Journalist Lowlife

[Pope Gregory IX]

I am sure that it will shock most of you to know that the first Kim Murton (wife of Bill, killed in the Firefly crash) knew of the accident was when a journalist rang her to ask for confirmation that her husband was dead. You may imagine the effect this has had on her, although she is a strong and resilient woman.

There is a significant band of Naval aviators, both serving and retired who would be very grateful to know the identity of this beacon of journalistic thoroughness and integrity. Better still, of course, would be if he would be kind enough to identify himself. After all, he must be proud of his 'scoop'.

Help gratefully received.


Thanks all.

[boredcounter]

above all noted, and agreed with 200%.

After my double take of your headline, could I please add the following to avoid any further near heart failures to pruners who know 'lowlife'.

Please read as the lowlife journlist.

pope again, sorry, no attempt at all made to dilute the disgust we all feel on matters such as these.

Bored

[TomPierce]

The words I have to describe the actions of this despicable journalist are not allowed on here. How on earth dis he have the gall to phone her at all? Obviously couldn't have cared less about the absolute hell he delivered to Mrs Murton at that very moment.

I would willingly give the s@it a kick in the balls to forever remind him of his complete lack of respect and utter loss of common sense.

B@rstard!


Edited for contact error.

[newswatcher]

I hope I have taken sufficient care in my choice of words, and sincerely not wishing to detract from the serious point of this post, :mad: but how was it possible for this journalist not only to confirm the name of the crew, but also find out their telephone number, before anyone at Yeovilton could contact the bereaved?

[Tbird]

Apparently he knew Historics and because he was there at Duxford and saw Bill and Neil crash he thought it would be a good idea to phone Mrs Murton in advance. Couldn't agree more with your comments, some people have no standards. Perhaps he needs to be taught some?

[newswatcher]

Thanks Tbird, I expected the RNAS procedure to be pretty slick.

I was watching the recent Airbase series over the weekend(video'd), and recall the comments of the lady Ops Officer (Sqn Ldr?)whose husband was flying "in the gulf" saying that she would probably be the first at Lineham to hear if anything tragic happened to him. A sobering thought.

[Dantruck]

Suggest you start by requesting from the organiser a list of the accredited journalists at the event. After that you might contact the historic and other specialist magazines/web sites not on the first list. Next I'd talk to the local newspapers in the family's area.

Approach the editor of each title by letter and follow-up with a phone call. Assuming everyone is straight with you, you will probably find the person involved.

Also, if you talk to the phone company it may be possible to track the originating phone number. You will have to put a very clear and concise case to the phone company as to why this information should be released to you. It will help if you appoint a legal representative to make this request. Try to narrow down the exact time, duration and date of the call before you start.

There are specific media guidelines on approaching relatives, though none of the laws in this area appear to have been broken. This lack of illegality will not help your request to the phone company, but it's worth a try.

Newswatcher - to answer your question, this is standard stuff to any well connected journalist who knows his subject material. Indeed, that fact may help narrow your search, Pope Gregory IX.

No timings are mentioned, but it is just possible the journalist believed relatives had already been informed. Confirmation of death is, generally speaking, information only available to journalists from close relatives.

Hope this helps

Condolences

Dan Coughlan


PS: Have since read up a little more on the circumstances. Would further suggest the Navy press office should be able to assist with the above. If not, there's nothing to stop you as an individual making such enquiries with a view to making a representation to the Press Complaints Commission (PPC) and/or the journalist's employer/commissioning editor.

Normal procedure should have seen the journalist first contact the duty press officer of the Navy or MoD. I would therefore also make enquiries of them to see if they were contacted and, if so, by whom?


PPS: The PCC can only deal with print media. If the journalist was working for a broadcast media, such as a radio station, you need to speak to the Broadcasting Standards Commission.

Point five of the PCC’s Code of Practice says:

Intrusion into grief or shock
"In cases involving personal grief or shock, enquiries must be carried out and approaches made with sympathy and discretion."

A too rapid approach might be considered to be in breach of the Code, especially if the Navy or the MoD were not contacted first.

Be aware complaints must usually be made within one month, and that you will need the written permission of the spouse in order to make a complaint on their behalf. Those indirectly connected cannot complain to the PCC.

Feel free to PM me if you have questions.

[Artificial Horizon]

Completley out of order, should of had more sense and decency!!:(:mad:

[Instrument Ranting]

I hope you are sure of your facts. I have been on the wrong side of a similar accusation following a fatal RAF crash.

