Pull the pin....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Fife, Scotland
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pull the pin....
Pull the pin…roll it in…
Dear PPRuNe posters,
My name is James Moncur and I’m the tabloid journalist responsible for the “RAF probe ejector seat cock up theory” story that appeared in the Daily Record earlier this month.
Unlike you lot who have wonderful nicknames like: BEagle, The Rocket, Rakshasa and Redline Entry, us yellowbellied reporters have to make do with putting our real names on the top of our copy - you’ll see mine just above my e-mail address. The majority of us are reasonably well known in Scotland. In fact most people who read the paper are even aware of our personal phone numbers – mine, for instance, is 01382 561700…whoops..how did I let that one slip out?
Anyway, I digress….. for those of you objective enough to have got past the “I’m the tabloid journalist” line in the opening par of this post I thought it would be useful to outline the route I took to get the “nonsense spouted by this journo” into the Daily Record.
Background-
On the 16th Oct the Tornado crash just south of Leuchars made the front page of the paper.
I, like everybody else, was delighted that both crew members were safe and the rescue was so quick and efficient.
I fully expected the pilot and nav (both Lts – I presumed) to be named and made available for interview.
(You will recall the last incident at Leuchars involving the Tornado that landed on its belly. The 'heroic' crew were paraded within hours for a full press call. Great story, great PR and I’m sure RAF recruitment figures spiked for the month.)
After this month’s crash, 111’s squadron commander (I think??) held a conference on the Saturday and described the pilot’s call from the sea but the crew’s identities, their rank and crash details were kept under wraps for no obvious reason…….rearrange this well known phrase…bull to rag a red.
Ignoring that, however, the conference was covered and the paper moved on.
The following week-
I received a call from Leuchars informing me that the guy in the nav’s seat was an engineer who was up on a “jolly” granted him as a retirement present. He, I was reliably told, panicked just minutes into the flight and ejected both himself and the pilot. The incident and the eng’s involvement in it was the talk of the base and a potentially massive story.
I had to confirm a number of details quickly to determine the veracity of the story, namely: was the guy in the back ground-crew, if he was...what was he doing in the plane and, vitally, could he have taken the pilot with him in a premature ejection.
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 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.
Armed with the information above I went to the relevant authorities.
I had a conversation with a Leuchars’ spokesman and put everything to him: the engineer, the retirement jolly, the double ejection initiated from the back etc and asked for comment and guidance.
He initially told me that the crew members were a pilot and nav who were both Flight Lts and that my story was dead. I asked him to double check and to get back to me. He called back 10 mins later and admitted the guy in the back was indeed an engineer on the cusp of retirement! (Immediate confirmation of half the sources' info.)
But when pressed about the causes of the crash and back-seat ejection theory he refused to comment saying a BoI had been set up. I asked whether the BoI would investigate the eng’s possible role in the crash..he said everything would be looked into. No denial….no off-the-record guidance…..just a stone wall.
Now the spokesman would have had a pretty good idea what led to the crash, the pilot and eng would definitely have said something to somebody. The first question they would have been asked in the mess/by mobile/e-mail would have been: “What the f**K happened Iceman/Jester/Smudge???”
And I don’t care what any of you say, the pilot would have had some semblance of an idea what led to the crash….whether it was a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind, human error, bird strike (a lot of migratory avians leaving St Andrews at this time of year) or the eng in the back popping them both out in a panic.
Leuchars would have known this info and some off-the-record guidance could have helped at this stage. The BoI would not have been pre-empted if the spokesman had chosen his words carefully.
No denial thus far, only stone walls and an unusual air of secrecy. Certainly no detailed off-the-record chat.
So can a nav eject the pilot as well? How’s a layman supposed to find that out?
Well….no use asking any of you lot for some basic technical guidance…... I can imagine the latter stages of the conversation on the doorstep of your Biggin Hill mansions: “F**k off tabloid scum….no point speaking to you….you’ll only get the story wrong.”
Cue, therefore, a phone-call to Paul Jackson, editor of Jane’s World Aircraft, the most senior and respected expert I know. I gave Paul every detail of the story and asked him if it was possible. He confirmed on the record that the rear seater in a Tornado can eject the pilot if the command eject system is set up accordingly.
Paul even recalled a number of incidents where a pilot was ejected from a perfectly serviceable plane by the back seater.
