are shared, first names exchanged, turns out the other chap is a BA captain, and as the conversation progresses...

Capt: You seem to know a lot about aviation.

Teddy: Yes, I work for the Daily Telegraph.

Capt (leans forward conspiratorially): Do you know that :mad: Donaldson?

//followed by Teddy's Basil Brush laugh, which could be heard at the other end of Fleet Street...

[Jackonicko]

Though his modesty does him credit, Low Observable is probably the finest defence aerospace journalist working today, ranking alongside Robert Wall, Doug Barrie (arguably no longer a journo) and alongside blokes like Max KJ on the civil side.

He has forgotten more about aviation than most PPRuNers have ever known, and he's been an inspiration to me as I've strived to emulate him (failing dismally), and to many of my colleagues.

The critics really need to draw a distinction between the generalist journos who sometimes cover aviation and the real specialists, many of whom know their stuff, but whose work isn't seen in the Daily Mail or the Sun (nor even in the Telegraph and Times, these days).

[LowObservable]

On a more general note...

The "air correspondent" is extinct in the mass media. It was an important specialist field between the 1930s and 1960s, when aviation was changing the way we travelled and fought wars, there were dozens of companies pitching hundreds of new designs, and airliners crashed with monotonous regularity. Today there just isn't enough aviation news to justify it, and what is there, is mostly business news.

The business or political reporters who cover the subject now vary in their knowledge and enthusiasm - there are some good practitioners in major aerospace cities - but seldom have any technical depth. You're going to find that in the aerospace media.

I have also worked with many people who trained as pilots and engineers and then went into aerospace journalism. Let's just say that's not the miracle cure for bad reporting.

[John Farley]

Yes I am afraid Teddy was the chap who started the myth (which did not stop until 15 Dec 2010) that the Harrier did not do VTOs because of the high fuel consumption involved.

It did not matter how many times one demonstrated that you used nore fuel on a conventional takoff followed by a turn on to first heading and accelerating to cruise speed compared to a VTO to the same conditions. (not much difference actually - about 30 - 40 lb but its the principle of the thing!)

He was also not alone in failing to understand he basics of jet engines and that if you want to see a high fuel flow you open the throttle and go to max IAS on the deck (where the air is being rammed in - hence you can burn a lot of fuel) as opposed to sitting in the hover where the poor donk is having to suck in what it can and this lower mass flow will only support the burning of less fuel.

Hey ho.

[Yellow Son]

The critics really need to draw a distinction between the generalist journos who sometimes cover aviation and the real specialists, many of whom know their stuff, but whose work isn't seen in the Daily Mail or the Sun (nor even in the Telegraph and Times, these days). .

Agreed, and this is what I've been trying to get across in my earlier posts. I have not criticised any individuals, merely listed a few observations about the way that generalists are obliged to work, with inevitable consequences.

It isn't relevant, for example, to say that we shouldn't read the red-tops. I don't. What started this thread running was the fact that lots of people do, and it is the 'reality' that those readers are invited to accept that 'we' object to. But I still stick to my question about whether this is a useful debate to have? As I said earlier, let it go. In the end, dislike ill-informed reporting as we may, how much does it really matter? Let's be content in knowing what we know, and being thankful that there are many more Red 4s out there waiting to be good guys.

[LowObservable]

John - I believe it was the same Air Cdre who reported on the new Shovel capability of the Harrier.

(It was around the time that STOVL was replacing V/STOL in the lexicon.)

[BOAC]

Mind you - I have seen a Harrier act like a shovel:)

[Self Loading Freight]

You do what you can. I'm a tech journalist, so sometimes get to write about aviation (was at a very odd do at Greenwich the other week, where Airbus showed off its marketing department). We do try to get things right, which means missing some stories which we can't stand up or just don't believe, and I'd be upset if we messed up on a technical point. Most of my colleagues at my company and among our competitors, ditto.

Some national journos are just as scrupulous as the best of the technical press, and others... well, they tend to work for titles with an horrendous work rate, and where you get fired if you don't regularly get stuff into the front of the book. You don't have time to get it right, but you have to make it exciting, and the editor just really cares that you don't land them in it.

Don't read those titles. If people didn't read the bad stuff, it wouldn't get written. Which is absolutely not an excuse for it, just saying how it could be shut off.

One plea: if members of the press come around on Pprune asking questions, please don't assume they're out to do evil. Although in general this is a place with great reserves of patience and good will, it can be what I believe is called a sporting ride if you pick a bad day. (On the other hand, if they're clearly out to do evil, have at 'em.)

R

[airmail]

All,

Whilst it is obvious by my profile that I do not post that much and that I haven't posted in a while I felt that this thread actually needed some reality injected into it.

This thread was started by Danny2 as a result of the tragic accident that happened at Bournemouth last weekend and because of the reporting of the incident that happened in the aftermath (here on PPRuNe and on various websites not necessarily media ones).

I am not a journalist and have no interest in being one but if Danny2 is the same Danny that started PPRuNe then I find it extremely sad that he has reacted in this way by starting a thread like this without any thought in anyway shape or form.

