A Question?...and a Warning! - - JOURNALISTS
None but a blockhead
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: London, UK
Posts: 535
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Flaps...
I don't think I could have stuck it out (ooo-err!) on Pprune for three and a half years as a self-confessed Qwerty Gerty without having a certain horniness (will you stop that?) about my epidermis.
And anyway, the day pilots stop complaining vigorously about journos, managers, engineers, passengers, other pilots, furriners, Northerners, Southerners and anything else that happens to have rubbed them up the wrong way of late... well, that'll be one of the signs of the End Times, right there.
Now and again, though, it's worth pointing out mildly that things are somewhat more complex than may appear to the apoplectic.
R
I don't think I could have stuck it out (ooo-err!) on Pprune for three and a half years as a self-confessed Qwerty Gerty without having a certain horniness (will you stop that?) about my epidermis.
And anyway, the day pilots stop complaining vigorously about journos, managers, engineers, passengers, other pilots, furriners, Northerners, Southerners and anything else that happens to have rubbed them up the wrong way of late... well, that'll be one of the signs of the End Times, right there.
Now and again, though, it's worth pointing out mildly that things are somewhat more complex than may appear to the apoplectic.
R
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Agaricus bisporus:
Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is.
Most modern journalism can be traced back to that great populist, the first Lord Northcliffe, ancestor of the current Lord Rothermere (Associated Newspapers) and a man who at one time owned the Daily Mirror and The Times. Northcliffe always refused to be interviewed, saying: 'I'm like the little boy who doesn't like jam, because I've been to the factory and I've seen how it's made.'
Sorry if you don't like it, but there it is.
Most modern journalism can be traced back to that great populist, the first Lord Northcliffe, ancestor of the current Lord Rothermere (Associated Newspapers) and a man who at one time owned the Daily Mirror and The Times. Northcliffe always refused to be interviewed, saying: 'I'm like the little boy who doesn't like jam, because I've been to the factory and I've seen how it's made.'
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: NZ
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Memetic
No, they don't.
Any journalist with even a modicum of intellligence knows that you go to a company management, or their PR company, for the official line. Any journalist talking to a line pilot, or other employee, is after "dirt", not the line a PR company will spin them.
Some journalists, by their professionalism and sense of what is fair and right, gain the trust of pilots and will get all sorts of inside information on what really goes on aviation. Others are less trustworthy, and simply use those who will speak to them to further their own careers, and the hell with the consequences for their informants (the recent use of a caterer to smuggle fake weapons onto an aircraft, for example). Fortunately, the journalists who are visible on PPRuNe tend to be the former, not the latter.
But, going back to the point:-
Wrong, wrong, wrong. If a company employee was to speak direct to their companies PR firm, the very least that would probably follow would be a stiff talking-to by their line manager- more likely a disciplinary action would follow.
An employee should direct any query by the press to their management, making no comment in the process. I also take issue with your statement- I don't believe for a minute that refusing to talk to the press has resulted in bad PR. It is certainly true that being evasive or dishonest has resulted in bad PR- but only because the person concerned did talk to the press, and handled it badly. If they hadn't done so, no bad PR. QED.
Unfortunately PR people seem to live in a different world to the rest of us- if you are not skilled in the art of spin, best to say nothing (and be thought a fool- than to speak... etc...)
But someone needs to actively deal with that call.
Any journalist with even a modicum of intellligence knows that you go to a company management, or their PR company, for the official line. Any journalist talking to a line pilot, or other employee, is after "dirt", not the line a PR company will spin them.
Some journalists, by their professionalism and sense of what is fair and right, gain the trust of pilots and will get all sorts of inside information on what really goes on aviation. Others are less trustworthy, and simply use those who will speak to them to further their own careers, and the hell with the consequences for their informants (the recent use of a caterer to smuggle fake weapons onto an aircraft, for example). Fortunately, the journalists who are visible on PPRuNe tend to be the former, not the latter.
But, going back to the point:-
However I would urge you to call the PR team, even if the manual does not demand it - perhaps it should - as you could provide useful info to them on the journalist's approach to the story - even if it is just a "heads up" that extra 5 minutes can make for a smoother response and a better result for your employer.
My point was that companies need to be prepared to deal with media enquiries - not automatically clam up. Some of the worst PR received by major companies has been the direct result of refusing to talk to the press, being evasive or dishonest.
