Does anyone else find it ironic that the slang for a journalist is a "Hack" and it now appears that this is what some of them are obliged do to get information.....(allegedly)

I remember reading a damn fine article by young Heaps some time ago, concerning an afternoon of coarse fishing. He was on the Hamble fishing when the Red Arrows flew overhead, He made just a passing comment but you could read the awe in his article that such a sport should be pleasnatly disturbed by something that flies through the air. I vote him to be a jolly fine fellow.:cool:

This thread hasn't taken off
 

"It's a shame this thread hasn't really taken off." Says Ex-Cargo Clown (Sorry, there's no 'quote' option on my screen).

He/she is right, it hasn't. But in the end, I'm not sure that making the kind of list suggested at the outset would be very useful. I've had my say (earlier) about why journalists reporting on flying topics are likely to fall into one or other of two quite different camps - those who know about flying and write about it for people who know about it, and the generalists who don't, and are writing for people who don't.

Nothing I've read here suggests that anything very different would be revealed by this exercise. And the key question everybody should ask themselves before starting research - what are you going to do with the information? Send snotograms to the bad ones? See how much they willl care. Expose them to the public? See how much they will care. Reward the good ones? There is at least some virtue in that, but it isn't obvious how it would be done.

I'm as rabid as the next man/woman when it comes to an instinct to confront really bad journos and beat them senseless with one of their own limbs which I have previously torn off, but in the real world I guess we must just learn to tolerate that which cannot be changed. PPruners as a community are especially sensitive to mishandled, misrepresented stories about flying, but I have first hand knowledge of exactly the same effect in other fields - sailing, science, crime, social services departments, almost no end to it.

Let's just trust in the basic common sense of (most of) our fellow citizens, take a couple of deep breaths, and enjoy the knowledge that people like Red 4 have done a great deal more good in the world than can be undone by bad reporting.

Actually, yes. The one I mentioned is signed up to Pprune, and I'd be quite happy if he saw my compliment. Which makes me wonder - how many more are signed up (apart from those who admit it) in order to probe?

... degrees in journalism ...
 

Judging by the results, the "courses" at these teaching institutions seem to exclude knowledge of the subjects the students are going to journalise about. So what use are these "degrees" ???
"Technical" periodicals like Flight International or Aviation Week have always covered the ground pretty well, but otherwise .... And there's always the potentially disastrous effect of the "sub-editors" on what might originally have been passable copy.
Years ago I knew and admired Thurstan James, who once said his job was to know what he was going to write about and make sure the finished article fitted the space he'd got for the piece. That's Craftsmanship .

John Jeffrey:I suspect that to be a bit of shabby reporting.

Just like the "Gentlemen of the Press" who seem to be getting a bit of a bashing here, I think you are including a terminological inexactitude in your post.

I understand the difference between them being paid to get it right and you expressing your belief, but I also think that they believe they are right when they spout such pish as we have read recently, just as you believe you are right when you say there is no quote option.


The truth may well be that you don't know what it looks like. That's not the same as it not being there.

If you did even a small amount of research, you would find it, just as the journalist will find facts by employing the same tactic.

Well, I've checked through FAQs and also emailed the Moderator for advice, which I think counts as 'research', but clearly not enough to meet your high standards.

You could of course have chosen to explain, instead of indulging in point-scoring, but no doubt you feel better now.

In the toolbar at the top left of the pprune page, click on UserCP

At the bottom of the list click on miscellaneous options and select the full wysiwyg option.

Now that you can see the Quote option, let me know if you need any help on using it.


FAQ

Reading & Posting Messages

This section ends with a link to bb codes. That makes interesting reading. If you still can't get the quote option, just type the codes and it works.

Duncs,

well spotted.

airpolice missed a couple of steps. User CP - settings and options - edit options - misc...

I think.

Duncs:ok:

Dear AirPolice & DuncanD. Tried all that long ago, thanks, but still no joy. Which is why I've asked Mods for help..

For the benefit of JJ and others who may have the same issue.........


