Abysmal Journalism concerning Aviation
Pat S, I'm afraid I can't think of any positives for the journalists. Sure they may be working on 3 or 4 stories at once, but are you actually telling us that they will all be inaccurate.
I was given a copy of that appalling book by Matthew Benns (The men who killed Qantas). There is not a shred of investigation in it. Mostly he has cut and pasted newspaper articles (taking them as fact...they must be they were printed) as well as selected items from the ATSB, which he himself quite clearly doesn't understand.
Maybe I'll give the local hack some leeway with regard to accuracy, but this is a lad who seems to specialise in aviation. I'm sure it was once a respected profession. But not any more.
I was given a copy of that appalling book by Matthew Benns (The men who killed Qantas). There is not a shred of investigation in it. Mostly he has cut and pasted newspaper articles (taking them as fact...they must be they were printed) as well as selected items from the ATSB, which he himself quite clearly doesn't understand.
Maybe I'll give the local hack some leeway with regard to accuracy, but this is a lad who seems to specialise in aviation. I'm sure it was once a respected profession. But not any more.
Thread Starter
Pat S,
I take your point regarding the differences between aircraft types/designations for the purpose of the story. It is annoying to us in the indistry, but wouldn't matter a fig to anyone who isn't.
My main objection to the original story was the headline that mentioned "Forced Landing in Brisbane" and showed a picture of an aircraft incident that occurred to the same airline, but on a different aircraft type, six days previously on the other side of the world. Such journalism is misleading to the point of slander.
Secondly, the journalist concerned seemed to take some time contacting the ATSB to follow-up the story. But when told it was still a non-event, used inflammatory and emotive terminology to turn the incident into something it clearly (and confirmedly) wasn't.
Hope your journo mates will run their stories your way in future before they publish them, so that we won't have a repeat of this abysmal story.
I take your point regarding the differences between aircraft types/designations for the purpose of the story. It is annoying to us in the indistry, but wouldn't matter a fig to anyone who isn't.
My main objection to the original story was the headline that mentioned "Forced Landing in Brisbane" and showed a picture of an aircraft incident that occurred to the same airline, but on a different aircraft type, six days previously on the other side of the world. Such journalism is misleading to the point of slander.
Secondly, the journalist concerned seemed to take some time contacting the ATSB to follow-up the story. But when told it was still a non-event, used inflammatory and emotive terminology to turn the incident into something it clearly (and confirmedly) wasn't.
Hope your journo mates will run their stories your way in future before they publish them, so that we won't have a repeat of this abysmal story.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: shivering in the cold dark shadow of my own magnificence.
Posts: 522
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation journalism in general
Pat,
You have to understand that most professional pilots have spent their entire adult lives working with exact numbers for a multitude of legal / procedural and safety reasons. In an industry where a seemingly minute detail can have massive consequences, it incenses Pilot's no end when journo's seem to make up stories with little regard to truth or accuracy (in general).
It's largely thanks to these "journalists" that the general public (and some pilots) hold true the misconception that not only do aircraft operate themselves but they (the aircraft) possess some sort of higher brain function that tells the mindless pilot how to fly.
You have to understand that most professional pilots have spent their entire adult lives working with exact numbers for a multitude of legal / procedural and safety reasons. In an industry where a seemingly minute detail can have massive consequences, it incenses Pilot's no end when journo's seem to make up stories with little regard to truth or accuracy (in general).
It's largely thanks to these "journalists" that the general public (and some pilots) hold true the misconception that not only do aircraft operate themselves but they (the aircraft) possess some sort of higher brain function that tells the mindless pilot how to fly.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Brisbane
Age: 77
Posts: 1,406
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's largely thanks to these "journalists" that the general public (and some pilots) hold true the misconception that not only do aircraft operate themselves but they (the aircraft) possess some sort of higher brain function that tells the mindless pilot how to fly.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346.
