The appalling ignorance of Journalists....
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
The appalling ignorance of Journalists....
Well - now you can do something about it:
BBC - Radio 4 - The Radio 4 Audience Panel
Quote:
We're looking to tap into our audience's experience and knowledge, not just their views and opinions.
We want you to help us cover the news better, by sharing your knowledge and expertise about various subjects.
We'll then take what you tell us, analyse it and distill it, and then pass it on to our reporters and editors who might follow it up with a request for more information, or even an interview, according to what you tell us.
We're starting from the premise that although Radio 4's journalists will always attempt to find the best sources and the best information to tell the stories you hear, there are a lot more of YOU than them.
And because so many of you have good information and insight acquired through your jobs, hobbies, contacts, friendships or life experiences, we can make better radio with your help.
BBC - Radio 4 - The Radio 4 Audience Panel
Quote:
We're looking to tap into our audience's experience and knowledge, not just their views and opinions.
We want you to help us cover the news better, by sharing your knowledge and expertise about various subjects.
We'll then take what you tell us, analyse it and distill it, and then pass it on to our reporters and editors who might follow it up with a request for more information, or even an interview, according to what you tell us.
We're starting from the premise that although Radio 4's journalists will always attempt to find the best sources and the best information to tell the stories you hear, there are a lot more of YOU than them.
And because so many of you have good information and insight acquired through your jobs, hobbies, contacts, friendships or life experiences, we can make better radio with your help.
Its the same with most journalists.They are trained to write at school/university. When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts. Most have no idea about what they write about. The problems arise when the readers believe these clowns. For aviation very few come from an aviation background. If there are no people killed no news.
GF, IS,
You slag journos off for commenting on things that they know nothing about, and then proceed to demonstrate that you know nothing about journos yourselves.
Icarus:
By tarring all journos with the same broad brush, you make yourself look like a twit, frankly. If you confined your criticism narrowly to the generalist reporters on TV, radio and the tabloids, you'd have a point, but your criticisms are completely awry when it comes to the broadsheets, the specialist TV and radio correspondents, and especially the specialist journos.
They are trained to write at school/university.
Wrong, except insofar as all of us are taught to read and write at school. Very few top flight journos have formal journalistic qualifications or have come from journalism courses. That's especially true in the defence field.
When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts.
Nonsense. We see our job as accurately reporting news, and informing our readers, ideally by distilling and transmitting what the real experts tell us.
Most have no idea about what they write about. For aviation very few come from an aviation background.
Again, nonsense. Most aviation writers have an aviation background, and surprisingly large numbers have aero eng degrees, or some service background.
If there are no people killed no news.
Offensive, inaccurate bol.locks.
Green Flash,
What a lot of tired prejudice!
Rule 1
There is no such thing as 'off the record'.
If we didn't observe 'off the record' we'd soon run out of contacts. This is a game where long term contacts are vital, and you need to make sure that people know that they can tell you things in absolute confidence.
I turn off my recorder and put my pen down whenever asked to do so. What's said then remains between whoever's talking and me.
My notebooks contain these abbreviations
NFP/BO: Not for publication, background only. You don't refer to it at all, it's just in the notebook as background information - helping me to understand, and to put information in context in my own mind.
CHR: Chatham House Rules. "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
NTBQ: Not to be quoted. I can repeat the 'sense' of what's been said, but not as a direct quote, and not attributing it to a person or post holder.
Non Attrib or NA: Non attributable. Can be quoted, but without naming, describing, or isolating the source in any way.
Attrib to: Attributable using a specific description of the speaker "An industry source said:" perhaps, or a "programme insider", or "a JHC officer said".
EMB: Embargoed until a specific date or milestone. Someone might say: "They're going to stand up X Squadron in March, don't report this until that happens."
Rule 2
Journo's write for whoever pays them.
True, to an extent, but there are people you wouldn't work for, regardless of how much they paid, and there will always be things that you judge should not be written about.
