Pull the pin....
Regular PPRuNers may be aware that I am one of the handful of regular journo visitors here.
The difference between newspaper, TV and radio (and especially Tabloid) journos (including the broadsheet defence correspondents) and the specialists who write for the defence media is that one lot want a story (that's the modern culture of general news organisations) while the other lot want the truth.
It's only slightly unfair to say that one group want to entertain, and the other wants to inform, educate and illuminate.
However you dress it up (and Mr Moncur dresses it well) the Leuchars accident is only ever going to be interesting to his editor if there's a "STORY" - preferably one involving a whiff of scandal or fault. And the pressure of competition means that stories like this can't be properly checked. With the luxury of a weekly deadline (and often longer) I can dig deeper, and if someone else gets a whiff of the story it doesn't matter. I do appreciate James' dilemma, and I don't envy him.
I do agree with him that DPR/DCC/Station PRO/CRO people are seldom as open or as helpful as we might want, and that with a more helpful approach some of the daft stories like Mr Moncur's (if it was daft) would not appear. But at the same time, journos are conditioned to expect to be lied to, and obstructed, and few have the faintest clue as to why there might be an entirely legitimate and explicable reason why Tornado aircrew's names might be witheld at the moment. Nor would they realise that PROs and CROs would not routinely know the cause of an accident, and might only know the quite reasonable line that a BOI was investigating the causes. Red rags to a bull? Only if the bull is painfully ignorant.....
What really grips my sh.it is Mr Moncur's assumption that he has a right (or even a duty) to write this story, and his cavalier willingness to pre-empt the due process of the BOI. I would draw a distinction between those who wanted an answer to real questions surrounding the loss of the Hercules in Iraq (where there was a real concern that there might have been a cover up of a potential structural issue, and where the loss of an aircraft and several crew in combat was of huge public interest) and of wanting an answer to this routine peacetime accident.
We are a broad church, and our congregation consists of some very different animals.
And yet we all bear the same tag of journo..... and we all suffer because of the mistrust and contempt which poor, inaccurate, and sensationalist reporters earn our profession.
The difference between newspaper, TV and radio (and especially Tabloid) journos (including the broadsheet defence correspondents) and the specialists who write for the defence media is that one lot want a story (that's the modern culture of general news organisations) while the other lot want the truth.
It's only slightly unfair to say that one group want to entertain, and the other wants to inform, educate and illuminate.
However you dress it up (and Mr Moncur dresses it well) the Leuchars accident is only ever going to be interesting to his editor if there's a "STORY" - preferably one involving a whiff of scandal or fault. And the pressure of competition means that stories like this can't be properly checked. With the luxury of a weekly deadline (and often longer) I can dig deeper, and if someone else gets a whiff of the story it doesn't matter. I do appreciate James' dilemma, and I don't envy him.
I do agree with him that DPR/DCC/Station PRO/CRO people are seldom as open or as helpful as we might want, and that with a more helpful approach some of the daft stories like Mr Moncur's (if it was daft) would not appear. But at the same time, journos are conditioned to expect to be lied to, and obstructed, and few have the faintest clue as to why there might be an entirely legitimate and explicable reason why Tornado aircrew's names might be witheld at the moment. Nor would they realise that PROs and CROs would not routinely know the cause of an accident, and might only know the quite reasonable line that a BOI was investigating the causes. Red rags to a bull? Only if the bull is painfully ignorant.....
What really grips my sh.it is Mr Moncur's assumption that he has a right (or even a duty) to write this story, and his cavalier willingness to pre-empt the due process of the BOI. I would draw a distinction between those who wanted an answer to real questions surrounding the loss of the Hercules in Iraq (where there was a real concern that there might have been a cover up of a potential structural issue, and where the loss of an aircraft and several crew in combat was of huge public interest) and of wanting an answer to this routine peacetime accident.
We are a broad church, and our congregation consists of some very different animals.