Interesting...let's raise the bar..
Phone call to MoD in London…spoke to young civvy press officer on the RAF desk and gave him every detail I had. Told him about Leuchars contacts, Leuchars spokesman’s chat, eng’ ejection theory, Paul Jackson and outlined the story I intended to write.
He confirmed a BoI would be set up and wouldn’t speculate on the crash. He added on the record that “everything from a possible technical malfunction to human error would be investigated.” I again asked him for some off the record guidance but he refused to help me.
I’ve now got more than enough to go on. An unusual level of secrecy about the incident. A number of independent sources at the base saying the same thing, no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen (not even off-the-record) and even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated. Combine these facts with one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory was possible and that he’s seen it happen before and the story is a shoe-in.
I stand by my original piece 100%. I have heard or seen nothing since the crash that shows otherwise.
If it helps, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here, if some of the core details I was given were inaccurate, this is how a conversation could have gone with an experienced PRO:
Spawn of Satan (SoS)- I'm preparing a possible story about the Tornado crash (give PRO every detail.) Can you comment on it and give us a bit of guidance as to what may have happened.
PRO- Give me half an hour, I’ll phone Leuchars and get back to you.
25 mins later-
PRO- “Here’s the comment I want to read if the piece runs: ‘This was a very serious incident and we are delighted that both crew members survived. A Board of Inquiry has been established to discover what caused the crash and until that is complete it would be inappropriate to speculate on the incident any further.’ Now put your pen down young man.”
SoS- “It’s down…I’m all ears.”
PRO- “Your sources are correct, there was an eng in the back but this is not uncommon. It is routine to give flights to ground crew, in fact there’s an official ballot at Leuchars most weeks. The BoI will look at everything and both crew members have been debriefed fully. I don't want to pre-empt the BoI but as a result of the interviews the most likely cause of this incident was probably a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind…it happens sometimes. The BoI should pinpoint the problem if the salvage team manage to recover the plane relatively intact.
For your info the pilot did very well getting them both out so quickly and if you’re really interested, we’re pretty sure that the plane involved was not configured to allow the guy in the back to eject both him and the pilot at the time of the crash.”
SoS- “Cheers for that mate, that’s cleared a few things up. I’ll buy you a pint next time I’m in London. I doubt the initial story will run now. If we do a piece it will probably be along the lines of ‘Hero pilot’s lightning reactions saved pensioner passenger.’ Any chance we can get pics of them both?”
PRO- “The eng wasn’t a pensioner but the rest sounds great. I’ll see what I can do about the pics. Can you send me the cutting when it’s printed?”
And so begins a great relationship…..
Seriously though, this story highlights some very important issues. I gave the RAF every opportunity to help out and clarify the situation. But PROs in the MoD, like most large organisations, don't do off-the-record anymore which can cause problems at both ends.
If any of you have any say in how press officers are trained then feel free to phone me for a chat. I would never tell you how to do your job but I may be able to give you a few pointers. And I promise I won't even ask you for your real names.
Kind regards,
Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*
*delete where necessary.
Dear PPRuNe posters,
My name is James Moncur and I’m the tabloid journalist responsible for the “RAF probe ejector seat cock up theory” story that appeared in the Daily Record earlier this month.
Unlike you lot who have wonderful nicknames like: BEagle, The Rocket, Rakshasa and Redline Entry, us yellowbellied reporters have to make do with putting our real names on the top of our copy - you’ll see mine just above my e-mail address. The majority of us are reasonably well known in Scotland. In fact most people who read the paper are even aware of our personal phone numbers – mine, for instance, is 01382 561700…whoops..how did I let that one slip out?
Anyway, I digress….. for those of you objective enough to have got past the “I’m the tabloid journalist” line in the opening par of this post I thought it would be useful to outline the route I took to get the “nonsense spouted by this journo” into the Daily Record.
Background-
On the 16th Oct the Tornado crash just south of Leuchars made the front page of the paper.
I, like everybody else, was delighted that both crew members were safe and the rescue was so quick and efficient.
I fully expected the pilot and nav (both Lts – I presumed) to be named and made available for interview.
(You will recall the last incident at Leuchars involving the Tornado that landed on its belly. The 'heroic' crew were paraded within hours for a full press call. Great story, great PR and I’m sure RAF recruitment figures spiked for the month.)