Sadly, it was not always thus; one of the above householders is a history researcher and reckons you can generally treat an old newspaper article as a primary source, ie have complete faith in its accuracy. The book mentioned above shows what happens if you try doing that today
. The print media can moan all they like about decreased sales being due to the free product on the internet, but I believe their breathlessly emotional, poorly written, crappy product is just as big a factor.
Last edited by Worrals in the wilds; 27th Jan 2010 at 19:03.
Journalists annoy me.
When are they ever going to learn - YOU ARE NOT THE STORY!!!
Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.
Just for the record the definition of "parasite" in the Oxford Dictionary is "a person who lives at the expense of another person or of society in general."
Journalists piggyback on the courage or failings of others.
A very small few may have talent, but most have big egos. They think of themselves as the heroes of their stories, as the courageous fighters for truth, as the saviours of the nation and all humanity. Faaark me!
Have a think about Watergate, when two reporters brought down a presidency and were rewarded by successive bestsellers and a film in which two real-life nought-heads were played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Journalism boomed and began to be written for other journalists and for prizes, not for what it should have been written for. It was thought of as "the" career for the allegedly well-educated, well-connected young voyeur who didn't want any responsibility (just a byline, thanks - I really don't want to get my hands dirty, I just want to make fun of the young soldiers or cops who get theirs dirty every day)
Have a think of some journalists who've reported from Iraq. The faces in those talking-tools on the tele leap to mind. We can all remember who the reporters are.
Have a think now, of one decorated hero from Iraq. Just one. Out of the Congressional Medal of Honour winners, or from among those awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, or out of the hundreds whose courage earned them a Silver Star or a Bronze Star with V-Device.
If you can't think of a single hero, can you at least picture one face?
What you do remember is the smarter-than-thou mugs of the journalists posing in helmets and flak jackets behind the cafeteria in the Green Zone. Pathetic soft-cocks! Let's make fun of that.
I can't for the life of me remember why I bothered typing this - it's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back and wasted it on a bunch of pathetic Journos.
[/RANT]
When are they ever going to learn - YOU ARE NOT THE STORY!!!
Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.
Just for the record the definition of "parasite" in the Oxford Dictionary is "a person who lives at the expense of another person or of society in general."
Journalists piggyback on the courage or failings of others.
A very small few may have talent, but most have big egos. They think of themselves as the heroes of their stories, as the courageous fighters for truth, as the saviours of the nation and all humanity. Faaark me!
Have a think about Watergate, when two reporters brought down a presidency and were rewarded by successive bestsellers and a film in which two real-life nought-heads were played by Robert Redford and Dustin Hoffman. Journalism boomed and began to be written for other journalists and for prizes, not for what it should have been written for. It was thought of as "the" career for the allegedly well-educated, well-connected young voyeur who didn't want any responsibility (just a byline, thanks - I really don't want to get my hands dirty, I just want to make fun of the young soldiers or cops who get theirs dirty every day)
Have a think of some journalists who've reported from Iraq. The faces in those talking-tools on the tele leap to mind. We can all remember who the reporters are.
Have a think now, of one decorated hero from Iraq. Just one. Out of the Congressional Medal of Honour winners, or from among those awarded the Distinguished Service Cross, or out of the hundreds whose courage earned them a Silver Star or a Bronze Star with V-Device.
If you can't think of a single hero, can you at least picture one face?
What you do remember is the smarter-than-thou mugs of the journalists posing in helmets and flak jackets behind the cafeteria in the Green Zone. Pathetic soft-cocks! Let's make fun of that.
I can't for the life of me remember why I bothered typing this - it's 20 minutes of my life I'll never get back and wasted it on a bunch of pathetic Journos.
[/RANT]
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: inner suburbia
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with you Atlas S, but.......,
if it isn't reported, the perception is, that it never happened.
Having said that, there are still good journos and crew who do a professional job and report without letting excessive ego taint the story.
I believe reportage was better before the internet age arrived and 'instant' public gratification became the new paradigm.
if it isn't reported, the perception is, that it never happened.
Having said that, there are still good journos and crew who do a professional job and report without letting excessive ego taint the story.