Rule 3
There are no other rules.
Apart from official embargoes, clearance, D-notices, etc.
You slag journos off for commenting on things that they know nothing about, and then proceed to demonstrate that you know nothing about journos yourselves.
Icarus:
By tarring all journos with the same broad brush, you make yourself look like a twit, frankly. If you confined your criticism narrowly to the generalist reporters on TV, radio and the tabloids, you'd have a point, but your criticisms are completely awry when it comes to the broadsheets, the specialist TV and radio correspondents, and especially the specialist journos.
They are trained to write at school/university.
Wrong, except insofar as all of us are taught to read and write at school. Very few top flight journos have formal journalistic qualifications or have come from journalism courses. That's especially true in the defence field.
When they join papers etc they report news and put their own spin on it,they think they are analysts.
Nonsense. We see our job as accurately reporting news, and informing our readers, ideally by distilling and transmitting what the real experts tell us.
Most have no idea about what they write about. For aviation very few come from an aviation background.
Again, nonsense. Most aviation writers have an aviation background, and surprisingly large numbers have aero eng degrees, or some service background.
If there are no people killed no news.
Offensive, inaccurate bol.locks.
Green Flash,
What a lot of tired prejudice!
Rule 1
There is no such thing as 'off the record'.
If we didn't observe 'off the record' we'd soon run out of contacts. This is a game where long term contacts are vital, and you need to make sure that people know that they can tell you things in absolute confidence.
I turn off my recorder and put my pen down whenever asked to do so. What's said then remains between whoever's talking and me.
My notebooks contain these abbreviations
NFP/BO: Not for publication, background only. You don't refer to it at all, it's just in the notebook as background information - helping me to understand, and to put information in context in my own mind.
CHR: Chatham House Rules. "When a meeting, or part thereof, is held under the Chatham House Rule, participants are free to use the information received, but neither the identity nor the affiliation of the speaker(s), nor that of any other participant, may be revealed".
NTBQ: Not to be quoted. I can repeat the 'sense' of what's been said, but not as a direct quote, and not attributing it to a person or post holder.
Non Attrib or NA: Non attributable. Can be quoted, but without naming, describing, or isolating the source in any way.
Attrib to: Attributable using a specific description of the speaker "An industry source said:" perhaps, or a "programme insider", or "a JHC officer said".
EMB: Embargoed until a specific date or milestone. Someone might say: "They're going to stand up X Squadron in March, don't report this until that happens."
Rule 2
Journo's write for whoever pays them.
True, to an extent, but there are people you wouldn't work for, regardless of how much they paid, and there will always be things that you judge should not be written about.
Rule 3
There are no other rules.
Apart from official embargoes, clearance, D-notices, etc.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Cujanga
Age: 59
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has bugger all to with Military Aviation, it belongs in Jet Blast. Anyway why should we help the journos get a story?
Don't you just hate it when people interfere with your posts. Smacks of big brother.
Don't you just hate it when people interfere with your posts. Smacks of big brother.
Last edited by AIDU; 22nd Nov 2008 at 15:32.
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are also beasts called editors and subeditors, whose jobs includes watching for editorialising and stopping it happening, checking facts and maintaining standards. News journalism isn't blogging or writing stuff on forums.
Also, many news journalists also write opinion pieces, blogs, columns, analyses and other kinds of articles where an opinion is appropriate, so they're aware of the difference. The only personal opinion that is appropriate -- in fact, essential -- in news is that "This is worth telling the readers about". Yes, that does include things that to the experts is no news at all.
Such distinctions matter and are observed, often with some vigour.
Also, journalists hang around places with people who know what's going on, and do try to learn stuff that helps them do their job better - amazingly, I know, some hacks take pride in their work, and not just because everything they do appears in public with their name on it and, these days, is Googleable forever. (How many Ppruners would be comfortable with that as a working practice?).