And yet we all bear the same tag of journo..... and we all suffer because of the mistrust and contempt which poor, inaccurate, and sensationalist reporters earn our profession.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Jacko...while the people here might jump on your now and then for asking naughty questions 99% of the time you're a very respected member of your profession here who respects the way the MoD cogs turn.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: N/A
Posts: 143
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As a Fifer I have a number of good contacts on the base and immediately met one of them who confirmed that the eng was indeed in the back and that the rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash.
I'm sure that any hardcore "ufologist" would wonder whether the aircraft hit some extraterrestral vessel, and any paranoid Texan hermit living half-way up a mountain would wonder whether the goddamn Russkies shot it down with some secret new frickin' "laser". If they had any friends they might even have started a rumour about it. At the end of the day, your "contact" at Leuchars knows no more than the aforementioned freaks, so why give his/her ponderings the credibility (in the eyes of your readership, at least) of column inches? You know the answer is that you wanted a story, so you made one up out of the idle speculation of RAF tradesmen who know as many facts as you do.
I'm all for freedom of the press, and investigative journalism. Journalists should pry. They should try and expose cover-ups and reveal the truth. How else would BEagle know that our Beloved Leader is actually a Toothless Poodle who lied to Parliament and his country? Without the press we might all be merrily believing that Iraq was 45 minutes away from nuking us all when we went in. But quality investigative journalists don't run articles based on word-of-mouth from people who cannot be in a position to know the facts. Only sensationalist tabloid journalists out to entertain do that.
I trust my contact implicitly and as a result the story had become more than just a “random nutter phone-in” job that we sometimes have to deal with.
Now relax, be happy and enjoy the fact that you get paid to make sensational stories up as long as there are people daft enough to buy your paper. Instead of coming on here and trying to justify yourself, buy yourself a beer and leave the proper journalism to the big boys.
Dave (not a made-up-name)
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: On the outside looking in
Posts: 542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that this is another 2 sided issue. The 'popular' press seek human interest stories for their readers and so, becasue there are no prizes for second place, have to chase these things when they come up. However, I think that the MOD is crap at media relations at this level - ie reacting to a 'story' - because it isn't the natural habitat of Stn personnel. Having seen the initial signal, even if it wasn't in a position to publish it on the Friday night or over the w/e, the Stn could have done much better in quashing the 'who pulled the handle?' issue much better.
Cynically maybe, but I think it is all because of mis-trust on both sides. Popular journalism takes a story and presents it however its readers would want to see it. Facts don't matter because it will be fish and chip wrappers before facts come out. People in the services don't like the sensationalist stuff they read in the popular press because it is transparent. Informed investigative jouralism takes co-operation and trust from both sides.
eg
probably started on the Sqn as a bit of banter. 'What happened Sarge, decide to get out early? 'Yeah, Yeah'. After a few chinese whispers, it isn't banter, and 'Yeah Yeah' has become someone's fact. I don't think anyone who works on/ in aircraft really believes that anyone would deliberately change the seat setting and then deliberately eject.
The issue of investigating what happened isn't going to be as interesting to RedTop - as he alludes to - a successful MB letdown for the nearly pensioned Pax is his human interest. Jacko, as he says, doesn't have the same pressures and is going to be more interested in the fact that the zyclone clutch failed, overheating the dylithium crystals thus causing the warp drive to explode, but can also hold off until the BOI establishes what happened. And unless it was a sensational previously unknown failure mode that was going to ground all Tornados, I don't think even he would get that excited. Why? Because **** happens, things fail, we investigate what happened to try and stop it happening again and move on.
sw
Cynically maybe, but I think it is all because of mis-trust on both sides. Popular journalism takes a story and presents it however its readers would want to see it. Facts don't matter because it will be fish and chip wrappers before facts come out. People in the services don't like the sensationalist stuff they read in the popular press because it is transparent. Informed investigative jouralism takes co-operation and trust from both sides.
