closed threads
mostly harmless
(In the original thread) Jerricho wrote:
Jerricho, please be careful here. It is the brother- and sisterhood of aviation that decides what is and what is not safe. Collectively, you know your business.
Equally, it is the fraternity / sorority of the press that gets to decide what is 'newsworthy'. They know what makes a good story. If you tell a journalist that something 'is not newsworthy', he/she will feel professionally insulted and will write the story anyway - and not from your viewpoint.
You understand the technical reality. They understand the perceptions of the technically uninformed. What goes between the two worldviews is called 'politics'.
I think you'll find that my aviation brothers and sisters take exception to jouranlism like this because it simply is not newsworthy. Time and time again I read stories in the media that range from somewhat sensationalist to total bullsh*t.
Equally, it is the fraternity / sorority of the press that gets to decide what is 'newsworthy'. They know what makes a good story. If you tell a journalist that something 'is not newsworthy', he/she will feel professionally insulted and will write the story anyway - and not from your viewpoint.
You understand the technical reality. They understand the perceptions of the technically uninformed. What goes between the two worldviews is called 'politics'.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: LGW - Hub of the Universe!
Posts: 978
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes, though, I do find it baffling why threads are closed! For a public discussion forum, threads are closed when there is no real reason - for example:
1. The Close Encounter over London - Yes, I concede there was no story, but why not let the discussion continue???
2. The Diplomat acquitted at Isleworth Crown Court for an Air rage incident due to "taking too much medication!" - Why close that thread??? No one, ASFAIK, had insulted anyone yet many people in aviation were absolutely scandalised by the judge's decision! Why was that thread (or threads, as the discussion was started a few times) not allowed to run its course???
If a thread is not legal, decent, honest or truthful or contains controversy which could be reported in the gutter press, I can understand the need to delete individual postings, censor names or close threads down - it just seems sometimes as though there's a bit of "Big Brother Knows Best" in here sometimes!!!
.........apart from the odd minor annoyance, pprune's a bloody ggod place to stop by though!!!
1. The Close Encounter over London - Yes, I concede there was no story, but why not let the discussion continue???
2. The Diplomat acquitted at Isleworth Crown Court for an Air rage incident due to "taking too much medication!" - Why close that thread??? No one, ASFAIK, had insulted anyone yet many people in aviation were absolutely scandalised by the judge's decision! Why was that thread (or threads, as the discussion was started a few times) not allowed to run its course???
If a thread is not legal, decent, honest or truthful or contains controversy which could be reported in the gutter press, I can understand the need to delete individual postings, censor names or close threads down - it just seems sometimes as though there's a bit of "Big Brother Knows Best" in here sometimes!!!
.........apart from the odd minor annoyance, pprune's a bloody ggod place to stop by though!!!
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: London
Posts: 2,916
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SLFguy
Perhaps there were better ones, but they struck me as two very good reasons.
I can see why the Mods wouldn't want the 'flagship' forum on a professional pilots website cluttered up with silly taboid-style 'shock horror' rubbish about non-events.
bealine
Maybe the 'Diplomat' thread you started was closed because another thread on the same topic was already running, and had been for some time?
The original thread is still open: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206899
BTW, if you look at it, you'll see a few people pointed out the facts - clearing up some misunderstandings which had led to many being 'scandalised' as you put it.
"a bit of "Big Brother Knows Best"?
Maybe he does? Danny's way seems to work. It's the best aviation website on the net as far as I'm aware.
FL
Perhaps there were better ones, but they struck me as two very good reasons.
I can see why the Mods wouldn't want the 'flagship' forum on a professional pilots website cluttered up with silly taboid-style 'shock horror' rubbish about non-events.
bealine
Maybe the 'Diplomat' thread you started was closed because another thread on the same topic was already running, and had been for some time?
The original thread is still open: http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?t=206899
BTW, if you look at it, you'll see a few people pointed out the facts - clearing up some misunderstandings which had led to many being 'scandalised' as you put it.
"a bit of "Big Brother Knows Best"?
Maybe he does? Danny's way seems to work. It's the best aviation website on the net as far as I'm aware.
FL
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: surrey
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censorship
Any response from the moderator would be appreciated...
IMHO closing down threads on contentious issues such as tabloid journalism and air safety will only pander to the "conspiracy" nuts.
I really see no reason, other than legal issues and personal abuse for intervention in the forum, and even in that case the offending post can be deleted rather than the thread closed.
The accusation of a proximity incident may well be unfounded but one or two of people where beginning to analyse the evidence rather than resort to accusations and assumptions. Jumping to the conclusion that it isn't a proximity incident based on no evidence other than "tabloids lie and zoom lenses distort" isn't a good example of Science or critical thinking. Whilst this could be offered as a supporting reason it should not be offered as a conclusion.
A culture that dismisses issues of safety so readily is in my opinion not healthy.