This includes places like here, where one does tend to be told on a regular basis that one's profession is entirely composed of dangerously incompetent twerps with loaded keyboards and no sense of aim, and it'd be far better if one just went away and left the real men to it. That's usually a good sign that it's worth sticking around!
R
Also, many news journalists also write opinion pieces, blogs, columns, analyses and other kinds of articles where an opinion is appropriate, so they're aware of the difference. The only personal opinion that is appropriate -- in fact, essential -- in news is that "This is worth telling the readers about". Yes, that does include things that to the experts is no news at all.
Such distinctions matter and are observed, often with some vigour.
Also, journalists hang around places with people who know what's going on, and do try to learn stuff that helps them do their job better - amazingly, I know, some hacks take pride in their work, and not just because everything they do appears in public with their name on it and, these days, is Googleable forever. (How many Ppruners would be comfortable with that as a working practice?).
This includes places like here, where one does tend to be told on a regular basis that one's profession is entirely composed of dangerously incompetent twerps with loaded keyboards and no sense of aim, and it'd be far better if one just went away and left the real men to it. That's usually a good sign that it's worth sticking around!
R
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,561
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Jacko,
Try to justify if you wish, but that is the typical journalist response. In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts. I speak from my own experience of stories in the media - the articles rarely mirror my knowledge of the subject, and I have been there!! The result is that although there may be some good facts out there, unless you are in the know then they are difficult to separate from the make-believe and speculation that is added to make the story exciting/sensational/follow the political leanings of the readership.
Try to justify if you wish, but that is the typical journalist response. In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts. I speak from my own experience of stories in the media - the articles rarely mirror my knowledge of the subject, and I have been there!! The result is that although there may be some good facts out there, unless you are in the know then they are difficult to separate from the make-believe and speculation that is added to make the story exciting/sensational/follow the political leanings of the readership.
I’ve only had to brief a journalist once in my career – about a new system designed to enhance aircrew safety. Beforehand, I had all the reservations mentioned but what I did was invite him down to Farnborough to use the system himself and then insisted on having final say on what was published. No problem whatsoever.
The most disturbing aspect of this experience was (a) Why I had to engage the journalist (JDW) in the first place, and (b) Subsequent MoD reaction.
You see, despite Boscombe Down and the Users saying this system was the dogs bolleaux, my ####wit boss and OR (now DEC) wanted it cancelled, despite it being designed to clear a critical operational constraint. Still got the letter from OR telling me I was wasting money. You’ll have to ask them why, but it boiled down to not wanting to upset higher ups who had been saying “no” for many years.
The article was, as usual, read by a certain MP on the Defence Select Committee, or at least his army of researchers, and questions were raised in the House. Basically, wanting to know how much the system cost and why it wasn’t in every aircraft. Good questions, simple answers, but the MoD spin doctors had to have their say and the resulting answer was nonsensical. So much so that the next logical step, addressing the wider fleet, was ditched…… until…..
Fast forward 10 years and the Defence Technology Strategy mentioned the same critical constraint and promises to fund research into how it can be cleared. A quick call to the author telling him the research and development isn’t necessary, as it’s been in service for 10 years. Not interested. Such knowledge would upset the higher ups. Two years on, and MoD have recently issued an Invitation to Tender to….. Research and Develop a “solution” to this problem. Another phone call to the commercial branch. Not interested. Cancellation would make the higher ups look silly.
So, on an aviation forum, where at least some are interested in safety, could someone please tell me who the term “scum” should be aimed at in this example?
The most disturbing aspect of this experience was (a) Why I had to engage the journalist (JDW) in the first place, and (b) Subsequent MoD reaction.
You see, despite Boscombe Down and the Users saying this system was the dogs bolleaux, my ####wit boss and OR (now DEC) wanted it cancelled, despite it being designed to clear a critical operational constraint. Still got the letter from OR telling me I was wasting money. You’ll have to ask them why, but it boiled down to not wanting to upset higher ups who had been saying “no” for many years.