I called to ask for a telephone interview with the Squadron/Station CO, the request was turned down. Despite the friendliness of my tone, expression of condolence and immediate acceptance of the decision not to put someone up for interview - my phone call was reported to another RAF Officer as aggresive and insensitive.

As it happened the seond officer was a close friend of mine, who reported the remarks to me.

Ordinarily of course, I would never have heard this unfair description of the phone call.

I have never challeneged the person in question, so I suppose another story of a journalist lowlife is still doing the rounds.

I am certainly not suggesting that Mrs Murton would have made up any such story - but that chinese whispers may have exaggerated the truth.

As you are taking the rather extreme step of virtually promising to 'sort out' this journo - you better check his side of the story first.

[jockspice]

The Junglies are a tight community - chinese whispers do not exist when the subject is of such severity, as is in this case.
I daresay we will listen to his side of the story if he ever has the minerals to own up to what he did.:sad:

[Lukeafb1]

If true, I heartily condemn this person.

However, to quote jockspice:

QUOTE]I daresay we will listen to his side of the story if he ever has the minerals to own up to what he did.[/QUOTE]

I can understand jockspice's feelings, but he has already decided that the journo is guilty. Hardly fair, since none of us on this thread know the true story. And having been a media journo, I know how reality can be misquoted and twisted.

Nevertheless, if the events as reported actually happened, he (?) should be shunned by every editor.

[soddim]

Unfortunately, misquoting and twisting the facts is stock in trade for most journos (unless it is the editors who do it!). I would not therefore give too much credance to this one's side of the story.

[jockspice]

lukeafb1

I am afraid you are quite incorrect. I would, for one, gladly listen to the reasoning behind what he did - its just that the longer that one waits for such an explanation, the less forgiving one may be.

[Dantruck]

Do you think you could be just a little more rabid.

This person will surely come forward then :rolleyes:

[Jackonicko]

Perhaps we'd give your wild and hysterical ramblings a touch more credence were you able to spell the word, Soddim. ;)

"Unfortunately, misquoting and twisting the facts is stock in trade for most journos".

Just as stupid and groundless stereotyping of civvies is the stock in trade for most military personnel, I take it?

Don't be so silly. :rolleyes:

[Arkroyal]

Lukeafb1
If true, I heartily condemn this person.

It is most certainly true.

This man is a disgrace to his profession.

[soddim]

Dantruck

Sorry for being rabid anti- journo, didn’t realize he was likely to come forward – what have you been smoking?

Jackonicko

Sorry for upsetting you with my “wild and hysterical ramblings” but I’ll spell my name however I wish – I assume you enjoy the same privilege.

[Jackonicko]

Thu wurd wot yoo miss speld woz credenss, saddom.

[soddim]

Jacko, at the risk of being boring, thankyou for your spelling lesson, now why don't you look beyond the trivia and use your journo skills to report accurately on something more meaningful - or would that be a disgrace to your dubious profession?

[Dantruck]

If you will trouble yourself to read from the start you will note Pope Gregory IX is asking for help.

Some of us are trying to give it to him...

How about you?


Dantruck

PS: Thanks...I don't smoke, but I could be made to fume.

[soddim]

Dantruck – if I could help the Pope I would and I sincerely hope your contribution brings forth this miscreant. However, this is an open forum and in responding so predictably to the post in which I gave my low opinion of journos both you and Jacko have turned it into a personal slanging match – this is the way most threads go nowadays on Prune in case you have not noticed. If you will desist so will I.

[Dantruck]

:hmm:


................

[FEBA]

This, if true, is an outrage.
Jacko or whatever your name is. Your rantings are worthy of first prize in the Alastair Campbell Smoke Screen Awards. If you have any pertinent comments to make please go ahead, otherwise stop distracting others off the main point of this thread.
Pope
Please keep us all advised as to your progress in this case
Thank you
FEBA

[Jackonicko]

In this particular case, it's clear that a journalist has been found wanting - whether through ignorance, accident or malice.

It's equally clear that mutual misunderstanding and incomprehension between the Armed Forces and civilian society as a whole, and journalists in particular, will only serve to make such problems more common.

I therefore make no apology for taking Soddim to task for his silly, largely groundless and offensive tirade, nor for poking fun at his spelling of the word credence.

"Unfortunately, misquoting and twisting the facts is stock in trade for most journos". (This was the statement which turned the thread into a slanging match).

A more open approach to dealing with journalists, with "How much can we tell him?" as its basic principle, rather than "How little can we tell him" would be of enormous help in winning trust and in helping journalists do their jobs properly. If left in an information vacuum, journalists will inevitably try to get what they need, and in doing so will get things wrong, and sometimes, (as seems to have been the case here) over-step the bounds of civilised behaviour. That's never excusable and I don't condone it for a moment.