Unfortunately PR people seem to live in a different world to the rest of us- if you are not skilled in the art of spin, best to say nothing (and be thought a fool- than to speak... etc...)
I call you back
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Alpha quadrant
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What if?
What if your PR section are the scum of the earth! What if their sole activity is spinning yarns for the media that you are overpaid, underworked, ungrateful, lazy, unreliable, completely untrustworthy, constantly complaining and a persistant thorn in the side of your wonderful management's attempt to save the world from your dispicable colleagues? 
I still shudder when I think of the day I was taking off to do some gardening, the Chief Exec was on holiday abroad, the Chief Safety Officer was out aviating - and the airprox board reports hit the newsdesks. The junior staff were quite right to give them my home number (Chief Engineer in this context), they needed somebody to talk to, but it does rather ruin one's day-off to be phoned mid-morning with "good morning, I'm the transport editor of the independent". You'll find me quoted on the front page the next day as "industry experts", which I thought was quite flattering given it was my day off and I had no idea we had a problem until they phoned me.
My point is, that just occasionally, one has to talk to the blighters, applying the perceived "best practice" of keeping schtum means they'll just print what seems like a good idea at the time.
To make a second point, there are two types of journalist in this context....
Firstly there is fleet-street (yes I know they aren't there any more), consisting of people highly(?!) trained to get a story that makes interesting reading, sells papers, and contains enough grains of truth to avoid their being sued for libel or deformation, but not necessarily any more truth than that. Dealing with these chaps requires both speed and delicacy - they'll go to print unless you can convince them that the whole thing is so boring there's no point. They also work to very tight deadlines - so if you are going to talk to them (usually safest) then it's best to make sure it's done quickly, by somebody who understands what's happening. Then the best approach is to drown them in bland facts, that are of course calculated not to cause problems.
Secondly there is the specialist press. I'm talking about the range of magazines from FTI to Flight, from Microlight Flying to Pilot, from Popular Mechanics to Professional Engineering. These chaps are very different, firstly the deadline to them is much less important than getting things right, and not causing widescale offence within the industry that they serve. When talking to them, it's worth finding out who you're talking to and what their interest in. The best way to get in trouble here is to tell them too many company secrets, but generally you'll find that if you take their details, say you'll call them back in a few hours, go talk to company senior management, and they'll either confirm the amount of information you should give them, or give you a steer as to who the normal contact point is, and you brief them. Specialist journos have a deep abhorence of causing trouble within their areas (they might publically whinge about something outside {a magazine specifically aimed at pilots may well be rude about the engineering profession for example} however, so do be a bit careful).
And just in passing, the latter are worth cultivating because they get a lot of their material from people like us - industry insiders, albeit often writing under pseudonyms (one of this month's high street flying magazines has about 4000 words of mine, but you'll not find my name anywhere), and at anything from 5p to 20p per word, with care not to p*** anybody off, it's not a bad second income once you've learned the ropes of the business. Even if that isn't your interest, a personal relationship with a few specialist journalists can help get your company's preferred view of the world reflected in the press read by your competitors and customers, and that can be a good thing.
G
My point is, that just occasionally, one has to talk to the blighters, applying the perceived "best practice" of keeping schtum means they'll just print what seems like a good idea at the time.
To make a second point, there are two types of journalist in this context....
Firstly there is fleet-street (yes I know they aren't there any more), consisting of people highly(?!) trained to get a story that makes interesting reading, sells papers, and contains enough grains of truth to avoid their being sued for libel or deformation, but not necessarily any more truth than that. Dealing with these chaps requires both speed and delicacy - they'll go to print unless you can convince them that the whole thing is so boring there's no point. They also work to very tight deadlines - so if you are going to talk to them (usually safest) then it's best to make sure it's done quickly, by somebody who understands what's happening. Then the best approach is to drown them in bland facts, that are of course calculated not to cause problems.
Secondly there is the specialist press. I'm talking about the range of magazines from FTI to Flight, from Microlight Flying to Pilot, from Popular Mechanics to Professional Engineering. These chaps are very different, firstly the deadline to them is much less important than getting things right, and not causing widescale offence within the industry that they serve. When talking to them, it's worth finding out who you're talking to and what their interest in. The best way to get in trouble here is to tell them too many company secrets, but generally you'll find that if you take their details, say you'll call them back in a few hours, go talk to company senior management, and they'll either confirm the amount of information you should give them, or give you a steer as to who the normal contact point is, and you brief them. Specialist journos have a deep abhorence of causing trouble within their areas (they might publically whinge about something outside {a magazine specifically aimed at pilots may well be rude about the engineering profession for example} however, so do be a bit careful).
