The appalling ignorance of Journalists....
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
The Photo editor of the Peterborough Evening newspaper showed a photograph from a feature about RAF training at Wittering. It featured two men in CS95 running from a huge fireball explosion. It was actually a dramatic composition with two images superimposed.
It was done to dramatise the feature and sell papers.
He received nothing but criticism from one of the MCO at the briefing who accused him of being untruthful, distorting the facts etc etc.
He admitted that it was a composition but said it was not a 'news' photograph purporting to tell the truth but one created to tell the story.
I think the majority, ie over 50%, thought his story was reasonable but a significant number thought it had been morally wrong.
Yes - sell the paper - tell a story - but not the facts.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Hook, Hants
Age: 68
Posts: 286
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As someone who has had the experience of being misquoted/misrepresented by the press, in both civilian and military life, I still feel entitled to use the old nickname of 'reptile' for the gentlemen of the press. Probably unfair to tar them all with the same brush, but as that seems to be their SOP I thought I'd join in!
Incidentally does anyone know the origin of the 'reptile' sobriquet?.....Private Eye possibly?
Sorry Jacko, I'm sure you're perfectly honourable, just misunderstood.......
Incidentally does anyone know the origin of the 'reptile' sobriquet?.....Private Eye possibly?
Sorry Jacko, I'm sure you're perfectly honourable, just misunderstood.......
Below the Glidepath - not correcting
Mind you, this Radio 4 "experts" view has all the hallmarks of becoming a pedigree spotters corner;
"Dear Sir, last night's article on the C-130J clearly played the soundtrack from a civilian L100-30 in error. The beta range on the L100-30 is only..."
"Your piece on Aircrew Rations contained calorific values for Snickers, some basic research would reveal that Snickers were withdrawn from..."
These are the usual hanging offences committed by the Wattisham Gazette's finest hack, thank goodness justice can now be done courtesy of the BBC. We can all sleep a little more soundly now.
PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.
"Dear Sir, last night's article on the C-130J clearly played the soundtrack from a civilian L100-30 in error. The beta range on the L100-30 is only..."
"Your piece on Aircrew Rations contained calorific values for Snickers, some basic research would reveal that Snickers were withdrawn from..."
These are the usual hanging offences committed by the Wattisham Gazette's finest hack, thank goodness justice can now be done courtesy of the BBC. We can all sleep a little more soundly now.
PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Henley, Oxfordshire
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Photo editor of the Peterborough Evening newspaper showed a photograph from a feature about RAF training at Wittering. It featured two men in CS95 running from a huge fireball explosion. It was actually a dramatic composition with two images superimposed.
But to try to suggest that this is common practice is complete and utter nonsense. I have spent a bloody long time in journalism and on no occasion have I ever known of a journalist writing an article simply to sell papers. My only concern is to write the story as best as possible. The articles are written by journalists to report the facts and issues in that story. It is of course true that newspapers want to sell copies, they aren't bloody charities, but that is not the same thing at all.
There are often good reasons for criticising news reports but they are necessarily put together on the hoof with conflicting reports coming in and reporting on the armed forces is hampered by very necessary opsec and often ludicrous and very unnecessary attempts to cover up issues that it should be in everyone's interest to publicise.
People have every right to raise specific issues that are inaccurate in specific articles but the periodic rants against journalists on this thread are all too often led by numbskulls whose willingness to spout out on subjects they know nothing about only raises questions about them.
It's a bit like me saying most RAF pilots love flying really low on training to scare horses and cows, or use enormous amounts of public money to fly military aircraft to stag parties, or that most US pilots dont care who they shoot up on the ground. It is complete and utter nonsense and it is highly offensive.
The press this week stated that HRH was going to be a Royal Navy SAR Pilot, if they had checked the press! they would have got it right, but then thats a fact so thats no good. 
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
Mike, thanks for that but I confirm every word I said was true. We had the briefing from him and his editor in April at Brampton. His defence was that it was a 'feature' and not news.