I believe reportage was better before the internet age arrived and 'instant' public gratification became the new paradigm.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Sunny side up
Posts: 1,206
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Biggles, I'm sure that's a big part of it, but I think the rot started in the late 80s with the 'news as entertainment' phenomenon. Instead of presenting unbiassed facts, news now has to be exciting, emotive and entertaining. This leads to a trend for big, breathless headlines that generate excitement, such as FORCED LANDING BY PLANE IN TROUBLE, because 'Routine fuel stop by aircraft with a relatively minor engine problem' just isn't nearly as attention grabbing. I don't know whether it's the journos or the public that drives this crap but it's nearly killed accurate reporting.
The reason such stories get written is behavioural there is considerable research that demonstrates the peoples perceptions of risk is a direct function of how easily they can imagine an accident affecting them.
We thus have parents desperately scared for their children being abducted by unknown pederasts when statistically the kids are far more likely to be killed by mothers rotten driving. Yet which risk are the parents concerned most about?
So it goes with aviation. The fear of death by falling is ingrained very very deeply in our subconscious and for good reason, and that translates directly to air travel as anyone who has ever talked about the "wing release button" to a passenger in a C172 has demonstrated.
Pilots who criticise an inaccurate journalist and deride their passengers unfounded fears are merely demonstrating their ignorance of human behaviour and a lack of empathy.
We thus have parents desperately scared for their children being abducted by unknown pederasts when statistically the kids are far more likely to be killed by mothers rotten driving. Yet which risk are the parents concerned most about?
So it goes with aviation. The fear of death by falling is ingrained very very deeply in our subconscious and for good reason, and that translates directly to air travel as anyone who has ever talked about the "wing release button" to a passenger in a C172 has demonstrated.
Pilots who criticise an inaccurate journalist and deride their passengers unfounded fears are merely demonstrating their ignorance of human behaviour and a lack of empathy.
Registered User **
Join Date: May 2005
Location: The Ultimate Crew Rest....
Age: 69
Posts: 2,346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We seem to have two extremes here...
I don't agree..if you are going to write an article on something then I would imagine if you have pride in your work you would go to the trouble of getting your information correct.....
If you are not going to know the difference between an aircraft with two engines compared to another with four then you probably won't go to too much trouble to check the validity of other aspects of your story....
In other words is the old cliche about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story really true....I suspect it is.
Then we have this post...
Atlas...Do you ever read the papers or magazines to get news or anything of interest?
I can't think of anyone who does not but most of us understand the reality of journalism and have our own filter to make up our own mind...
The problem with most articles on aviation is that they seem to sensationalise the issue rather than be objective....
Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346.
If you are not going to know the difference between an aircraft with two engines compared to another with four then you probably won't go to too much trouble to check the validity of other aspects of your story....
In other words is the old cliche about not letting the truth get in the way of a good story really true....I suspect it is.
Then we have this post...
Journalists annoy me....
Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.
Journalists are parasites. From war correspondents or editors, they live off the doings and misdoings of others. We do, they tell. Without us, there are no stories and nothing for them to live on.
I can't think of anyone who does not but most of us understand the reality of journalism and have our own filter to make up our own mind...
The problem with most articles on aviation is that they seem to sensationalise the issue rather than be objective....
The latest instalment of quality aviation journalism.
Jetstar plane 'screamed straight up into air to avoid buildings'
I don't know what is more pathetc, the reporting or idiots clammering for their 15 minutes of fame.
Jetstar plane 'screamed straight up into air to avoid buildings'
I don't know what is more pathetc, the reporting or idiots clammering for their 15 minutes of fame.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Roguesville, cloud cuckooland
Posts: 1,197
Likes: 0
Received 16 Likes
on
5 Posts
Journalists are no different from other professions in that they are under pressure from management to do more with less. Therefore there is no expertise among them on virtually any subject, a tendency to simply quote the most sensationalistic quote, and a lack of follow up and accountability.
The rise and fall of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a classic symptom of this. Journalists have no science expertise and hence report the most sensationalistic quotes they can find. "The Earth is warming" some claimed.