There ought to be more understanding that there are good, well-motivated, sympathetic journos along with the bad apples, and people should perhaps try to be less inclined to leap to conclusions on the basis of their prejudices about the press.

If anyone has any concrete details about who this journo was, or who he was representing, then some of the journo Pruners would, I'm sure, be happy to look into it.

[soddim]

Jacko

journalists will inevitably try to get what they need, and in doing so will get things wrong,

Roughly translated - 'misquoting and twisting the facts' ? - but that was not a personal criticism of you Jacko, simply my opinion of journos in general gained from my lifetime experience of your colleagues efforts to fill their columns and programmes.

I will continue to post my opinions where relevant - and I do not believe in political correctness - but I will not accept that gives you the right to turn it into a personal slanging match that is irrelevant to the thread. I will also continue to make spelling mistakes because my ISS tutor is no longer on this planet (not sure he ever was).

If it interests you, no member of the armed forces of this country is permitted to communicate with the press without permission, so you might continue to have difficulty getting such people to give you your story but it does not mean they have any particular bias against civilians - in fact, nowadays, most live amongst them, socialise with them and are just as civil as they are.

[FEBA]

Jack
I regret to say that, in my opinion, your last posting is complete tosh, or more accurately sophistry. This thread concerns complaints about the outrageous behaviour of a journalist not a profession.
Your rather cruel comments about someones poor spelling can only be construed as diversionary tactics of a fraternal nature. I believe your contribution to outing the unscrupulous within would serve your profession, and those that have complained on this thread, far better.
I find your comments regarding an information vacuum amusing. Generally speaking journalists become highly imaginative when confronted with such dilemmas.
If you are able to assist in finding the person responsible then I'm sure many would be most grateful to you , please desist from the playgound stuff.
Thank you
FEBA

[Jackonicko]

I think the stereotype of unscrupulous journos who deliberately twist the facts for their own ends, and 'as policy' (their 'stock in trade') is both offensive and dangerously far from the truth. Journos who sometimes get it wrong because they haven't got themselves a decent brief are regrettably common, and there is a huge difference.

Making absurd generalisations will never help win the majority of journos over to what is a worthwhile cause.

Re this individual, I suspect that it would be someone from a local paper, or a freelance or semi-freelance stringer. Specialist journos would be too afraid of the ****-storm which would follow this kind of behaviour, and most National journos would know the ropes well enough not to do it.

I'm making people in our industry aware of the interest surrounding this, and will PM the Pontiff if I find out anything.

[FJJP]

OK folks, lets calm this thread down a little. Over several years recently, before I retired, I had the pleasure of working closely with a press liaison officer. He was in uniform, but had extensive media training and had a huge network of journo colleagues. We spent many hours discussing the press, their work, attitudes, methods and so on - I gained an invaluable insight into the media world.

So much so that I changed my hostile anti-press views. It is true that as a Serviceman we are forbidden to talk to the press, but we had to transfer any calls to the PLO. Too bad if he wasn't in his office - it left the journo without any info and little prospect of getting the job done (deadlines spring to mind). Rather, this PLO was magnificently politically incorrect and used to advise the Stn Exec cadre to talk directly to the press if the situation warranted it - eg if it was desirable to get the press informed quickly, with something very good happening on Base, or where comment was needed fast as in the case of an ac crash.

He also taught me that it was a good idea to make available to the press as many facilities as could be reasonably allowed in a very controlled manner. For example, if an aircraft crashed, a pre-arranged plan swung into action including arranging buses, food, telephones, escorts, a briefing programme to be given by a knowledgeable Stn Exec, a press release schedule set up, and so on. A press enquiry desk was also set up and fully manned by someone who could give informed comment or information. This desk was kept fully informed of developments in detail by the disaster controller as a high priority.

Rather we worked WITH the press rather than against them, to get and keep them on-side. I didn't get to meet many journos, but those I did meet I found to be courteous, interested and sympathetic. By the time I finished, I found that they were a very professional bunch, with integrity, where 'off the record' was treated as just that - I cringed at times to hear what they were being told 'off the record'.

So appreciating both sides of the arguement, can we please lift this important thread out of the slanging phase, all shake hands and say a mutual sorry and work to find out who this little s*** is and dump him in the kakhi-p**h with his editor/paper owner.