After this month’s crash, 111’s squadron commander (I think??) held a conference on the Saturday and described the pilot’s call from the sea but the crew’s identities, their rank and crash details were kept under wraps for no obvious reason…….rearrange this well known phrase…bull to rag a red.
Ignoring that, however, the conference was covered and the paper moved on.
The following week-
I received a call from Leuchars informing me that the guy in the nav’s seat was an engineer who was up on a “jolly” granted him as a retirement present. He, I was reliably told, panicked just minutes into the flight and ejected both himself and the pilot. The incident and the eng’s involvement in it was the talk of the base and a potentially massive story.
I had to confirm a number of details quickly to determine the veracity of the story, namely: was the guy in the back ground-crew, if he was...what was he doing in the plane and, vitally, could he have taken the pilot with him in a premature ejection.
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 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.
Armed with the information above I went to the relevant authorities.
I had a conversation with a Leuchars’ spokesman and put everything to him: the engineer, the retirement jolly, the double ejection initiated from the back etc and asked for comment and guidance.
He initially told me that the crew members were a pilot and nav who were both Flight Lts and that my story was dead. I asked him to double check and to get back to me. He called back 10 mins later and admitted the guy in the back was indeed an engineer on the cusp of retirement! (Immediate confirmation of half the sources' info.)
But when pressed about the causes of the crash and back-seat ejection theory he refused to comment saying a BoI had been set up. I asked whether the BoI would investigate the eng’s possible role in the crash..he said everything would be looked into. No denial….no off-the-record guidance…..just a stone wall.
Now the spokesman would have had a pretty good idea what led to the crash, the pilot and eng would definitely have said something to somebody. The first question they would have been asked in the mess/by mobile/e-mail would have been: “What the f**K happened Iceman/Jester/Smudge???”
And I don’t care what any of you say, the pilot would have had some semblance of an idea what led to the crash….whether it was a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind, human error, bird strike (a lot of migratory avians leaving St Andrews at this time of year) or the eng in the back popping them both out in a panic.
Leuchars would have known this info and some off-the-record guidance could have helped at this stage. The BoI would not have been pre-empted if the spokesman had chosen his words carefully.
No denial thus far, only stone walls and an unusual air of secrecy. Certainly no detailed off-the-record chat.
So can a nav eject the pilot as well? How’s a layman supposed to find that out?
Well….no use asking any of you lot for some basic technical guidance…... I can imagine the latter stages of the conversation on the doorstep of your Biggin Hill mansions: “F**k off tabloid scum….no point speaking to you….you’ll only get the story wrong.”
Cue, therefore, a phone-call to Paul Jackson, editor of Jane’s World Aircraft, the most senior and respected expert I know. I gave Paul every detail of the story and asked him if it was possible. He confirmed on the record that the rear seater in a Tornado can eject the pilot if the command eject system is set up accordingly.
Paul even recalled a number of incidents where a pilot was ejected from a perfectly serviceable plane by the back seater.
Interesting...let's raise the bar..
Phone call to MoD in London…spoke to young civvy press officer on the RAF desk and gave him every detail I had. Told him about Leuchars contacts, Leuchars spokesman’s chat, eng’ ejection theory, Paul Jackson and outlined the story I intended to write.
He confirmed a BoI would be set up and wouldn’t speculate on the crash. He added on the record that “everything from a possible technical malfunction to human error would be investigated.” I again asked him for some off the record guidance but he refused to help me.
I’ve now got more than enough to go on. An unusual level of secrecy about the incident. A number of independent sources at the base saying the same thing, no denial whatsoever from two official RAF spokesmen (not even off-the-record) and even a confirmation that, among other things, possible human error will be investigated. Combine these facts with one of the most senior aviation writers in the UK confirming the theory was possible and that he’s seen it happen before and the story is a shoe-in.
I stand by my original piece 100%. I have heard or seen nothing since the crash that shows otherwise.
If it helps, and I am speaking purely hypothetically here, if some of the core details I was given were inaccurate, this is how a conversation could have gone with an experienced PRO:
Spawn of Satan (SoS)- I'm preparing a possible story about the Tornado crash (give PRO every detail.) Can you comment on it and give us a bit of guidance as to what may have happened.
