How about a list of journalists, rated by their reporting skills?
 

In order to try and keep some of the debates that are appearing on here to the topic rather than diverting them with outrage about how journalists manage to report incidents and tragic accidents such as the Red Arrows one yesterday, why don't we create a list of journalists and rate them on how they report aviation news.

For example, a journalist who writes about the Red Arrows as a "stunt team" and others who try to be creative and report how "the pilot managed to manoeuvre the plane and avoided a hospital/school/nursery/pedestrian" should be rated extremely low. Others who manage to report factually and with a reasonable level of grammatically correct description of aeronautical facts would be rated quite high.

I can, if necessary, create a list of journalists who write aviation articles and we could all rate them based on associated articles that have appeared on-line.

Any takers?

"journalists and their reporting skills".

Is that not something of an oxymoron?

I say go for it and publish list after some months monitoring...

In many cases it is. Thankfully, there are a few out there who do at least make the effort and don't resort to calling an aircraft on stand to be "on the runway" or that aircraft continually "plunge" or that skilled military aerobatic teams fly "stunt aircraft". Need I go on?

At the risk of being called a sycophant, nicely put Danny2. :ok:

Dare one mention "Giant Hercules transporter" and other Media dribble? ;)

Here is the full, exhaustive list :

That'll be on a scale - 0 to minus infinity then. Bring back Teddy Donaldson and his ilk.

Journalists
 

There was an excellent letter in The Times recently (written by an ex-journalist) which picked up a point I have been grumbling quietly about for years. It is that too many Journalists like to describe theselves as 'professionals'. Not so. A profession has defined entry requirements, recognised training courses and qualifications, and bodies to monitor standards. Aircrew, for example. Journalism is an occupation. Come to that, so is politics. There are good and bad journalists, politicians, and pilots. The difference is that the bad pilots get exposed very quickly, and either retrained or fired.

That isn't to say that there aren't plenty of journalists in print and TV who do an honest and sound job. However, much of the national reporting is done by generalists who think they understand what the specialist are telling them. Sometimes this is because the specialists haven't explained clearly enough, sometimes it is down to the journalist's conviction that he has the knack of paraphrasing what he has been told - a bad case of 'a little knowledge . . . ' .

There is also the pressure of time, where there is a commercial need to get something out there. Finally, let's face it, most of the public don't really understand or care about some of the finer distinctions that exercise us as a community.

Taking all these points together, I wouldn't be at all surprised if the most respectable figures to come out of this 'survey' are those who fly, who who have flown, for a living; and are writing for a knowledgeable audience.

JJ - that my have been true in the past, but I think the profession now has entry standards amd most of those entering the calling have degrees in journalism.

Has anyone else looked at the image of the aircraft behind the BBC newsreaders, which is broadcast every day of the week? I find it annoying that when our aircraft are flying in harms way in Libya, that the picture is of a French Mirage. Can we switch to a British aircraft please?

Jimmm Fergususuuuson in the Aberdeen P and J is a tremendous halfwit, rolled out at times such as this to spout reactionary nonsense.

Usually accompanying 'Near death copter crash horror' style headlines.

I've met and been pestered (they must have been really stuck) by many Journo's during my travels, as one once cursed with being assigned to what were described as "CNN Zones"

There are perhaps a handful that faithfully represent contextual reality, and will ask for a technical review, most of whom had been resident in the particular region.

Any of the "fly ins" are to be avoided... like The Plague.

A few years ago I came here looking for advice on something I was writing which involved military aviation. I got help in spades, and it was enormously useful. If, back then, I'd read this thread first, I might not have dared raise the issue at all.

Apart from the self righteous bleatings, journalistic accuracy has to be the 2nd most boring topic on pprune.

The journalists would have to be aerospace experts to satisfy everyone on here, they are clearly not, so where is the problem???

I've worked with plenty of military and industry bods that can't tell the difference between a Gazelle and a Lynx, what makes you think a journalist can tell the difference between an F3 and a GR4???

I'd much rather read about a bunch of pprune bell-ends with nothing better to do than whine to make their own pathetic lives a little more interesting.

Leave the modding to the Mods, not a difficult concept to grasp. :ok:

Why? I would certainly have thought more of you for asking.

Outstanding sentiment and this is one of the most bollocks threads seen on here for a goodly while :=

SFFP,

I would normally agree with your statement regarding this thread; however, having read Danny's reasoning behind it, I can see where he is coming from.

Duncs:ok:

Don't make me laugh. The very best training a journalist could have is the old-fashioned 'apprenticeship' of learning on the job, preferably on a local paper, initially covering golden weddings, clever pets' skills, giant marrows and Friday evening parish council meetings. And the risk of being derided by sub-editors for the simplest mistake soon tightens up a rookie's spelling skills. These days, few graduates in any subject can spell properly - and I doubt whether it's important on a 'meeja studies/journalism' degree course. More importantly, this sort of apprenticeship teaches comprehension (any other 50-plussers like me recall that as a primary school subject?).

As for journalists reporting military matters well, I would nominate BBC East's Alex D****p for endeavouring to 'get it right'. Being out in Afghanistan with the ISAF forces has probably helped his accuracy no end.

It's a shame this thread hasn't really taken off.

There is a veritable goldmine of sh1te in the Mail today in the R.Arrows story.

Poor grammar, incorrect facts, some dreadfully inaccurate technical stuff. Surely if an article is deemed good enough to print it should be researched and written properly.

And I'm not surprised that the RAF is in such financial strife, we need to start looking around for these missing 60 odd T1s that the Mail reckon are around somewhere.....

I talk to journalists quite often about events in the City. I used to be on the telly a lot when I was in Asia. I have no problems with them.

Why? Because they are finance specialists.

They generally know what they're talking about. They know how the markets work. Over time I've come to really respect some journalists, especially with the wire services.

But this is finance. You are in aviation.

The trouble with your industry is that it is high profile, 'sexy', far more interesting than boring old forex markets and far more appealing to your average punter.

So the sort of hack that covers a riot will be put onto a front page story about a plane crash, even though he knows bugger all about aviation. He'll probably be an arrogant prick who will expect everyone to tell him everything even though they are not in full pocession of the facts.

He will of course assume various things and probably speculate like mad about what happened. The pilot isn't around to moan. :mad:

But aren't the hacks with aviation publications like 'Flight' etc well respected? I would have thought so because I would expect them to be specialists (such as the late, great, Gainesy). Or am I dreadfully wrong?