Type [ that's an open square bracket, followed, without spaces by the word quote and a closing one.

Then type some text. Then do the square bracket thing again but this time type /QUOTE in between the brackets.

Go on, try it now and post for us all to see what you get.

I'm expecting text.

Well, this is what you get. So thanks for that, problem 90% solved. But what is really twitching my tail is the fact that I used to see an icon to do this easily, but now it's gone! Still, I taught myself computers, whereas the Queen taught me to fly . . . .

I nominate Frank Gardner. Does he write/talk about aviation matters? I do not know but I do know that what he reports about is well researched and well presented. So I hope, if he has not already done so, that FG can turn his hand to aviation.

I do like a happy ending.
:)

Teddy Donaldson?

You owe me a keyboard and screen wipes. The Air Cdre was a wonderful chap, but even he would tell this story about himself....

Teddy was a keen sailor. Moored on the Hamble one evening, another bloke asks to tie up alongside. Drinks are shared, first names exchanged, turns out the other chap is a BA captain, and as the conversation progresses...

Capt: You seem to know a lot about aviation.

Teddy: Yes, I work for the Daily Telegraph.

Capt (leans forward conspiratorially): Do you know that :mad: Donaldson?

//followed by Teddy's Basil Brush laugh, which could be heard at the other end of Fleet Street...

Though his modesty does him credit, Low Observable is probably the finest defence aerospace journalist working today, ranking alongside Robert Wall, Doug Barrie (arguably no longer a journo) and alongside blokes like Max KJ on the civil side.

He has forgotten more about aviation than most PPRuNers have ever known, and he's been an inspiration to me as I've strived to emulate him (failing dismally), and to many of my colleagues.

The critics really need to draw a distinction between the generalist journos who sometimes cover aviation and the real specialists, many of whom know their stuff, but whose work isn't seen in the Daily Mail or the Sun (nor even in the Telegraph and Times, these days).

On a more general note...

The "air correspondent" is extinct in the mass media. It was an important specialist field between the 1930s and 1960s, when aviation was changing the way we travelled and fought wars, there were dozens of companies pitching hundreds of new designs, and airliners crashed with monotonous regularity. Today there just isn't enough aviation news to justify it, and what is there, is mostly business news.

The business or political reporters who cover the subject now vary in their knowledge and enthusiasm - there are some good practitioners in major aerospace cities - but seldom have any technical depth. You're going to find that in the aerospace media.

I have also worked with many people who trained as pilots and engineers and then went into aerospace journalism. Let's just say that's not the miracle cure for bad reporting.

Yes I am afraid Teddy was the chap who started the myth (which did not stop until 15 Dec 2010) that the Harrier did not do VTOs because of the high fuel consumption involved.

It did not matter how many times one demonstrated that you used nore fuel on a conventional takoff followed by a turn on to first heading and accelerating to cruise speed compared to a VTO to the same conditions. (not much difference actually - about 30 - 40 lb but its the principle of the thing!)

He was also not alone in failing to understand he basics of jet engines and that if you want to see a high fuel flow you open the throttle and go to max IAS on the deck (where the air is being rammed in - hence you can burn a lot of fuel) as opposed to sitting in the hover where the poor donk is having to suck in what it can and this lower mass flow will only support the burning of less fuel.

Hey ho.

.

Agreed, and this is what I've been trying to get across in my earlier posts. I have not criticised any individuals, merely listed a few observations about the way that generalists are obliged to work, with inevitable consequences.

It isn't relevant, for example, to say that we shouldn't read the red-tops. I don't. What started this thread running was the fact that lots of people do, and it is the 'reality' that those readers are invited to accept that 'we' object to. But I still stick to my question about whether this is a useful debate to have? As I said earlier, let it go. In the end, dislike ill-informed reporting as we may, how much does it really matter? Let's be content in knowing what we know, and being thankful that there are many more Red 4s out there waiting to be good guys.

John - I believe it was the same Air Cdre who reported on the new Shovel capability of the Harrier.

(It was around the time that STOVL was replacing V/STOL in the lexicon.)