Mind you - I have seen a Harrier act like a shovel:)

You do what you can. I'm a tech journalist, so sometimes get to write about aviation (was at a very odd do at Greenwich the other week, where Airbus showed off its marketing department). We do try to get things right, which means missing some stories which we can't stand up or just don't believe, and I'd be upset if we messed up on a technical point. Most of my colleagues at my company and among our competitors, ditto.

Some national journos are just as scrupulous as the best of the technical press, and others... well, they tend to work for titles with an horrendous work rate, and where you get fired if you don't regularly get stuff into the front of the book. You don't have time to get it right, but you have to make it exciting, and the editor just really cares that you don't land them in it.

Don't read those titles. If people didn't read the bad stuff, it wouldn't get written. Which is absolutely not an excuse for it, just saying how it could be shut off.

One plea: if members of the press come around on Pprune asking questions, please don't assume they're out to do evil. Although in general this is a place with great reserves of patience and good will, it can be what I believe is called a sporting ride if you pick a bad day. (On the other hand, if they're clearly out to do evil, have at 'em.)

R

All,

Whilst it is obvious by my profile that I do not post that much and that I haven't posted in a while I felt that this thread actually needed some reality injected into it.

This thread was started by Danny2 as a result of the tragic accident that happened at Bournemouth last weekend and because of the reporting of the incident that happened in the aftermath (here on PPRuNe and on various websites not necessarily media ones).

I am not a journalist and have no interest in being one but if Danny2 is the same Danny that started PPRuNe then I find it extremely sad that he has reacted in this way by starting a thread like this without any thought in anyway shape or form.

The reason why I make that comment - and as any sane person will understand - is that journalism is subjective. Every single person on this site has their own favourite paper(s) because of their own likes/dislikes. To start a thread about who is or who is not a good journalist is a complete waste of time and effort as it depends on individual criteria. To start a thread such as this as a result of last weekend is in my mind disappointing and denigrates what PPRuNe was set up for.

Whilst it is right to criticise and complain against news organisations for publishing information before it is right and proper, I do think that it is fair to say that most responsible news organisations don't do that (as some have stated here) so the issues lie elsewhere. Personally, if people have an issue I would suggest that it is the editors being the ones to moan against not the journalists themselves.

If you think that I am wrong and want to have a sensible debate then I'm happy to do so - if you want to have a go then don't expect an answer

airmail

Another important point: No news team has its First XI on duty on a Saturday afternoon...

Jackonicko
 

Jackonicko, since you're probably reading this, for about the umpteenth time:

PLEASE RETURN THE SLIDES I LOANED YOU!!

Otherwise I might just have to advise people about 'journo integrity'....??

The Mail used to have a specialist defence & aviation correspondent but that slot disappeared back in the mid-1990s.

As mentioned above, there are the specialists and the general reporters (hacks). ALL of them are generally subject to the whims (and, in some cases, prejudices and general ignorance) of whoever is running the news desk - home or foreign - that day.

This can then be compounded by the subs desk. Time was that a sub would ask the correspondent to clarify something if the sub was not sure of either meaning or sense. Nowadays, it frequently looks as if this is no longer the case.

One other thing, I do not know about other papers, but I do know that if you see a piece in the Mail bylined to "Daily Mail Reporter", this is shorthand for "This Piece Has Come Straight From Agency" e.g. Press Association.

Yes, The Times informed us the other day in article about football in Qatar that players can expect temperatures of over 100 degrees F -- "that's the boiling point of water!"

I sent an e-mail to them but have not had the courtesy of a reply.

Mini - I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and assume you were being ironic when you used such an overworked cliche in a thread generally critical of journalists ;)

Praising "LowObservable"
 

Easy going there. He's already had quite a bit of that sort of talk. Any more and he'll be even more impossible to deal with in social situations.

It took two journos to produce this Sun exclusive :ugh:

Flash of ‘fire’ on doomed Red Arrow | The Sun |News

JN's comments may be overstated.

Cloudster, I will try to take those comments to heart.

History
 

OK, journalists. Please try to justify the 'mystery flash' articles - now in the Telegraph also. Asking any Hawk pilot or technician would have cleared up the 'mystery'. The strobe light is even visible on the wikipedia entry photo for the Hawk.

'Mystery' meaning 'I am an uninformed sensationalist who can't be bothered to check anything'.

Getting jealous of the bankers displacing you from the 'Top 3 most hated occupations'?

"OK, journalists. Please try to justify the 'mystery flash' articles - now in the Telegraph also. Asking any Hawk pilot or technician would have cleared up the 'mystery'. The strobe light is even visible on the wikipedia entry photo for the Hawk.

'Mystery' meaning 'I am an uninformed sensationalist who can't be bothered to check anything'."


If they checked, they wouldn't be able to put up sensationalist head lines and therefore wouldn't sell as many newspapers.

The way the media / journalists / reporters are at the moment, they are starting to make Second hand car salesmen look good.

.

As has already been stated, journalists are no different from other professionals – there are good and bad. Judging ALL journalists (especially the dedicated trade press) by the standards of a British tabloid is unfair, lazy and just plain ignorant.
'I am an uninformed sensationalist…’ – you said it Fox3.

Beags,

Will chase the magazine again. :uhoh:

JN

No, they're different.
 

"No difference from other professionals" ?

As we established previously, it's stretching a point to refer to journalists as professionals. Where's the training syllabus, regulatory body, STANDARDS OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT that are expected of some of the rest of us ?

Good Lord man, you'll be referring to plumbers as Engineers, next...

Needless to say, just like any of human behaviour there's an S-curve with some good long tails, from Paul Foot or perhaps Anna Politkovskaya down to News International and the hacks in war zones who don't pay medical insurance to their local "fixers."

But there is a difference from a number of other crafts, trades and professions - very few of those hold themselves up as heroic defenders of truth and democracy, moralisers and standard-setters. The rest of us do our jobs and take more-or-less quiet pride: journalism sets itself up, and asks, to be judged.

My judgement ? A little more humility would be fine. Honourable exceptions among the trade press that I've met.

Y

Training and qualifications are all very well, but even the most basic training should involve what is professionally acceptable in terms of news gathering techniques, checking of facts and putting the information in context for the reader. None of this appears to be happening, with numerous examples daily, in the national media.

As for the PCC, I can only say "phone-hacking".

I grant you the same "joke qualification" applies to GCSEs, so maybe this is a sign of a general malaise.

Pilots and engineers generally lose licences, become unemployable or get imprisoned for not keeping up standards. Journalists with dodgy practices seem to be able to look forward to their own chat show in America.

"but even the most basic training should involve what is professionally acceptable in terms of news gathering techniques, checking of facts and putting the information in context for the reader. "

All the training syllabuses I mentioned DO train the journalist to do ALL of these things. There’s no accounting for those that choose not to operate by these standards (NoW etc), but these are the exceptions rather than the rule (across the entire spectrum of journalism rather than the narrow section of the tabloid press).

“Pilots and engineers generally lose licences, become unemployable or get imprisoned for not keeping up standards.”

Journalists lose accrediations, become unemployable or get imprisoned just the same.

As I said in my private message to you Fox3, it’s all too easy to become cynical. However, don’t forget that when you turn on the news tonight to find out the latest news from Afghanistan or Libya, or open the broadsheets and trade press to read about it, that information is coming to you from journalists who are routinely putting their lives on the line doing a job they happen to think is a worthwhile and honourable vocation.