PRO- Give me half an hour, I’ll phone Leuchars and get back to you.
25 mins later-
PRO- “Here’s the comment I want to read if the piece runs: ‘This was a very serious incident and we are delighted that both crew members survived. A Board of Inquiry has been established to discover what caused the crash and until that is complete it would be inappropriate to speculate on the incident any further.’ Now put your pen down young man.”
SoS- “It’s down…I’m all ears.”
PRO- “Your sources are correct, there was an eng in the back but this is not uncommon. It is routine to give flights to ground crew, in fact there’s an official ballot at Leuchars most weeks. The BoI will look at everything and both crew members have been debriefed fully. I don't want to pre-empt the BoI but as a result of the interviews the most likely cause of this incident was probably a catastrophic technical malfunction of some kind…it happens sometimes. The BoI should pinpoint the problem if the salvage team manage to recover the plane relatively intact.
For your info the pilot did very well getting them both out so quickly and if you’re really interested, we’re pretty sure that the plane involved was not configured to allow the guy in the back to eject both him and the pilot at the time of the crash.”
SoS- “Cheers for that mate, that’s cleared a few things up. I’ll buy you a pint next time I’m in London. I doubt the initial story will run now. If we do a piece it will probably be along the lines of ‘Hero pilot’s lightning reactions saved pensioner passenger.’ Any chance we can get pics of them both?”
PRO- “The eng wasn’t a pensioner but the rest sounds great. I’ll see what I can do about the pics. Can you send me the cutting when it’s printed?”
And so begins a great relationship…..
Seriously though, this story highlights some very important issues. I gave the RAF every opportunity to help out and clarify the situation. But PROs in the MoD, like most large organisations, don't do off-the-record anymore which can cause problems at both ends.
If any of you have any say in how press officers are trained then feel free to phone me for a chat. I would never tell you how to do your job but I may be able to give you a few pointers. And I promise I won't even ask you for your real names.
Kind regards,
Spawn of Satan / Bile of Beelzebub / Dribble of Detritus*
*delete where necessary.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Scotland
Posts: 664
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good call, Redtop
However, from the other side of the fence (and nothing to do with the particular story under discussion), while you personally may be trusworthy, how is a PRO to know that 'off the record' will be respected?
Stories are rarely as simple as 500 words will allow and, as you have deadlines and yesterday's 'big story' is forgotten tomorrow, stalling and refusing to comment becomes sound strategy. Why feed titbits to jackals that will only act as Hors D'Oeuvres? If the story dies today, it is dead. While you personally may be interested, I doubt if your editor would give 1 column-inch to the result of this (or any BofI) once it is released. Why do you think politicians commission long-running enquiries? To kick issues into the long grass of course, from which few stories re-emerge.
On this particular story, outside military aviation circles, interest is negligible.
Surely the role of Media Ops (what the Mil call spin-doctors) is to kill stories which (may) reflect badly on the Service and promote the good ones? Surely you're not naive enough to rely on 'official spokesmen' for the truth? If you rely on spokesmen to further your career, I'm afraid you'll never be another Bob Woodward!
Anyway, I'd have thought Spawn of Satan (SoS) would be reserved for residents of Barclay Towers who produce on the Sabbath, are you getting delusions of grandeur?
However, from the other side of the fence (and nothing to do with the particular story under discussion), while you personally may be trusworthy, how is a PRO to know that 'off the record' will be respected?
Stories are rarely as simple as 500 words will allow and, as you have deadlines and yesterday's 'big story' is forgotten tomorrow, stalling and refusing to comment becomes sound strategy. Why feed titbits to jackals that will only act as Hors D'Oeuvres? If the story dies today, it is dead. While you personally may be interested, I doubt if your editor would give 1 column-inch to the result of this (or any BofI) once it is released. Why do you think politicians commission long-running enquiries? To kick issues into the long grass of course, from which few stories re-emerge.
On this particular story, outside military aviation circles, interest is negligible.
Surely the role of Media Ops (what the Mil call spin-doctors) is to kill stories which (may) reflect badly on the Service and promote the good ones? Surely you're not naive enough to rely on 'official spokesmen' for the truth? If you rely on spokesmen to further your career, I'm afraid you'll never be another Bob Woodward!