eg
the rumour doing the rounds was that he may have been responsible for the crash
The issue of investigating what happened isn't going to be as interesting to RedTop - as he alludes to - a successful MB letdown for the nearly pensioned Pax is his human interest. Jacko, as he says, doesn't have the same pressures and is going to be more interested in the fact that the zyclone clutch failed, overheating the dylithium crystals thus causing the warp drive to explode, but can also hold off until the BOI establishes what happened. And unless it was a sensational previously unknown failure mode that was going to ground all Tornados, I don't think even he would get that excited. Why? Because **** happens, things fail, we investigate what happened to try and stop it happening again and move on.
sw
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Wiltshire
Posts: 109
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the sort of thing that persuades most of us to say nothing.
From the original post by Mr Moncur:
“An unusual level of secrecy” – journalistic claptrap – MOD / RAF PR probably could have done better but unusual and secrecy – sensationalism.
“A number of independent sources at the base” – suggests that they had some official knowledge rather than just what they might have heard.
“no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen” – suggesting that there was something to deny. I know that “no comment” can be reported as refused to comment but this takes the biscuit, using no denial to give something strength.
“even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated” – of course it will, along with 101 other things - sensationalism
“one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory” – adds weight to the uninformed. This expert may also have mentioned that Command Eject has been around for about 20 years.
Well said by Jackonicko in his post but it’s difficult to be misquoted or misinterpreted if nothing is said unless authorised. I’m afraid that it’s journos like Mr Moncur who build the walls.
From the original post by Mr Moncur:
“An unusual level of secrecy” – journalistic claptrap – MOD / RAF PR probably could have done better but unusual and secrecy – sensationalism.
“A number of independent sources at the base” – suggests that they had some official knowledge rather than just what they might have heard.
“no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen” – suggesting that there was something to deny. I know that “no comment” can be reported as refused to comment but this takes the biscuit, using no denial to give something strength.
“even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated” – of course it will, along with 101 other things - sensationalism
“one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory” – adds weight to the uninformed. This expert may also have mentioned that Command Eject has been around for about 20 years.
Well said by Jackonicko in his post but it’s difficult to be misquoted or misinterpreted if nothing is said unless authorised. I’m afraid that it’s journos like Mr Moncur who build the walls.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
An alternate view of Scottish Journalists.
I appreciate that 'wait for the official report' is always the wisest, fairest and best option. But sweet Jesus would it kill the RAF to change the drill so that press statements CAN be made in situations where sensational stories are in the wind about an accident?
Such as:
PRESS RELEASE: The BOI into accident X have made a preliminary finding that the ejection sequence was actioned by the front seat pilots lower ejection handle being pulled. That is all.
Then at least poor old Sgt Bilko isn't going to spend 9 months with half the world thinking he got scared and trashed the jet and the next rest-of-his-life explaining to anyone who remembers the incident that No he wasn't responsible actually.
Stonewalling for 9 months doesn't make as much sense as it did when the media was much smaller and nobody had got around to inventing an internet yet..
Cheers
WWW
Such as:
PRESS RELEASE: The BOI into accident X have made a preliminary finding that the ejection sequence was actioned by the front seat pilots lower ejection handle being pulled. That is all.
Then at least poor old Sgt Bilko isn't going to spend 9 months with half the world thinking he got scared and trashed the jet and the next rest-of-his-life explaining to anyone who remembers the incident that No he wasn't responsible actually.
Stonewalling for 9 months doesn't make as much sense as it did when the media was much smaller and nobody had got around to inventing an internet yet..
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: uk
Posts: 1,266
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wait until you have an 'incident' on one of your EJ flights (which would have far more scare potential for tabloid-reading morons than a military accident) and see if you feel like pushing for a 'preliminary finding' to be released to the press...
"An Easyjet pilot was suspended today after his 737 left the runway on landing. No Al-Qaeda involvment is suspected at this time. That is all"
...could happen to any of us, no? Factors involved could be complex and varied, and not necessarily any direct fault of the flight crew.