The reason why I make that comment - and as any sane person will understand - is that journalism is subjective. Every single person on this site has their own favourite paper(s) because of their own likes/dislikes. To start a thread about who is or who is not a good journalist is a complete waste of time and effort as it depends on individual criteria. To start a thread such as this as a result of last weekend is in my mind disappointing and denigrates what PPRuNe was set up for.

Whilst it is right to criticise and complain against news organisations for publishing information before it is right and proper, I do think that it is fair to say that most responsible news organisations don't do that (as some have stated here) so the issues lie elsewhere. Personally, if people have an issue I would suggest that it is the editors being the ones to moan against not the journalists themselves.

If you think that I am wrong and want to have a sensible debate then I'm happy to do so - if you want to have a go then don't expect an answer

airmail

[LowObservable]

Another important point: No news team has its First XI on duty on a Saturday afternoon...

[BEagle]

Jackonicko, since you're probably reading this, for about the umpteenth time:

PLEASE RETURN THE SLIDES I LOANED YOU!!

Otherwise I might just have to advise people about 'journo integrity'....??

[Gerontocrat]

The Mail used to have a specialist defence & aviation correspondent but that slot disappeared back in the mid-1990s.

As mentioned above, there are the specialists and the general reporters (hacks). ALL of them are generally subject to the whims (and, in some cases, prejudices and general ignorance) of whoever is running the news desk - home or foreign - that day.

This can then be compounded by the subs desk. Time was that a sub would ask the correspondent to clarify something if the sub was not sure of either meaning or sense. Nowadays, it frequently looks as if this is no longer the case.

One other thing, I do not know about other papers, but I do know that if you see a piece in the Mail bylined to "Daily Mail Reporter", this is shorthand for "This Piece Has Come Straight From Agency" e.g. Press Association.

[angels]

Yes, The Times informed us the other day in article about football in Qatar that players can expect temperatures of over 100 degrees F -- "that's the boiling point of water!"

I sent an e-mail to them but have not had the courtesy of a reply.

[Tankertrashnav]

Any of the "fly ins" are to be avoided... like The Plague.


Mini - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being ironic when you used such an overworked cliche in a thread generally critical of journalists ;)

[cloudster]

Easy going there. He's already had quite a bit of that sort of talk. Any more and he'll be even more impossible to deal with in social situations.

[wub]

It took two journos to produce this Sun exclusive :ugh:

Flash of ‘fire’ on doomed Red Arrow | The Sun |News (http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3770828/Flash-of-fire-on-doomed-Red-Arrow.html)

[LowObservable]

JN's comments may be overstated.

Cloudster, I will try to take those comments to heart.

[cloudster]

You know me. We both got the scoop on what the 737-300 was going to look like at a dinner in Cincinnati. Ring a bell?

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

OK, journalists. Please try to justify the 'mystery flash' articles - now in the Telegraph also. Asking any Hawk pilot or technician would have cleared up the 'mystery'. The strobe light is even visible on the wikipedia entry photo for the Hawk.

'Mystery' meaning 'I am an uninformed sensationalist who can't be bothered to check anything'.

Getting jealous of the bankers displacing you from the 'Top 3 most hated occupations'?

[500N]

"OK, journalists. Please try to justify the 'mystery flash' articles - now in the Telegraph also. Asking any Hawk pilot or technician would have cleared up the 'mystery'. The strobe light is even visible on the wikipedia entry photo for the Hawk.

'Mystery' meaning 'I am an uninformed sensationalist who can't be bothered to check anything'."


If they checked, they wouldn't be able to put up sensationalist head lines and therefore wouldn't sell as many newspapers.

The way the media / journalists / reporters are at the moment, they are starting to make Second hand car salesmen look good.

.

[melmothtw]

As has already been stated, journalists are no different from other professionals – there are good and bad. Judging ALL journalists (especially the dedicated trade press) by the standards of a British tabloid is unfair, lazy and just plain ignorant.
'I am an uninformed sensationalist…’ – you said it Fox3.

[Jackonicko]

Beags,

Will chase the magazine again. :uhoh:

JN

[Yanchik]

"No difference from other professionals" ?

As we established previously, it's stretching a point to refer to journalists as professionals. Where's the training syllabus, regulatory body, STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT that are expected of some of the rest of us ?

Good Lord man, you'll be referring to plumbers as Engineers, next...

Needless to say, just like any of human behaviour there's an S-curve with some good long tails, from Paul Foot or perhaps Anna Politkovskaya down to News International and the hacks in war zones who don't pay medical insurance to their local "fixers."

But there is a difference from a number of other crafts, trades and professions - very few of those hold themselves up as heroic defenders of truth and democracy, moralisers and standard-setters. The rest of us do our jobs and take more-or-less quiet pride: journalism sets itself up, and asks, to be judged.

My judgement ? A little more humility would be fine. Honourable exceptions among the trade press that I've met.

Y

[melmothtw]

Training syllabus –In the UK there is the National Council for the Training of Journalists (NCTJ), which provides an internationally recognized and accredited training syllabus. There are also degrees, Masters degrees, post-graduate diplomas dedicated to the profession that are underwritten and accredited by various organizations depending on the particular media concerned (print, TV, online etc).