The article was, as usual, read by a certain MP on the Defence Select Committee, or at least his army of researchers, and questions were raised in the House. Basically, wanting to know how much the system cost and why it wasn’t in every aircraft. Good questions, simple answers, but the MoD spin doctors had to have their say and the resulting answer was nonsensical. So much so that the next logical step, addressing the wider fleet, was ditched…… until…..
Fast forward 10 years and the Defence Technology Strategy mentioned the same critical constraint and promises to fund research into how it can be cleared. A quick call to the author telling him the research and development isn’t necessary, as it’s been in service for 10 years. Not interested. Such knowledge would upset the higher ups. Two years on, and MoD have recently issued an Invitation to Tender to….. Research and Develop a “solution” to this problem. Another phone call to the commercial branch. Not interested. Cancellation would make the higher ups look silly.
So, on an aviation forum, where at least some are interested in safety, could someone please tell me who the term “scum” should be aimed at in this example?
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
Should I be disappointed that no-one seems to have read my post, or followed the Link?
Much more fun to trot out the old cliches, I suppose....
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Buxton
Age: 17
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And because so many of you have good information and insight acquired through your jobs, hobbies, contacts, friendships or life experiences, we can make better radio with your help.
The Ministry of Defence has introduced new guidelines to prevent military personnel talking about their experiences as members of the Armed Forces.
Soldiers, sailors and air force members will be prevented from blogging, taking part in surveys, speaking in public or posting on bulletin boards. (Of course due to the high numbers of retired Service personnel on here this won't count).
If Radio 4 need information then they should contact the Media Communications Officer of the Station concerned.
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Nomadic
Posts: 1,343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Victim of oneself?
Your own problem:
Media Communications Officer of the Station concerned.
....and there lies most of the problem. Your Station Media dude is often not fully informed about what the station actually does (ie the technical bits) that often makes the difference to undertanding the fact or giving innocently mis-leading snippets that the journo often clings to, etc..
Some Journos are 'understanding' of this piece, but often they cannot come to grips with the need for some security in the information that is passed. (or left out!) Due to this they often either 'theorise' - without stating this, or refer to mis-informed snippets of the past to form an apparent authoritative previous source (full of out dated info).
I personally have seen every news piece that I have ever read on my own platform(s) - get some form or mis-quote or mis interpreted 'fact' that leads to a wrong story of some sort. Often this erroneous bit is not a big deal, but when Joe-bag-of-donuts reader puts this and other articles together, the facts become more erroneous.
Other journos and 'writers' are occasionally ex mil (from a long distant past) - and they still think that flying at barnstorming heights is the way ahead etc, 'cos that is how we did in in '53...unfortunately it takes a lot to un-do these sort of mis interpreted or mis-represented opinions.
...so, how are you RAF types going to join the Radio 4 panel. I thought you were banned from such involvement - I also heard somewhere that you are not to contribute to pprune...et al!..as per fltlt mac's post.
Media Communications Officer of the Station concerned.
....and there lies most of the problem. Your Station Media dude is often not fully informed about what the station actually does (ie the technical bits) that often makes the difference to undertanding the fact or giving innocently mis-leading snippets that the journo often clings to, etc..
Some Journos are 'understanding' of this piece, but often they cannot come to grips with the need for some security in the information that is passed. (or left out!) Due to this they often either 'theorise' - without stating this, or refer to mis-informed snippets of the past to form an apparent authoritative previous source (full of out dated info).
I personally have seen every news piece that I have ever read on my own platform(s) - get some form or mis-quote or mis interpreted 'fact' that leads to a wrong story of some sort. Often this erroneous bit is not a big deal, but when Joe-bag-of-donuts reader puts this and other articles together, the facts become more erroneous.