Yet see if that 'helpful' press release by the CAA/Easyjet helps set your mind at ease, while you are unable to comment to the press knocking on your door and ringing up your wife at work.
Trouble is, once you set the precedent for 'helpful' PR, you can't just release it if it's 'pilot-friendly' (quite rightly). And then everything has the potential to get unpleasant...
We must wait for the BoI. The public must be denied their incessanyt hunger for knowledge (see gossip) where necessary, to preserve the integrity of institutions working on their best interest.
If there is any blame to be apportioned or a chance to scare the public into buying newspapers, rest assured the press will have their day when the report is published. They'll dress it up and pretend like it happened yesterday instead of two years ago, like they always do (their peasant public aren't clever enough to be interested in things over a few days old, are they?).
So papers will still get their scoop/readers, just only once (with 'facts') rather than twice (with exciting B.S. on P1 and then 'facts' on P94).
I just do the crossword, me.
"An Easyjet pilot was suspended today after his 737 left the runway on landing. No Al-Qaeda involvment is suspected at this time. That is all"
...could happen to any of us, no? Factors involved could be complex and varied, and not necessarily any direct fault of the flight crew.
Yet see if that 'helpful' press release by the CAA/Easyjet helps set your mind at ease, while you are unable to comment to the press knocking on your door and ringing up your wife at work.
Trouble is, once you set the precedent for 'helpful' PR, you can't just release it if it's 'pilot-friendly' (quite rightly). And then everything has the potential to get unpleasant...
We must wait for the BoI. The public must be denied their incessanyt hunger for knowledge (see gossip) where necessary, to preserve the integrity of institutions working on their best interest.
If there is any blame to be apportioned or a chance to scare the public into buying newspapers, rest assured the press will have their day when the report is published. They'll dress it up and pretend like it happened yesterday instead of two years ago, like they always do (their peasant public aren't clever enough to be interested in things over a few days old, are they?).
So papers will still get their scoop/readers, just only once (with 'facts') rather than twice (with exciting B.S. on P1 and then 'facts' on P94).
I just do the crossword, me.
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Half Way Up The Stairs
Posts: 54
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Right to privacy
I'm sure the jourmos will correct me if i'm wrong but
Isn't that self generated by the press?
I seem to recall that a couple of years ago, because of the Human Rights Acts, people who were rescued by the emergency services could no longer be named in the press without their explicit permission. This sticks in my mind because there used to be open season on naming hillwalkers brought down by SAR / MRT and then it all changed to 'A 42 yr old man from Greenock' (well, not always the same guy).
Now, while it may seem that the MOD was being secretive, were the 2 guys just exercising their rights? Granted the Stn (if this was the case) could have helped itself by explaining this.
5206
“An unusual level of secrecy”
I seem to recall that a couple of years ago, because of the Human Rights Acts, people who were rescued by the emergency services could no longer be named in the press without their explicit permission. This sticks in my mind because there used to be open season on naming hillwalkers brought down by SAR / MRT and then it all changed to 'A 42 yr old man from Greenock' (well, not always the same guy).
Now, while it may seem that the MOD was being secretive, were the 2 guys just exercising their rights? Granted the Stn (if this was the case) could have helped itself by explaining this.
5206
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dear PPRuNe posters,
In the words of a famous lager drinking Feng Shui expert "my work here is done."
I've sent private messages to everyone who bothered to read my opening post and reply to it. Thanks for taking the time.
My single intention when writing my durge was not to justify my story or even to defend tabloid journalism. It was written, believe it or not, to spark a debate and, as I'm sure most of you will agree, that has happened.
A debate needs all levels and all angles of argument to be productive and I hope what has been written by both me and the other posters will be beneficial to someone in your organisation. Over 1,000 people read the thread and I hope some of them are reasonably high up the RAF's food chain to possibly make a difference if they see fit.