And so the cargo cult and politicization of science commenced. But the journalists who originally reported it had absolutely no idea about the veracity of the claims, and in the end, no reason to kill the golden goose by basic investigation of the facts.
Did I mention they sell more papers that way too?
Now there is starting to be considerable doubt as to both the claims of some climate scientists and the objectivity of same, the jounalists who bought it hook line and sinker will start to quote the more sensational claims of the sceptics and the cycle will commence anew. Watch for "Climategate" to gather pace like an avalanche in the next few months.
In general news there are NO news reporters with any expertise in aviation. So when Ms Christ from Bundaberg mistakes a simple go-around for a near-death experience, they simply quote her because its sensational.
Jetstar seems to be the current flavor of the months but these things are all cyclical.
The rise and fall of Anthropogenic Global Warming is a classic symptom of this. Journalists have no science expertise and hence report the most sensationalistic quotes they can find. "The Earth is warming" some claimed.
And so the cargo cult and politicization of science commenced. But the journalists who originally reported it had absolutely no idea about the veracity of the claims, and in the end, no reason to kill the golden goose by basic investigation of the facts.
Did I mention they sell more papers that way too?
Now there is starting to be considerable doubt as to both the claims of some climate scientists and the objectivity of same, the jounalists who bought it hook line and sinker will start to quote the more sensational claims of the sceptics and the cycle will commence anew. Watch for "Climategate" to gather pace like an avalanche in the next few months.
In general news there are NO news reporters with any expertise in aviation. So when Ms Christ from Bundaberg mistakes a simple go-around for a near-death experience, they simply quote her because its sensational.
Jetstar seems to be the current flavor of the months but these things are all cyclical.
Pilots who criticise an inaccurate journalist and deride their passengers unfounded fears are merely demonstrating their ignorance of human behaviour and a lack of empathy.
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Holland
Age: 60
Posts: 560
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pat S and his/her grubby friends
Pat S,
Please take your support of Journalist parasites to another planet. But before you do :
By your admission Journo's do not know or understand much about aviation. That means everything they report is unsubstantiated,biased, based on no actual fact or truth or as we have long known - plain bul#*it. Good to see that you admit that.
And again,
Ha. Almost every article they write is ficticious, bogus, lies, sensationalism, deceptive, incorrect and again pure unfiltered A Grade bul#*it. And again, by your admission, the Journo's could be working on a story at 0200 or 0500 ( boohoo spare me a tissue ) and not have all the valid facts before they run the story anyway, and they and you feel that is a valid,fair and honest thing to do - to still report a half arsed crock anyway ?
Finally,
Guilty by association. Seeing that you are 'close' to some of these Journalist maggot infested pigs, please let them know that every time they report innacurately, with bias, stretch the truth or even 'emeblish' as they like to do, they are putting peoples careers in jeopardy and at times even safety at risk. One can only hope that ( god forbid ) the next time a passenger jet spears into the ground nose first the majority onboard are Journalists.
Good evening......
Please take your support of Journalist parasites to another planet. But before you do :
I agree that reporting on aviation issues can sometimes be misleading but i think that we need to put things into perspective. Firstly, most journo's probably don't know and don't need to know the difference between a 737-700 and a 737-800 nor a Boing 777 or an Airbus A346. Now, i know this will come as a great shock to most of you but it's no different to a bunch of trainspotters complaing that a journo got a Tangara train mixed up with Silverside (here in Sydney).
And again,
Where i work, most journo's are working on 3 to 4 stories at one time and working to a deadline. If they get something wrong in the first version of their story, they will correct it when they are alerted to it. If you see that some info is wrong in a story, let them know. They'll appreciate it (at least where i work they will). Also, they could be working on a story at 2am, 5am etc so sometimes they're not able to get all the facts.
Finally,
Anyway, just my 2 cents worth and no, i don't work for news.com.au
Good evening......
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 139
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QF 767 tail strike
From Qantas plane drama after tail strike
As per normal.....
