OK, lets start with the facts. The MOD and NATO announced an aircraft had gone down, and that there were no survivors. They knew which type, mission and crew. They chose not to say at least which type of ac.

Therefore anyone with a flying relative spent hours waiting for the dreaded knock on the door. The BBC and others looked at the possibilities, I admit I never considered Nimrod given its record, yet there are other types which are at the front of our consciousness as far as loss in unclear circumstances. If Wood had been right what should we castigate him for? Speculation?

Part of the BBC Mission Statement is to inform. There are plenty of posts elsewhere regarding the general lack of information and awareness of the great british public. I contend Wood was merely trying to report what he believed to be genuine information. Did Wood find himself believing mis/disinformation? In the modern era of command, control and communication this is entirely due to MOD not understanding the speed of reporting and the potential interest (possibly to reinforce the overstretch issues that have been bubbling away on BBC Radio News for the last few weeks).

'Course I could be wrong, maybe Wood was merely spicing up a story for his own glorification and career furtherance. He doesn't give a £$%^ for anybody and is prepared to totally destroy his credibility as a defence reporter with the people he gets his juiciest stories from.

I know where I stand on this one.

Complaint posted and response requested....

Disgusted at speculative reporting today concerning the tragic loss of an RAF aircraft. This will have caused unnecessary pain and anguish to many families. What for ? A big scoop? Shame on you. You would do far better by taking a responsible position on this type of incident and gain the respect of the British public. I think a statement of regret on peak time news would be appropriate. I am increasingly uncomfortable with BBC reporting which seems to be simply following the pack, rather than standing out from the crowd. The BBC was once seen as the model of professionalism for its industry, sadly no more.

As to whether the reporter thought he had genuine 'inside info' I will only say two words: Chinese whispers.

"Never let the facts get in the way of a good story"
Ba$tard$

Would it be worthwhile preparing a Complaint that all can copy /paste into the given field, similar to a petition , but will allow those with little time to add a complaint

worth a thought?

I`ll start thinking

***and heres my post from the first thread....(moderator, wonder if my first one from the original incident file can be removed?)**

At the time of this story breaking my immediate reaction was to speculate on a/c type, But NO common sense told me not to until the facts were released, the issue of the Press "only doing their job" has made my blood boil,

it is bad enough for one death from within the services let alone 14 but when it is compounded by the press first "speculating" that it could be a chinook, or a herc only goes to add to my anger, when the facts are released that it is a nimrod the press in my eyes appear to fall on a defensive shield of the "only doing my job" sketch and ultimately "GUESSING" what it "COULD" be goes to add fear into those that dont need that fear in the first place ...i.e Families of those near and dear serving in those regions...Sorry if this seems an unjust argument but in summary i feel that the media seem to have cloaks of invincibility if they get it wrong ..........TO those that SPECULATED ON AIR i hope they show a black screen or something and apologise for the unneccersary anguish caused to the Herc/ Vortex crews, if anyone from the press would care to add light or make comment feel free..

Complaint lodged with the BBC

Disgusting :mad:

Likewise

W*****s

SBG

I've made a comment on the BBC site, disgusted by their behaviour.

BTW, I phoned my parents earlier and they have heard nothing as yet.

My complaint
 

This is my complaint..feel free to copy/paste/change if you see fit.

Having heard with sadness at the loss today of the nimrod aircraft in Afghanistan, I must say that I am utterly disappointed at the “speculation” produced during the various BBC News features on the radio & Television, The comments suggested that the aircraft “could be a Chinook" then later to include a hercules.
By this single element of reporting this has ensured that UK families of the Chinook & Hercules crews based in Afghanistan suffered prolonged distress in the belief that a knock on the door was a possibility, This may also have had an opposite effect on the families of Nimrod crews who upon hearing from Mr Wood that it was “not in fact a Hercules, we're talking about a Chinook helicopter here” may have in turn caused them further unnecessary distress by suggesting their loved ones were safe. I feel that the BBC have overstepped the mark in Investigative Journalism and finally begun to follow the majority of other broadcasters by including speculation into their reporting when a number of years ago they would simply have said “until officially informed by the ministry of defence we are unable to confirm what type of aircraft was involved”, I for one will be seeking an official apology to be broadcast, and for a much more sensitive BBC to be returned.