Some of you were very responsive to what I had to say, others, however, were very obviously "not for turning." No big shakes...one thing you develop very quickly in this business is a very thick skin.
As expected, the most savage vitriol directed at me came from one of the handful of "in house" journalists you have. My intention was not to threaten the "supremacy" that Jacko has in the airspace over PPRuNe and I'll leave his hunting ground toot sweet. For your information, and I hope this doesn't break the PPRuNe private message "off-the-record" rule, I have apologised to him for leaving my scent all over his territory, and promised him I'd clean it up before I left.
When Jacko mentioned the "red rag to a bull" line in his first post he described me as "ignorant" and he was quite correct. I'm not an aviation specialist and I'm certainly not interested in the techno-babble that floats Jacko's boat.
Ask me how a jet fighter stays in the air and I'd start twitching....quiz me about the tactics four GR4s would employ to neutralise a brace of MiGs and spit would dribble down my chin. But if you want to know busty glamour girl Jordan's inside leg measurement....well...now we're talking.
I've jumped out of your planes a few times and know how to rig up a Lynx for a four-way abseil, but that's about it. However, from time to time, and this is the crux, I have to write about you and sometimes....shock horror....the story may have negative overtones. But, believe it or not, I like getting stories right and I actually take a random professional pride in stopping inaccurate copy hitting the paper, and I would urge you guys to help.
A healthy PRO/journo relationship works two ways. One very good example is the Army team in Scotland, who have got their sh*t very firmly in one sock. Through imaginative ideas and excellent packaging of stories they have had reams of free advertising and recruitment opportunities with us over the last couple of years. And because we have a grown-up relationship, when the drugs/fighting on the streets of Arbroath/death in Iraq stories hit their desks they get us on side very quickly and keep control of most tales from the outset.
I'm not after anyone's scalp, but I hope my post may be used to help RAF PROs in the future. Off-the-record briefings are vital in this day and age, but they have become less and less common. I don't know a single reporter who has abused this privilege because PROs who are willing to speak OTR are like gold dust. You only ever expose a PRO once with an ill-written quote in this game because he/she will never give you the chance to do it again.
Don't worry...nearly finished...
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion:
A step forward may be to invite a cross section of journos to speak to prospective PROs. And I don't just mean the local boys who are only allowed to write fluff and "home-town stories" or the specialists who want the full techno-babble chat, which probably happens already, but national tabloid and broadsheet reporters.
The press corps' church is indeed made up of very different "animals" and we all have our own agendas. The guys you invited to speak would never tell you how to do your job, but like my first post, they might explain the demands placed on them and the mechanics of putting a story together. And empowered with this information your PROs may feel slightly more comfortable and confident when dealing with us.
You'll be pleased to know that I won't darken the PPRuNe doors again now that my point has been made.
I may log on over the next few days to check personal messages...if there are any.....but I won't contribute to any forums.
Thanks for listening and the kindest of regards,
Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*
*delete where applicable
In the words of a famous lager drinking Feng Shui expert "my work here is done."
I've sent private messages to everyone who bothered to read my opening post and reply to it. Thanks for taking the time.
My single intention when writing my durge was not to justify my story or even to defend tabloid journalism. It was written, believe it or not, to spark a debate and, as I'm sure most of you will agree, that has happened.
A debate needs all levels and all angles of argument to be productive and I hope what has been written by both me and the other posters will be beneficial to someone in your organisation. Over 1,000 people read the thread and I hope some of them are reasonably high up the RAF's food chain to possibly make a difference if they see fit.
Some of you were very responsive to what I had to say, others, however, were very obviously "not for turning." No big shakes...one thing you develop very quickly in this business is a very thick skin.
As expected, the most savage vitriol directed at me came from one of the handful of "in house" journalists you have. My intention was not to threaten the "supremacy" that Jacko has in the airspace over PPRuNe and I'll leave his hunting ground toot sweet. For your information, and I hope this doesn't break the PPRuNe private message "off-the-record" rule, I have apologised to him for leaving my scent all over his territory, and promised him I'd clean it up before I left.