I realise, as you say, that that might be a rare event. You say you know of only one instance. Well that must have been the 'journalist' of the New York Times that was found to fabric articles as if he had been there.
Then there was that Pulitzer photograph of the young Vietnam girl running naked from a mis-directed US air strike. Except it was a Vietnamese scripted fire-power demo that went slightly wrong. One clue is the casual nature of the two Vietnamese soldiers strolling away from the explosion. Another clue is if you examine the images on the web. The impact from the one that is closest cropped supports the story. The one that is nearest to full frame another.
{deleted}
There are Walts who say they have been in the military and I am sure there are equivalents in journalism.
I realise, as you say, that that might be a rare event. You say you know of only one instance. Well that must have been the 'journalist' of the New York Times that was found to fabric articles as if he had been there.
Then there was that Pulitzer photograph of the young Vietnam girl running naked from a mis-directed US air strike. Except it was a Vietnamese scripted fire-power demo that went slightly wrong. One clue is the casual nature of the two Vietnamese soldiers strolling away from the explosion. Another clue is if you examine the images on the web. The impact from the one that is closest cropped supports the story. The one that is nearest to full frame another.
{deleted}
There are Walts who say they have been in the military and I am sure there are equivalents in journalism.
Last edited by Pontius Navigator; 23rd Nov 2008 at 15:41.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: North Yorkshire
Age: 82
Posts: 641
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My prejudice against journalists, or rather the "news" media, began in Belfast years ago when we saw film crews, albeit foreign, paying local yobs to throw bricks and bottles at us to start a film-worthy incident. B*st*rds!
But a few years ago, there was the sport of 'Donaldson baiting' in the RAF Club...
The Torygraph's Air Correspondent would be fed all manner of guff by a few mischievous folk from Adastral House after he'd bought them a few drinks.
You have to be careful though. One chap told an American reporter that he spent much of Gulf War 1 sitting around waiting for something to happen and "smoked a few fags" most days.... He had to explain to the horrified reporter that this didn't mean killing homosexuals!
The Torygraph's Air Correspondent would be fed all manner of guff by a few mischievous folk from Adastral House after he'd bought them a few drinks.
You have to be careful though. One chap told an American reporter that he spent much of Gulf War 1 sitting around waiting for something to happen and "smoked a few fags" most days.... He had to explain to the horrified reporter that this didn't mean killing homosexuals!
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,563
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Jacko,
I repeat - in my experience, the use of personal insult, rather than by using factual evidence, during an argument is the sign of a week position and an attempt to belittle the other person in order to strengthen your own argument. We have never met, yet continued insults about my intelligence, together with no supporting facts just shows how desparate Jornalists become to justify their writing. I rest my case.
He who shouts loudest has usually lost the argument.
I repeat - in my experience, the use of personal insult, rather than by using factual evidence, during an argument is the sign of a week position and an attempt to belittle the other person in order to strengthen your own argument. We have never met, yet continued insults about my intelligence, together with no supporting facts just shows how desparate Jornalists become to justify their writing. I rest my case.
He who shouts loudest has usually lost the argument.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: The Land of the Sabbath and of the Priest
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Quote: Two's In:
PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.
Mea culpa, Two: perhaps it was a little too mischievous a title.
PS. Definitely a good attention grabbing thread title, but stones and glasshouses are never good bedmates.
Mea culpa, Two: perhaps it was a little too mischievous a title.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mick Smith:
The MOD would never consider covering up issues ...............oh hang on..............disregard!
[The MOD makes] very unnecessary attempts to cover up issues that it should be in everyone's interest to publicise.
The MOD would never consider covering up issues ...............oh hang on..............disregard!
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's institutional in the military to think journo=trouble, unless a story is naturally positive and/or of use as good PR. Anything else is dangerous.