Anyway, I'd have thought Spawn of Satan (SoS) would be reserved for residents of Barclay Towers who produce on the Sabbath, are you getting delusions of grandeur?
Sounds like professional tabloid journalism to me - which is something I wasn't sure existed.
I'd be amazed if an experienced Eng panicked himself into an ejection for no good reason. But then I know nothing at all about it other than when I sat on a bang seat I wouldn't put my hands within 5 inches of the handles for paranoias sake..
Cheers
WWW
I'd be amazed if an experienced Eng panicked himself into an ejection for no good reason. But then I know nothing at all about it other than when I sat on a bang seat I wouldn't put my hands within 5 inches of the handles for paranoias sake..
Cheers
WWW
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: UK
Posts: 134
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you needed to know more than what's in the public domain you'll have been told by now, if not wait for the public announcement following the BoI like everyone else.
No ifs, no buts, you're a civvie looking to sell more newspapers, I don't see how you knowing more than what's been said so far would help the operational safety of the RAF.
No ifs, no buts, you're a civvie looking to sell more newspapers, I don't see how you knowing more than what's been said so far would help the operational safety of the RAF.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
Let me tell you a story:
Many years ago, just after the Brixton riots, I was a TA soldier in regiment that wishes it does not have such a high profile . Annually a composite troop drawn from the two TA regts would travel to the US to spend a fortnight training with our National Guard opposite numbers. (And what a shower they were - just kit bunnies..)
Somehow a Guardian journalist got hold of information that TA units in general (luckily not ours in particular) were going to the US to train alongside the US NG. He then made the entirely erroneous extrapalation that, since NG units have a role to support the civil powers, and that since it was an NG unit that had opened fire on students at Kent State in 1970 (report), that TA units would be training to carry arms on the UK streets to enable them to support the Home Office/Police in riot control.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and I called him to explain just this, but no apology or retraction was ever made.
Many years ago, just after the Brixton riots, I was a TA soldier in regiment that wishes it does not have such a high profile . Annually a composite troop drawn from the two TA regts would travel to the US to spend a fortnight training with our National Guard opposite numbers. (And what a shower they were - just kit bunnies..)
Somehow a Guardian journalist got hold of information that TA units in general (luckily not ours in particular) were going to the US to train alongside the US NG. He then made the entirely erroneous extrapalation that, since NG units have a role to support the civil powers, and that since it was an NG unit that had opened fire on students at Kent State in 1970 (report), that TA units would be training to carry arms on the UK streets to enable them to support the Home Office/Police in riot control.
Of course, nothing could be further from the truth, and I called him to explain just this, but no apology or retraction was ever made.
Sorry, James, as much as I like your post for its wit and clarity, I still don't believe that journos know anything about the concepts of honesty, integrity or truth.
While you may try to portray yourself as a paragon amongst journalists, I don't think it will make your task any easier.
While you may try to portray yourself as a paragon amongst journalists, I don't think it will make your task any easier.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Andover, Hampshire
Posts: 352
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well done James, a very open and informative post........unfortunately the damage has already been done by the numerous unscrupulous journalists (and I use the word "journalists" in the broadest sense) who sensationalise the slightest incident to sell newspapers (I also use the word "newspapers" in the broadest sense).
Speculation hurts a lot of people and when the truth surfaces there are never any retractions or apologies tendered.
At least you have the bal*s to enter the lions den!!!!!
Speculation hurts a lot of people and when the truth surfaces there are never any retractions or apologies tendered.
At least you have the bal*s to enter the lions den!!!!!
Still sounds like a story being made from complete rumour and it sounds like you'd desperately love it to be an accidental ejection just to sell more papers.
Especially with follow up stories such as:
"ONLY BEING SICK SAVED ME FROM FILING AN EXPENSES CLAIM FOR £20M"
from that tabloid.
Wait for the BoI.
Especially with follow up stories such as:
"ONLY BEING SICK SAVED ME FROM FILING AN EXPENSES CLAIM FOR £20M"
from that tabloid.
Wait for the BoI.
Gentleman Aviator
Well it seems to me that there is at least one sensible honest tabloid jouro.
And with the balls to defend his corner, very reasonably IMHO. Welcome aboard RedTop, and don't mind the banter.....
And with the balls to defend his corner, very reasonably IMHO. Welcome aboard RedTop, and don't mind the banter.....