When Jacko mentioned the "red rag to a bull" line in his first post he described me as "ignorant" and he was quite correct. I'm not an aviation specialist and I'm certainly not interested in the techno-babble that floats Jacko's boat.
Ask me how a jet fighter stays in the air and I'd start twitching....quiz me about the tactics four GR4s would employ to neutralise a brace of MiGs and spit would dribble down my chin. But if you want to know busty glamour girl Jordan's inside leg measurement....well...now we're talking.
I've jumped out of your planes a few times and know how to rig up a Lynx for a four-way abseil, but that's about it. However, from time to time, and this is the crux, I have to write about you and sometimes....shock horror....the story may have negative overtones. But, believe it or not, I like getting stories right and I actually take a random professional pride in stopping inaccurate copy hitting the paper, and I would urge you guys to help.
A healthy PRO/journo relationship works two ways. One very good example is the Army team in Scotland, who have got their sh*t very firmly in one sock. Through imaginative ideas and excellent packaging of stories they have had reams of free advertising and recruitment opportunities with us over the last couple of years. And because we have a grown-up relationship, when the drugs/fighting on the streets of Arbroath/death in Iraq stories hit their desks they get us on side very quickly and keep control of most tales from the outset.
I'm not after anyone's scalp, but I hope my post may be used to help RAF PROs in the future. Off-the-record briefings are vital in this day and age, but they have become less and less common. I don't know a single reporter who has abused this privilege because PROs who are willing to speak OTR are like gold dust. You only ever expose a PRO once with an ill-written quote in this game because he/she will never give you the chance to do it again.
Don't worry...nearly finished...
If I may be so bold as to make a suggestion:
A step forward may be to invite a cross section of journos to speak to prospective PROs. And I don't just mean the local boys who are only allowed to write fluff and "home-town stories" or the specialists who want the full techno-babble chat, which probably happens already, but national tabloid and broadsheet reporters.
The press corps' church is indeed made up of very different "animals" and we all have our own agendas. The guys you invited to speak would never tell you how to do your job, but like my first post, they might explain the demands placed on them and the mechanics of putting a story together. And empowered with this information your PROs may feel slightly more comfortable and confident when dealing with us.
You'll be pleased to know that I won't darken the PPRuNe doors again now that my point has been made.
I may log on over the next few days to check personal messages...if there are any.....but I won't contribute to any forums.
Thanks for listening and the kindest of regards,
Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*
*delete where applicable
Y'see!
This is the problem with you proper journos, you just write so well.
If you detect any vitriol (and I don't think there was any, really, and if there was it was far from savage), then it's not really personal, it's that folk in your line of business have led to a blanket attitude to journos that does make it much more difficult for the specialists to do our job, since we're often greeted by much the same distrust and sometimes hostility.
It may also be a function of the fact that national tabloid and broadsheet reporters get much better and easier access than the "specialists who want the full techno-babble chat" since serving the latter is either seen as "preaching to the converted" or as encouraging those who ask the most embarrassing questions about technical and procurement f*ck ups.
It's the Mick Smiths, the Paul Adams and the Peter Almonds (and even the Gilligans) who get invited to cosy lunches with CAS.... and naturally I'm full of envy and bile, as I'm rather too fond of lunch....
I think that the welcome you got from many (notably Ginseng and Stillin) should reassure you that you're more than welcome in this airspace, though you may find (as I often do) that there is a great deal of friendly fire.
My real point to you is that you have to understand how the services work (why they might not be keen on giving out names of aircrew, why they are so sensitive about pre-judging BOIs, how far from aircrew CROs often operate and why that doesn't indicate anything sinister or in the nature of a 'cover up') if you are to do your job properly.
This is the problem with you proper journos, you just write so well.