I think journalist should research before quoting passengers, and qualify a statement like that: "which aviation professionals report is entirely normal".
Passenger Xxxxxx Xxxxxx, 33, who was flying with her one-year-old son, said she thought she detected the pilots throttling off to slow the engines while the plane was still climbing.
I think journalist should research before quoting passengers, and qualify a statement like that: "which aviation professionals report is entirely normal".
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ms Xxxxxx, an experienced parachutist of 300 jumps, said that she felt no impact, or any unusual noise from the plane during take-off
When was the last time she did a PJE from a B767, and what's it got to do with a tail strike?
Oh Dear.....What a load of......
I've been on hols - nice - and wot 'ave I missed???
Back in 'dem good ole days' in SY FSC, United OPS used to send OPC (Operational Control Messages) to SY FSC for relay via HF to its SY bound flights from about the FIR boundary onwards.
Those msgs would read something like "For UAL XXX, if you can make (Next reporting point) by time xxxx, at an alt of FL 360 or better, with a G/S of xxxknots or better, with a fuel state of xxx or better, proceed to SY. If not then divert to BN".
This was roughly the format of the OPC from UAL - as far as the ole memory banks can recall.....
These would be duly received from UAL OPS Control just prior to the acft reaching the next reporting point - which were ALL relayed back to UAL OPS Centre - where THEY would do the numbers and direct the pilot accordingly.
And, of course, the flight would simply proceed to SY with a close eye on the fuel state as per the above mentioned parameters.....
Sometimes. I heard they would actually have to divert to refuel for reserves, weather, holding, etc etc......
So, I guess they might still use a similar system??
And, despite the curfew, it was not uncommon for the 747 of the time to arrive off SY 30 mins or so prior to 6am, and be allowed, by agreement that providing no reverse thrust was utilised and so annoy the 'sleeping beauties of SY', they would land RWY 34 from over Kurnell and let it roll to the end.....
OPS NORMAL!!! And that was in the early/mid 70's......
SOME Reporters.....BAH HUMBUG!!
I've been on hols - nice - and wot 'ave I missed???
Back in 'dem good ole days' in SY FSC, United OPS used to send OPC (Operational Control Messages) to SY FSC for relay via HF to its SY bound flights from about the FIR boundary onwards.
Those msgs would read something like "For UAL XXX, if you can make (Next reporting point) by time xxxx, at an alt of FL 360 or better, with a G/S of xxxknots or better, with a fuel state of xxx or better, proceed to SY. If not then divert to BN".
This was roughly the format of the OPC from UAL - as far as the ole memory banks can recall.....
These would be duly received from UAL OPS Control just prior to the acft reaching the next reporting point - which were ALL relayed back to UAL OPS Centre - where THEY would do the numbers and direct the pilot accordingly.
And, of course, the flight would simply proceed to SY with a close eye on the fuel state as per the above mentioned parameters.....
Sometimes. I heard they would actually have to divert to refuel for reserves, weather, holding, etc etc......
So, I guess they might still use a similar system??
And, despite the curfew, it was not uncommon for the 747 of the time to arrive off SY 30 mins or so prior to 6am, and be allowed, by agreement that providing no reverse thrust was utilised and so annoy the 'sleeping beauties of SY', they would land RWY 34 from over Kurnell and let it roll to the end.....
OPS NORMAL!!! And that was in the early/mid 70's......
SOME Reporters.....BAH HUMBUG!!
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone is zero
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Griffo, I think you are referring to "Operational Control"? My understanding is for some operators, the licensed dispatcher is responsible for the pre-flight fuel & en-route diversion decisions. I stand open to correction.
Occasionally you hear position reports including fuel on HF. I have heard a company message being passed from ATC to the aircraft with a cryptic code referring to their flightplan, which I assumed was a pre-formatted diversion code message from the dispatcher.
Occasionally you hear position reports including fuel on HF. I have heard a company message being passed from ATC to the aircraft with a cryptic code referring to their flightplan, which I assumed was a pre-formatted diversion code message from the dispatcher.