Other journos and 'writers' are occasionally ex mil (from a long distant past) - and they still think that flying at barnstorming heights is the way ahead etc, 'cos that is how we did in in '53...unfortunately it takes a lot to un-do these sort of mis interpreted or mis-represented opinions.
...so, how are you RAF types going to join the Radio 4 panel. I thought you were banned from such involvement - I also heard somewhere that you are not to contribute to pprune...et al!..as per fltlt mac's post.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Somewhere flat
Age: 68
Posts: 5,561
Likes: 0
Received 45 Likes
on
30 Posts
Jacko,
You have your opinions, and I have mine. What I know is that events that I have been directly involved in were completely mis-reported and/or mis-represented in the press. This is fact and therefore not based upon ignorance. And as RAF aircrew I do not consider myself as slow witted as you claim. So, to resort to personnel insult inevitably means that you have lost the arguement and therefore you can be seen to have lost your case (and by doing so you have proved my opinion of journalists).
You have your opinions, and I have mine. What I know is that events that I have been directly involved in were completely mis-reported and/or mis-represented in the press. This is fact and therefore not based upon ignorance. And as RAF aircrew I do not consider myself as slow witted as you claim. So, to resort to personnel insult inevitably means that you have lost the arguement and therefore you can be seen to have lost your case (and by doing so you have proved my opinion of journalists).
You forgot the:
Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.....
(..... and I'll judge your slow-wittedness on what you post, not on what you do, and your comment that: "In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts" is dim-witted, prejudiced stuff).
Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah.....
(..... and I'll judge your slow-wittedness on what you post, not on what you do, and your comment that: "In my experience, articles are written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts" is dim-witted, prejudiced stuff).
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: As close to beer as humanly possible
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jackonicko,
Having worked with the written and TV media on a regular basis for a number of years I can see truth in most of the previous comments. There are many press journalists who are extremely accurate in their reporting and take pride in researching the facts and listening to the interviewee.
On the other hand there are also a fair number who completely ignore detailed description of a particular situation and, apparently, change the story to suit.
I can understand the first few hours of a breaking story leading to reporting errors in TV news coverage, but there is little excuse for the press to cock things up as dramatically as I have seen in the past, hours before the evening deadline.
Like all walks of life, including the military, some people are more professional than others. I understand, and agree with, your defensive posture as a journalist to some of the earlier barbed comments, but you must agree that some of the reporting we see in the newspapers is very poor.
Having worked with the written and TV media on a regular basis for a number of years I can see truth in most of the previous comments. There are many press journalists who are extremely accurate in their reporting and take pride in researching the facts and listening to the interviewee.
On the other hand there are also a fair number who completely ignore detailed description of a particular situation and, apparently, change the story to suit.
I can understand the first few hours of a breaking story leading to reporting errors in TV news coverage, but there is little excuse for the press to cock things up as dramatically as I have seen in the past, hours before the evening deadline.
Like all walks of life, including the military, some people are more professional than others. I understand, and agree with, your defensive posture as a journalist to some of the earlier barbed comments, but you must agree that some of the reporting we see in the newspapers is very poor.
Of course I agree! There are incompetents, lazy tossers and back-stabbing chisellers in every walk of life. What hacks me off is when people make stupid generalisations about journos, and utterly ignorant and uninformed comment about the journalistic 'process'.
Some of the criticisms levelled are fair enough, if levelled at a very specific slice of the media - others are simply stupid prejudice.
Had Icarus Sun made his target more obvious and specific, I'd have no argument with him, but Green Flash and Wensleydale's input has been kindergarten level stupidity.
Articles are not "written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts."
Some of the criticisms levelled are fair enough, if levelled at a very specific slice of the media - others are simply stupid prejudice.
Had Icarus Sun made his target more obvious and specific, I'd have no argument with him, but Green Flash and Wensleydale's input has been kindergarten level stupidity.
Articles are not "written to sell the paper/magazine, not to tell the facts."