If you detect any vitriol (and I don't think there was any, really, and if there was it was far from savage), then it's not really personal, it's that folk in your line of business have led to a blanket attitude to journos that does make it much more difficult for the specialists to do our job, since we're often greeted by much the same distrust and sometimes hostility.
It may also be a function of the fact that national tabloid and broadsheet reporters get much better and easier access than the "specialists who want the full techno-babble chat" since serving the latter is either seen as "preaching to the converted" or as encouraging those who ask the most embarrassing questions about technical and procurement f*ck ups.
It's the Mick Smiths, the Paul Adams and the Peter Almonds (and even the Gilligans) who get invited to cosy lunches with CAS.... and naturally I'm full of envy and bile, as I'm rather too fond of lunch....
I think that the welcome you got from many (notably Ginseng and Stillin) should reassure you that you're more than welcome in this airspace, though you may find (as I often do) that there is a great deal of friendly fire.
My real point to you is that you have to understand how the services work (why they might not be keen on giving out names of aircrew, why they are so sensitive about pre-judging BOIs, how far from aircrew CROs often operate and why that doesn't indicate anything sinister or in the nature of a 'cover up') if you are to do your job properly.
Rather than putting the boot into the journo, shouldn't this thread be used to acknowledge that this copy, flawed or not, could have been avoided had the RAF had a half-descent PR machine that was briefed-in on the incident and knew what it was doing?
If you don't have an effective PR machine then it is inevitable that the Press will have to draw its own conclusions; conclusions that might upset people (as is obviously the case here). So, instead of pointing the finger at journos who will write about incidents such as this no matter what, isn't it time that those who feel aggrieved by this ask their employers what they are going to to do avoid a repeat in the future?
Whether it be local CROs/PROs or the dinosaurs at Strike Command 'Corporate Communications' (now, there's a misnomer if there ever was one), the RAF needs to get with the times and start working *with* journalists.
The Americans are very familiar with this and, by-and-large, it works to their advantage. Perhaps the RAF should take a leaf out of their book?
If you don't have an effective PR machine then it is inevitable that the Press will have to draw its own conclusions; conclusions that might upset people (as is obviously the case here). So, instead of pointing the finger at journos who will write about incidents such as this no matter what, isn't it time that those who feel aggrieved by this ask their employers what they are going to to do avoid a repeat in the future?
Whether it be local CROs/PROs or the dinosaurs at Strike Command 'Corporate Communications' (now, there's a misnomer if there ever was one), the RAF needs to get with the times and start working *with* journalists.
The Americans are very familiar with this and, by-and-large, it works to their advantage. Perhaps the RAF should take a leaf out of their book?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 477
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory there is only one case of a navigator banging the pilot out of a servicable Tornado and that was over Germany in 1984 ish. It's a well documented case and happened when the navigator sensed a large amount off roll and trees very close by.
Not a design fault - the seats worked and they all lived happily minus one Tornado. As for the current settings I should
imagine that the command ejection is usually set to 'front' and
not 'both' to stop it happening .
As for a ground crew member getting a flight - well imagine how many televison presenters - so called celebs and other hangers on get flights so good to hear of someone worthy
getting some use of Martin-Baker's finest !
Not a design fault - the seats worked and they all lived happily minus one Tornado. As for the current settings I should
imagine that the command ejection is usually set to 'front' and
not 'both' to stop it happening .
As for a ground crew member getting a flight - well imagine how many televison presenters - so called celebs and other hangers on get flights so good to hear of someone worthy
getting some use of Martin-Baker's finest !
Of course we all know that the findings of a Military BoI are the only gospel that should be taken as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. It would be gross negligence to think otherwise.....wouldn't it!?
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTop
Just to set a bit of a balance here - please don't tar the whole outfit with the same brush, just because you had a bad experience with one. Not too many years ago I had occasion to re-write a large chunk of the station crash and disaster plan, since I was designated disaster controller. I was involved in the aftermath of a number of crashes.