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Umm, where did I put the Garmin?
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To answer for myself I'd say, Redtop, that you might be right... but you're probably wrong. Untill we hear the from BoI it's all just rumor and speculation.
And if the BoI finds differently and the Eng is named, could we expect a retraction of the implication that he may have been responsible?
And if the BoI finds differently and the Eng is named, could we expect a retraction of the implication that he may have been responsible?
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: England
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RedTop
Having some personal experience of the immediate aftermath of flying accidents at RAF bases, I would add that there are usually a number of interesting rumors, often repeated and expanded upon by people who really should know better. They usually consist of 10% truth (hard fact) and 90% invention. I appreciate that you guys have a living to make, but on balance I do not agree with your premise that anything said to you by a contact, at the base or elsewhere, is necessarily true and trustworthy. In fairness to the people concerned (and, by the way, I have no knowledge of this particular incident), I think the "no current further comment" approach is the correct one.
But welcome to the lions' den anyway. We aircrew are always happy to acknowledge someone with b***s!
Ginseng
But welcome to the lions' den anyway. We aircrew are always happy to acknowledge someone with b***s!
Ginseng
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: In the Ether
Posts: 437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
James, whilst i commend your posting on here i feel that, for such a supposedly experienced journo, you're being somewhat blinkered. (because it might sell?!? or am i just a cynic?)
Whilst i'm sure your contact has his ear firmly on the Leuchars rumour-mill, it's just that - a rumour.
In these cases those rumours can start merely as 'professional' speculation or as something more sinister that could also read "SAC Bloggs denied pax trip so starts rumour to sully name of Sgt who pulled rank to get on said trip" or a million-and-one other possible goings on behind the wire (before you start - i am not even suggesting that that's anything like what happened here , but we all know how rumours can start
If you read back over the various threads on Pprune covering accidents, you'll find them all full of conjecture and seedless rumour, that's the nature of most military types - any RAF Station is no different. You must take it as just that. IMHO reporting any of this would be unprofessional and potentially damaging to those involved in this accident.
It's simple - what sells more:
a. "Two survive F3 crash (but we don't know yet what caused it)
b. "£20M F3 crashes - premature ejection by excited pax"
Wait for the BoI, like the rest of us.
Uncle G
Whilst i'm sure your contact has his ear firmly on the Leuchars rumour-mill, it's just that - a rumour.
In these cases those rumours can start merely as 'professional' speculation or as something more sinister that could also read "SAC Bloggs denied pax trip so starts rumour to sully name of Sgt who pulled rank to get on said trip" or a million-and-one other possible goings on behind the wire (before you start - i am not even suggesting that that's anything like what happened here , but we all know how rumours can start
If you read back over the various threads on Pprune covering accidents, you'll find them all full of conjecture and seedless rumour, that's the nature of most military types - any RAF Station is no different. You must take it as just that. IMHO reporting any of this would be unprofessional and potentially damaging to those involved in this accident.
It's simple - what sells more:
a. "Two survive F3 crash (but we don't know yet what caused it)
b. "£20M F3 crashes - premature ejection by excited pax"
Wait for the BoI, like the rest of us.
Uncle G
Last edited by Uncle Ginsters; 31st Oct 2005 at 17:26.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: UK
Posts: 806
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agree with previous comments on the "off the record": It's common knowledge that those given any Media Ops training are told there is no such thing as off the record. You may find the comments you make in print a few days later with the phrase " An RAF spokesman said ......"
Another point is that "Surely the pilot will know what caused it / have an idea" Very true, and he / she will be unlikely to make a noose for their neck by chatting about it / speculating themselves to all and sundry at Leuchars. I'll put money on it that the CCO / PRO at Leuchars would be the last person the pilot would chat to about it.
Finally, more than likely, the command eject would be not be selected for a pax flight (if it was one).
Another point is that "Surely the pilot will know what caused it / have an idea" Very true, and he / she will be unlikely to make a noose for their neck by chatting about it / speculating themselves to all and sundry at Leuchars. I'll put money on it that the CCO / PRO at Leuchars would be the last person the pilot would chat to about it.
Finally, more than likely, the command eject would be not be selected for a pax flight (if it was one).
James,
You are being somewhat disengenuous when you portray yourself as a journalist following the truth wherever it may lead.