[FEBA]

FJJP
You've just reiterated what I have been saying. Thank you.
Jacko
Your help may prove invaluable. May I suggest that a public forum be more appropriate for revelaing the identity of this individual rather than PM's
FEBA

[Jackonicko]

How you give me any leads is entirely up to you, FEBA!

[PPRuNe Pop]

Guys. As you know this forum is thought to be self policing. In other words we rely upon you to avoid slanging matches and any other form of abuse - particularly if they are OFF topic.

Listen to FJJP. He speaks sense.

So.......bite the bullet before you fire it! Your second line of defence is the submit button ;)

[Scud-U-Like]

Journalists simply pitch their writing at the level of their readership. People who read tabloids deserve to be lied to. Sloppy journalism in 'quality' papers is less forgivable. The Indi and the Guardian tend to uphold the best reporting and editorial standards, while The Times seems to have become a tabloid in disguise. As for the Torygraph, well, say no more.

[Dantruck]

Can anyone close to the family or this incident indicate whether any kind of follow-up is underway?

Pope...check your PM's

Dantruck

[16 blades]

Scud,

The 'Indi' and the Guardian are line-toeing mouthpieces of this Neo-Communist/Fascist Improved New Labour government. The have NO impartiallity and print utter B***cks or whatever Alistair Cambell throws at them (tautology methinks...) 90% of the time (possibly more).

[Mike51]

Any updates on this?

[SOMAT]

16 Blades

I didn't know it was possible to be both 'neo-Communist and Fascist' at the same time; but I suppose New Labour comes as close as you'll get in their efforts to be all things to all men (Opps! I mean 'persons'); the PC police (communist/fascist, or both)will now be coming to see me, so you ain't seen me, right!!

[andrewc]

16blades

Good polemic, have you ever actually read the Guardian
for any significant period?

-- Andrew

[pregnant penguin]

The rumour (and I hasten to add RUMOUR) that was circulated to me at the time of this horrific incident was that He was infact a She and She had done something similar before (I think during GW2) and that She works for the BBC.

I may be wrong.

PP

[DamienB]

On a related note I and 13 others made a complaint to Broadcasting Standards about Sky's insensitive coverage of the Firefly crash. I am delighted to say the complaint was upheld (though not all aspects):

The Panel considered that the repeated use of the footage showing the moment of impact, in addition to that of the wreckage, had been gratuitous. This was exacerbated by the insensitive nature of some aspects of the commentary and visual treatment of the tragedy. The complaints were upheld.

The full text is on page 16 of bulletin 68, including Sky's comments in response to the complaint, which can be downloaded here:

http://www.bsc.org.uk/pdfs/bulletin/bulletin68.pdf

['aint an eye!]

This makes me chuckle...and lifts spirits slightly...

Just chucking in my bobs'worth! During Telic, a young and fruity local journalist managed to get through to an operational phone number on my base...(its not really that hard, just phone the station/base/unit/depot...etc..etc...that you are interested in and then type in a combination of extension numbers until somebody picks up the receiver!).

Journo type then tried to 'pump' information from a colleague under false identity and rank...said colleague very quickly cottoned-onto the fact that the caller was not at all bona fide.

What was funny, however, was that instead of redirecting the gullable chap onto the MOD Press Officer as you would normally, it had been a long shift and he thought it would be much more amusing to fill said journo full of fancy, impressive sounding poo!

Worked a treat it did!

Extract from part of a very long story from local rag: 'The (unnamed, of course!) Echo'.

''The Tucano's were specially modified at RAF Spadeadam to carry individual loads of up to four Lithuanian made Paveway III 'smart bombs', which use solar energy to power them at high speed into their targets. The squadron is to be imminently deployed to an unnamed airbase in Libya''

Oh, how we chuckled...still makes me smile!

Hope it made you smile, too!

[BLW Skylark 4]

Chaps,

For what its worth, I work as a volunteer photographer as part of the Media Team at a certain Gloucestershire Airshow.

If the identity of the said individual is ever confirmed (and I do stress CONFIRMED), please let me know by PM and I will ensure that it is circulated amongst my colleagues who I am sure will share my distaste.

I was at Legends on the Saturday and in my humble opinion, anyone prepared to stoop so low for a story can not be trusted.

'BLW'

[moggie]

Great work DamienB - Sky news is only an animated version of the Sun, at best, and needs to be taken down a peg or two.

[DamienB]

The production company (Red Admiral) that sold the footage to Sky has, I hear, also been booted out and will never film another Duxford show.

As the same company films RIAT perhaps BLW Skylark 4 could have a word in the shell-likes of them wot matters to ensure a similar result there?