One of the sections of the plan was dealing with the media. There was to be a bus positioned at the gate, complete with a fully briefed escort. They were to be taken to the ops main briefing room, where they would be met by the PRO dispensing tea and biccys. As soon as they were settled, OC Ops would give a full off the record briefing of all the FACTS known to us - no holds barred. Questions answered to clarify. Speculation gently quashed - briefing about how the BOI worked. Then a full on the record statement, complete with interviews if requested, and by the time the briefing session was concluded a printed statement was ready for distribution.
One or two 'pool' media reps would be allowed to observe ops room activities, with the PRO prompting what was on or off the record.
The media reps taken to the officers mess, where they were given all assistance possible to communicate with whoever, and those that wanted to stay longer to await developments were wined and dined at our expense.
We had a first rate, well-trained PRO who maintained a network of media contacts. Our relations with the media was always amicable. I even got to know a few of the 'locals', who regularly rang to find out if there was anything interesting happening. We got a huge amount of positive press because of the way we made it as easy as possible for them to do their job.
And in my long experience in Royal Air Force Service, I rarely witnessed individuals being obstructive or unhelpful. The problems usually arose when a media rep was determined to get one of the execs to make a statement that would fit the sensationalist story he wanted to write - actually, the worst was a female, and it wasn't until the Staish threatened to kick her off base that she settled down to listen to what actually happened, unsensational though it was.
Make no mistake, we are well aware that the media has a job to do. Working together to divulge and report the FACTS is in both our interests.
Just to set a bit of a balance here - please don't tar the whole outfit with the same brush, just because you had a bad experience with one. Not too many years ago I had occasion to re-write a large chunk of the station crash and disaster plan, since I was designated disaster controller. I was involved in the aftermath of a number of crashes.
One of the sections of the plan was dealing with the media. There was to be a bus positioned at the gate, complete with a fully briefed escort. They were to be taken to the ops main briefing room, where they would be met by the PRO dispensing tea and biccys. As soon as they were settled, OC Ops would give a full off the record briefing of all the FACTS known to us - no holds barred. Questions answered to clarify. Speculation gently quashed - briefing about how the BOI worked. Then a full on the record statement, complete with interviews if requested, and by the time the briefing session was concluded a printed statement was ready for distribution.
One or two 'pool' media reps would be allowed to observe ops room activities, with the PRO prompting what was on or off the record.
The media reps taken to the officers mess, where they were given all assistance possible to communicate with whoever, and those that wanted to stay longer to await developments were wined and dined at our expense.
We had a first rate, well-trained PRO who maintained a network of media contacts. Our relations with the media was always amicable. I even got to know a few of the 'locals', who regularly rang to find out if there was anything interesting happening. We got a huge amount of positive press because of the way we made it as easy as possible for them to do their job.
And in my long experience in Royal Air Force Service, I rarely witnessed individuals being obstructive or unhelpful. The problems usually arose when a media rep was determined to get one of the execs to make a statement that would fit the sensationalist story he wanted to write - actually, the worst was a female, and it wasn't until the Staish threatened to kick her off base that she settled down to listen to what actually happened, unsensational though it was.
Make no mistake, we are well aware that the media has a job to do. Working together to divulge and report the FACTS is in both our interests.
There is a HUGE difference in the modus operandi, and indeed target audiences, of those who write for sycophantic spotter magazines and the tabloid press!
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 933
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think You will find that the crash into the North sea(circa 88 or 89)was a phantom the pilot had indeed become incapacited and was subsequently proven to have died in the cockpit due to a stroke the nav did indeed eject but only after the aircraft started to climb and approach stall the whole event being witnessed by a following F4 from the same squadron(111 ?)the pilots body was subsequently recovered and buried with full military honours at ST Michaels cemetary.I know this for sure and all the associated detail as I was part of the recovery crew that carried the coffin from the Wessex to the ambulance.Please remember that the RAF F4s had no command ejection though American and German versions(Maybe other I just don"t know)versions did and I think only command from rear to front again I am not 100% about this.