Perhaps you ought to check out the forthcoming documentary on Challenger.
In conclusion It seems to me rather a shame that you feel this issue should be censored.
IMHO closing down threads on contentious issues such as tabloid journalism and air safety will only pander to the "conspiracy" nuts.
I really see no reason, other than legal issues and personal abuse for intervention in the forum, and even in that case the offending post can be deleted rather than the thread closed.
The accusation of a proximity incident may well be unfounded but one or two of people where beginning to analyse the evidence rather than resort to accusations and assumptions. Jumping to the conclusion that it isn't a proximity incident based on no evidence other than "tabloids lie and zoom lenses distort" isn't a good example of Science or critical thinking. Whilst this could be offered as a supporting reason it should not be offered as a conclusion.
A culture that dismisses issues of safety so readily is in my opinion not healthy.
Perhaps you ought to check out the forthcoming documentary on Challenger.
In conclusion It seems to me rather a shame that you feel this issue should be censored.
Ohcirrej
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: This is the internet FFS.........
Posts: 2,921
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Guilty as charged your honour, but it did look like it was about to descend into the well worn "most journalists (bar a select few) know nothing about aviation, yet that doesn't stop them.......what a bunch of *insert appropriate insult* those journos are.........why let the truth stand in the way of a good story" type thread we have seen may times here on the forums.
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: New York City
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Censored? 
You're making yourself look very silly. You've already been told the discussion is in the ATC forum.
If you'd been ppruning for more than a few days and stopped huffing and puffing long enough you might even have worked it out for yourself.
You're making yourself look very silly. You've already been told the discussion is in the ATC forum.
If you'd been ppruning for more than a few days and stopped huffing and puffing long enough you might even have worked it out for yourself.
Just in case anybody hadn't noticed, it is against PPrune rules to double-post. It's quite common, if multiple posts are spotted to either merge them, or to delete all but the one in which the appropriate mod(s) feel it's most appropriate.
Not censorship, since anybody can post in the thread that remains, just housekeeping.
G
(a mod, but not in this forum, and just pointing out PPrune policy).
Not censorship, since anybody can post in the thread that remains, just housekeeping.
G
(a mod, but not in this forum, and just pointing out PPrune policy).
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: surrey
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yaffler,
There is no censorship and no conspiracy theory to hold up!! I was not at work that day, but would have heard when i returned to work if there had been an incident as we have a very open reporting system. Such a high profile incident would have been talked about by everyone.
In the aviation industry, certainly in the UK, we have a robust open reporting system - in TC we have a computer with all the recent incidents (subject to the controller involveds' agreement) and we can replay any incident at any time as a learning tool.... it is in fact encouraged for us to check the 'safety kiosk' every now and again to help learn from peoples experiences/mistakes.
as for the
zoom lenses do not distort as such - wide angle lenses distort. Zoom lenses foreshorten distance between subjects.
look at the following two pictures:
The flower pot has not been moved between pictures, the lens has been used on the telephoto end for the first photo and wide angle end for the other. As you can see - the distance between the background and foreground seems less with the telephoto lens.
This is a basic, well known, phenomena in photography and one that the photographer at Upton Park will be more than aware of. His sale of the photograph to the press was no more than a cynical attempt to get money - even if that meant not quite being truthful about how the photograph was taken.
No conspiracy theory, just fact.
There is no censorship and no conspiracy theory to hold up!! I was not at work that day, but would have heard when i returned to work if there had been an incident as we have a very open reporting system. Such a high profile incident would have been talked about by everyone.
In the aviation industry, certainly in the UK, we have a robust open reporting system - in TC we have a computer with all the recent incidents (subject to the controller involveds' agreement) and we can replay any incident at any time as a learning tool.... it is in fact encouraged for us to check the 'safety kiosk' every now and again to help learn from peoples experiences/mistakes.
as for the
Jumping to the conclusion that it isn't a proximity incident based on no evidence other than "tabloids lie and zoom lenses distort"
look at the following two pictures:
The flower pot has not been moved between pictures, the lens has been used on the telephoto end for the first photo and wide angle end for the other. As you can see - the distance between the background and foreground seems less with the telephoto lens.
This is a basic, well known, phenomena in photography and one that the photographer at Upton Park will be more than aware of. His sale of the photograph to the press was no more than a cynical attempt to get money - even if that meant not quite being truthful about how the photograph was taken.
No conspiracy theory, just fact.
Join Date: Jan 1997
Location: UK
Posts: 7,737
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prof,
Story was non story. What we call in the trade, bollocks. As is the entire underlying theme to this thread.
Rumour, news, that's it. we choose, we shape, we focus. It's called editorial control.
Rob
Story was non story. What we call in the trade, bollocks. As is the entire underlying theme to this thread.
Rumour, news, that's it. we choose, we shape, we focus. It's called editorial control.
Rob