I have reread the article and it is quite true that you are careful to mention that the backseater ejection theory is only one of the options. However, the general tenor of your report is such that the average reader would put the paper down with the belief that it was the MOST likely option.
So why did you emphasise this particular aspect? Because it's more dramatic of course, and it sells papers. Add in a bit of conspiracy theory ("Unusually for an incident in which both crew members have survived without serious injury, the identities of both men have been kept secret.") and we have a government cover up!!
Yes, the RAF PR side handled itself badly, but does that justify writing unsubstantiated rumour?
Face it, James, you're not in the news business, you're in the entertainment business.
You are being somewhat disengenuous when you portray yourself as a journalist following the truth wherever it may lead.
I have reread the article and it is quite true that you are careful to mention that the backseater ejection theory is only one of the options. However, the general tenor of your report is such that the average reader would put the paper down with the belief that it was the MOST likely option.
So why did you emphasise this particular aspect? Because it's more dramatic of course, and it sells papers. Add in a bit of conspiracy theory ("Unusually for an incident in which both crew members have survived without serious injury, the identities of both men have been kept secret.") and we have a government cover up!!
Yes, the RAF PR side handled itself badly, but does that justify writing unsubstantiated rumour?
Face it, James, you're not in the news business, you're in the entertainment business.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 341
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Redtop.
Bloody well put case (much as it pains me to say so to a journo). A lot of well put replies too.
As you can see, I hope, the general plan is to deal with FACTS in our business. To get the facts is 99.9% of the time is a time consuming search. One that is rarely able to dove-tail with the "now" news requirements in your trade.
Result = the USUAL factually wrong uneducated guesses spouted by your colleagues and never retracted when later proven to be utter hoop!
Hopefully not being prone to outright lies (the PRO) - when you ask if the facts you have are correct you may well get a "yes you were correct" (i.e. Eng in the cheap-seats). That is - you were correct in that fact - not your whole supposition. A point that normally totally elides your ilk.
Bottom line - it is usually better to tell the average journo nothing rather than have your words changed beyond recognition to be used as the basis of the sensational story the guy wanted all along. Humdrum don't sell newspapers!
Bloody well put case (much as it pains me to say so to a journo). A lot of well put replies too.
As you can see, I hope, the general plan is to deal with FACTS in our business. To get the facts is 99.9% of the time is a time consuming search. One that is rarely able to dove-tail with the "now" news requirements in your trade.
Result = the USUAL factually wrong uneducated guesses spouted by your colleagues and never retracted when later proven to be utter hoop!
Hopefully not being prone to outright lies (the PRO) - when you ask if the facts you have are correct you may well get a "yes you were correct" (i.e. Eng in the cheap-seats). That is - you were correct in that fact - not your whole supposition. A point that normally totally elides your ilk.
Bottom line - it is usually better to tell the average journo nothing rather than have your words changed beyond recognition to be used as the basis of the sensational story the guy wanted all along. Humdrum don't sell newspapers!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those who teach 'there's no such thing as off the record' hav no experience dealing with the press. In fact in my experience, the people who have the most jaded view of journos, are the ones who have had the least experience with them.
Off the record exists it is part and parcel of a well informed relationship. I have never been let down, and I have dealt with matters far more serious than the one under discussion.
As for media ops seeing their job as supressing bad news stories: that may be the way our current political master operates, but it is a short sighted policy that will damage the services in the end.
vp
Off the record exists it is part and parcel of a well informed relationship. I have never been let down, and I have dealt with matters far more serious than the one under discussion.
As for media ops seeing their job as supressing bad news stories: that may be the way our current political master operates, but it is a short sighted policy that will damage the services in the end.
vp
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Balmullo,Scotland
Posts: 932
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I live in Balmullo and for those of You that don"t know then area is 2 Miles from Leuchars I was in the RAF for 13 years and still have many Friends at Leuchars after reading these rumours on here I asked 1 of Them( A Chief Tech on the squadron concerned) and He told Me that He had heard the rumours but He was adamant that the command ejection did not happen,I can understand what a great story this would be however it does not make it true,the only part I can confirm is that the back seat pax was indeed a Sergeant engineer.
.........He told Me that He had heard the rumours but He was adamant that the command ejection did not happen