CM

Another complaint lodged, know many a crew member on the Squadrons.

Nimrod Liney, father ex-Nimrod Wet man

Complaint lodged. Thanks CM.

Was it an MR2 or perhaps an R1?

Defence secretary already has announced it appears to be a tragic accident.
So.. given the track record of honesty in this government...

I too have lodged a complaint. I've been lurking on these forums for a while now but thought I'd add my 2p's worth here.

Kitbag, well reasoned logic. The MoD were the ones who decided to go public without releasing the pertinent details. The BBC didn't help matters, but I suggest it is the MoD that have a "Duty of Care" to the NoK reporting chain, and not the BBC. The MoD have apparently decided not to embrace the electronic news age in which we all live, for better or worse, and so are the prime instigators of this disgusting piece of misinformation and subterfuge today.

The BBC are a news organisation, simple fact. They will do everything in their power to be the first with the story, and their attitude is that corrections can be made after the event, if the facts initially prove to be elusive.

You can not have it both ways with the BBC. The only difference between them and CNN etc is that you and I pay their wages. The race to be first with the story is the only excuse the BBC ever need to come up with, as far as they are concerned. Too many people here are trying to put them on a pedastal as "Guardians of the Truth", and then pillory them for their mistakes, nothing could be more wrong.

What excuse does the MoD have for their complete and utter mishandling of this tragedy? Why did all those military communities, but especially Odiham and Lyneham, have to go through this anguish before the tragic news finally lay with ISK?

By all means castigate the BBC, but don't let the Government off the hook for being the instigator of this debacle.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?p...OSwhs&refer=uk

"The crew had reported a technical problem before the aircraft went down in an open area, he said."

Complaint posted. Having kinformed for the Gulf Herc Crash, I can assure you that our job was made far more difficult (particularly in terms of timing) than it should have been simply because of the necessity to get the info out to those affected before the news agancies started letting the world know. Disgusting.

STH

Two In - I'm afraid I have to disagree with you.

As someone who has served in both Afghanistan and Iraq (among other places) I, as I'm sure you might, know that there are procedures in place for military personnel to stop news being leaked back to the UK. You may or may not also be aware that the embedded media in such places aren't subject to such rules and what with their access to satellite phones they can have gossip picked up outside the EFI broadcasted back to the UK in a matter of minutes. The MoD announced an a/c had crashed, the BBC added everything else.

I'm still waiting to find out if my half-brother who flys a kipper kite is ok, I have made a comment on the BBC website and shall be writing a complaint as soon as I know more.

Sir, in your news today you, totally erroneously, ascribed the loss of an RAF aircraft in Afghanistan as, if not a C-130, then a Chinook. Only hours later correctly ascribing the loss as a Nimrod MR2.

In doing so you inflicted great grief and worry on the whole RAF C-130 and Chinook communities, operational and families alike.

I had been lead to believe that, in light of other BBC reporting disasters, that all reports had to be confirmed from at least two sources before publication. In this case the source would seem to have been a single reported hearsay account.

Before I submit a more formal application under the Freedom of Information Act for the actions taken under this totally reprehensible report, I would be grateful for confirmation that a suitably rigorous internal investigation is under way - and the results will be made public.

Yours Sincerely

ORAC....

Complaint lodged as well.

But H-S, that's my point. This stuff will get back to Blighty a damn sight faster than the glacial like response of the MoD, so get the relevant information out before the news Johnnie’s start their rampant speculation, which they will anyway. Not being as responsive as the news organizations is simply unacceptable. The old arguments about infonok needing to be accurate are specious when some leech of a newshound is already at the front door asking their usual battery of sensitive questions.