One of the principle reasons is the otherwise gagged military man, often knowledgeable in classified information and armed with personal opinions, is faced with a one-way portal to the unfamiliar world of free speech, controlled by a journo gatekeeper who he has probably only just met. Once the words leave airman's mouth he loses control of them, and cannot redress any misrepresentation with anything like the same coverage in which he may be originally exploited. It's the same for non-military types who meet the press, except civilians can generally speak freely and/or sue if they are wronged.
Common sense also needs to prevail. My instinct, even though I haven't met him, would be to essentially trust Jacko, while journos from Flight, Eastern Daily Press and The Sun all have different motives (and readers' attention spans) to cater for. That said, the military/MoD are inundated with monday morning quarterbacks - the Iranian iPod captives story being a very recent and extreme example - where every word is regurgitated and re-examined; even if I was quoted as saying "I love being in the RAF", someone would undoubtedly query why I didn't say 'Royal Air Force' in full - that's todays litigious world.
But going back to the original point, as Jacko says, every trade has unscrupulous people, and the best defence is common sense. Don't say unqualified, stupid things to people you don't know, and blacklist violators. In the mean time don't expect The Sun to be interested in Tornado radar upgrades for anything other than a government-wasting-money story, nor expect JDW to want to know about piss-ups in Afghan. As an extra line of defence, if you do worry about misquotes, why not tape the interview yourself and/or ask for a draft article - I don't see why a reasonable publication would object, while a dodgy one, not wanting you to tape things, should only cause shields-up, surely?
One of the principle reasons is the otherwise gagged military man, often knowledgeable in classified information and armed with personal opinions, is faced with a one-way portal to the unfamiliar world of free speech, controlled by a journo gatekeeper who he has probably only just met. Once the words leave airman's mouth he loses control of them, and cannot redress any misrepresentation with anything like the same coverage in which he may be originally exploited. It's the same for non-military types who meet the press, except civilians can generally speak freely and/or sue if they are wronged.
Common sense also needs to prevail. My instinct, even though I haven't met him, would be to essentially trust Jacko, while journos from Flight, Eastern Daily Press and The Sun all have different motives (and readers' attention spans) to cater for. That said, the military/MoD are inundated with monday morning quarterbacks - the Iranian iPod captives story being a very recent and extreme example - where every word is regurgitated and re-examined; even if I was quoted as saying "I love being in the RAF", someone would undoubtedly query why I didn't say 'Royal Air Force' in full - that's todays litigious world.
But going back to the original point, as Jacko says, every trade has unscrupulous people, and the best defence is common sense. Don't say unqualified, stupid things to people you don't know, and blacklist violators. In the mean time don't expect The Sun to be interested in Tornado radar upgrades for anything other than a government-wasting-money story, nor expect JDW to want to know about piss-ups in Afghan. As an extra line of defence, if you do worry about misquotes, why not tape the interview yourself and/or ask for a draft article - I don't see why a reasonable publication would object, while a dodgy one, not wanting you to tape things, should only cause shields-up, surely?
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: England
Posts: 119
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Then there was that Pulitzer photograph of the young Vietnam girl running naked from a mis-directed US air strike. Except it was a Vietnamese scripted fire-power demo that went slightly wrong. One clue is the casual nature of the two Vietnamese soldiers strolling away from the explosion. Another clue is if you examine the images on the web. The impact from the one that is closest cropped supports the story. The one that is nearest to full frame another.
There was also a fake report by BBC East Midlands Today on the first day of the first Op Fresco. They had only one or two outside broadcast cameras yet they purported to show the military taking over in several towns across the region. There was no camera available in Birmingham.
The reporter, on her own initiative, got two off-duty squaddies and drove them to Pebble Mill. They were instructed to walk about in the car park 'waiting for a shout'. Meanwhile she did her 'news' item to a camera on a lead out of a window.
There was also a fake report by BBC East Midlands Today on the first day of the first Op Fresco. They had only one or two outside broadcast cameras yet they purported to show the military taking over in several towns across the region. There was no camera available in Birmingham.