Regulatory body – Again, in the UK there is the Press Complaints Commission (PCC): An independent self-regulatory body which deals with complaints about the editorial content of newspapers and magazines (and their websites) – lifted from their website I confess.

Standard of Professional conduct – as set out by the PCC and enforced through the courts (in the UK – other countries have their own procedures).

“Honourable exceptions among the trade press that I've met” – exactly the point I was making about tarring all journos with the same brush. Generalizations don’t stand up as there is always an exception that renders them untrue.
To be fair, I’ve not heard of any journalists coming on to this forum and declaring themselves to be “heroic defenders of truth and democracy, moralisers and standard-setters.” That’s a label that you have given them yourself Yanchik.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Training and qualifications are all very well, but even the most basic training should involve what is professionally acceptable in terms of news gathering techniques, checking of facts and putting the information in context for the reader. None of this appears to be happening, with numerous examples daily, in the national media.

As for the PCC, I can only say "phone-hacking".

I grant you the same "joke qualification" applies to GCSEs, so maybe this is a sign of a general malaise.

Pilots and engineers generally lose licences, become unemployable or get imprisoned for not keeping up standards. Journalists with dodgy practices seem to be able to look forward to their own chat show in America.

[melmothtw]

"but even the most basic training should involve what is professionally acceptable in terms of news gathering techniques, checking of facts and putting the information in context for the reader. "

All the training syllabuses I mentioned DO train the journalist to do ALL of these things. There’s no accounting for those that choose not to operate by these standards (NoW etc), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule (across the entire spectrum of journalism rather than the narrow section of the tabloid press).

“Pilots and engineers generally lose licences, become unemployable or get imprisoned for not keeping up standards.”

Journalists lose accrediations, become unemployable or get imprisoned just the same.

As I said in my private message to you Fox3, it’s all too easy to become cynical. However, don’t forget that when you turn on the news tonight to find out the latest news from Afghanistan or Libya, or open the broadsheets and trade press to read about it, that information is coming to you from journalists who are routinely putting their lives on the line doing a job they happen to think is a worthwhile and honourable vocation.

[Yanchik]

"journalists who are routinely putting their lives on the line doing a job they happen to think is a worthwhile and honourable"

Worthwhile, yes.

It's not only their own lives they're putting on the line.

What news organizations owe the fixers they rely on, leave behind in foreign countries | Poynter. (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/132724/what-news-organizations-owe-the-fixers-they-rely-on-leave-behind-in-foreign-countries/)

And that's what makes it feel an awful lot like a double standard.

As I said, just a little humility.

Y

[melmothtw]

What news organizations owe the fixers they rely on, leave behind in foreign countries | Poynter. (http://www.poynter.org/latest-news/top-stories/132724/what-news-organizations-owe-the-fixers-they-rely-on-leave-behind-in-foreign-countries/)

The same applies to governments and militaries that employ local interpreters and the like and them leave them hanging in the wind once they pull out. What's your point?

I agree that you can find journalists and news organisations that give the rest a bad name - show me one profession (and I use that term deliberately for the reasons already spelt out) where this isn't true, but as I've repeatedly said, it's lazy and unfair to tar the entire profession (that word again) with the same brush.

If it's humility you want you can start by getting off your high horse...

[LowObservable]

Arguing about what is a "profession" and what is not is exactly the sort of thing that journos should not be good at.

It's an unnecessary discussion.

As a journalist, your work is out in public every day. Your hits and your misses follow you forever (speaking of which, Cloudster, you must be older than dirt too - was that the occasion where a rowdy GE engine salesman called H***y St******her was being a useful source?).

There may be journos who manage to consistently fake knowing what they are doing, or use style and flash to paper over weak reporting, but they are few and far between.

And, by the way, everyone has to learn. A lot of the impetus behind this thread is from people who haven't quite twigged that, on a Saturday afternoon in August, you're not going to find Woodward, Bernstein and Bob Hoover shooting the breeze in a British newsroom.

[Phil_R]

To answer a point raised a couple of times in this thread, the standards bodies are here (http://www.pcc.org.uk/) and here (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/), but if you work for the BBC you're much more likely to be eviscerated by the BBC themselves, who have an absolutely terrible habit of falling on their own swords immediately they upset someone important.

[LowObservable]

Phil R - Worse than that. If you really screw up you end up getting the unmerciful pi55 taken out of you for all to see, in Private Eye.

I've heard it argued that the NYT's Jayson Blair scandal could not have happened in the UK because one of the journos beaten by his "scoops" would have grassed him up to the Eye.

[Yellow Son]

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.

[Tinribs]

I remember the fury which went through our squadron when a journo,
Geof Garret, published a photo of Laurie Davis's body fire in a gutter
after a Canberra 9 crash

We complained to the Daily Mail but they said is was legit news. He published again in the Am Phot'r

We angry again but no good. Many years later they wanted a report on my helo crash in Russia. Two words

When the press really annoy, you never forget or forgive