The reporter, on her own initiative, got two off-duty squaddies and drove them to Pebble Mill. They were instructed to walk about in the car park 'waiting for a shout'. Meanwhile she did her 'news' item to a camera on a lead out of a window.
As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.
If there is as much truth on the BBC accusation, you are 2 for 0, which is a pretty good strike rate for someone criticising the accuracy of news reporting.
VP
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: 119K East of SARDOT
Posts: 146
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question of balance......
AA
Wasn't it Steve who dropped the RAF's first bomb on mainland Europe in anger when he bombed a Serbian tank.
you make yourself look like a twit, frankly.
AA
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Bridgwater Somerset
Posts: 459
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Since the crash of XV230 I have met and spoken to a large number of journalists, they have all shown compassion and understanding.
I have only once had cause to complain to a newspaper about an article which had inaccurate information in about my son. This information was not given by a family member so I put in a complaint. The editor wrote an apology to me and said they would run any other articles by me first.
"No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." (Sophocles) and I get the feeling those complaining just don't like bad news being written about.
I have only once had cause to complain to a newspaper about an article which had inaccurate information in about my son. This information was not given by a family member so I put in a complaint. The editor wrote an apology to me and said they would run any other articles by me first.
"No one loves the messenger who brings bad news." (Sophocles) and I get the feeling those complaining just don't like bad news being written about.
I don't own this space under my name. I should have leased it while I still could
As for the Vietnam girl, she is Kim Phúc (now living in Canada I believe). She was napalmed by the South Vietnamese on the 8th June 1972 during an attack on North Vietnamese forces in Trang Bang. If you care to tell her she wasn't, be my guest. To my knowledge the only person who has ever doubted the veracity of the picture was Richard Nixon, so you're in good company.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: London
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The press this week stated that HRH was going to be a Royal Navy SAR Pilot, if they had checked the press! they would have got it right, but then thats a fact so thats no good.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Further East
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although I feel, with a limited contact with journalism, that I am not qualified to comment. How many people in their lives are "interviewed" by journos?
My particular interview was over a particularly nasty murder case. I went to court and told the truth,(defence witness) I then told the same truth to a journo after the not guilty verdict.. Distorted lies then appeared in print.
Jacko, I know that you cannot tar all people.. but come on, admit that there are liars and libel merchents in your trade.. and they make the rest of you look bad.
My particular interview was over a particularly nasty murder case. I went to court and told the truth,(defence witness) I then told the same truth to a journo after the not guilty verdict.. Distorted lies then appeared in print.
Jacko, I know that you cannot tar all people.. but come on, admit that there are liars and libel merchents in your trade.. and they make the rest of you look bad.
Journalists are people, as are aircrew, groundcrew, junior officers, flag-rank officers, politicians, defense executives, butchers, bakers...
There is a really strange thing about people. They are all different.
Measure any characteristic (competence, ethics) and you'll find a bell curve for everyone.
Some journos are excellent at what they do, some continue to strive to do things at which they frankly suck. Some are ruthlessly impartial to the point of dullness, some are prejudiced and some simply have strong opinions based on experience.
The result is that there is only one generalization that is always accurate, as water is wet and sparks fly upwards, and that is the following:
Any statement that begins "All journalists [fighter pilots, air marshals, stamp collectors...] are..." is wrong.
That is all.
There is a really strange thing about people. They are all different.
Measure any characteristic (competence, ethics) and you'll find a bell curve for everyone.
Some journos are excellent at what they do, some continue to strive to do things at which they frankly suck. Some are ruthlessly impartial to the point of dullness, some are prejudiced and some simply have strong opinions based on experience.
The result is that there is only one generalization that is always accurate, as water is wet and sparks fly upwards, and that is the following:
Any statement that begins "All journalists [fighter pilots, air marshals, stamp collectors...] are..." is wrong.
That is all.