And just in passing, the latter are worth cultivating because they get a lot of their material from people like us - industry insiders, albeit often writing under pseudonyms (one of this month's high street flying magazines has about 4000 words of mine, but you'll not find my name anywhere), and at anything from 5p to 20p per word, with care not to p*** anybody off, it's not a bad second income once you've learned the ropes of the business. Even if that isn't your interest, a personal relationship with a few specialist journalists can help get your company's preferred view of the world reflected in the press read by your competitors and customers, and that can be a good thing.
G
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: 39N 77W
Posts: 1,630
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IMO, this illustrates the challenge journalists face on all but the largest newspapers.
Sorry for the quality, it's been in my clipping file for nearly a decade.
Sorry for the quality, it's been in my clipping file for nearly a decade.
Last edited by seacue; 4th Apr 2003 at 21:52.
Supercalifragilistic
expialidocious
expialidocious
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Essex, UK
Posts: 588
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Faire d'income - If your PR section are...
My professional recommendation would be that you hire a top flight PR agency to work on changing the perceptions of your PR department ... 
Many sensible replies on here but Genghis sums it up to perfection and I'd only like to add a footnote about the specialist press.
The specialist press needs people who know the industry and that often means retirees or just industry people who like to write and like the broader contact with the industry.
But those people (and their editors/publishers) often find themselves lacking in journalistic skills. They can write, yes, but it takes them twice as long or more to write an article; they see all sides of the issue in shades of grey and agonise over the details trying to be fair; they know so much about the industry that they let their personal opinions creep into the text; in journalistic terms they are inefficient and terrible on deadlines. And they tend to be more expensive than the young professional reporter.
Specialist publishers have to try to balance that inefficient expertise with the more productive "real" journalists and hope the experience will rub off on them. Tain't easy. "Experienced" ponders motives, mulls over scenarios and few things can be more irritating than a hack who's got 10,000 characters on five different issues to produce by 1700 TODAY and needs the text equivalent of five soundbytes. "Experienced" soon learns he'll be tarred by association with the "hack" brush. With few and honourable exceptions he will eventually either find greener pastures or assume the cloak.
If you're a potential source within the industry, my own suggestion is be cautious, as you would be in any contact with outsiders. Take your time and get to know (e.g. via Google) what sort of stuff the person who contacted you is writing, and try to understand what their agenda is. Handle it right and, as Genghis says, it's an excellent way to put your own ideas across or to boost your own company's image. Build up trust and you'll find information is very much a two-way street. And to hell with anyone whose primary concern is his/her deadline.
The specialist press needs people who know the industry and that often means retirees or just industry people who like to write and like the broader contact with the industry.
But those people (and their editors/publishers) often find themselves lacking in journalistic skills. They can write, yes, but it takes them twice as long or more to write an article; they see all sides of the issue in shades of grey and agonise over the details trying to be fair; they know so much about the industry that they let their personal opinions creep into the text; in journalistic terms they are inefficient and terrible on deadlines. And they tend to be more expensive than the young professional reporter.
Specialist publishers have to try to balance that inefficient expertise with the more productive "real" journalists and hope the experience will rub off on them. Tain't easy. "Experienced" ponders motives, mulls over scenarios and few things can be more irritating than a hack who's got 10,000 characters on five different issues to produce by 1700 TODAY and needs the text equivalent of five soundbytes. "Experienced" soon learns he'll be tarred by association with the "hack" brush. With few and honourable exceptions he will eventually either find greener pastures or assume the cloak.
If you're a potential source within the industry, my own suggestion is be cautious, as you would be in any contact with outsiders. Take your time and get to know (e.g. via Google) what sort of stuff the person who contacted you is writing, and try to understand what their agenda is. Handle it right and, as Genghis says, it's an excellent way to put your own ideas across or to boost your own company's image. Build up trust and you'll find information is very much a two-way street. And to hell with anyone whose primary concern is his/her deadline.
Oh no, people are taking me seriously again - beer voucher's in the post Broadreach 
It's an interesting point when people like myself (that is professionals who write part time) get together we traditionally whinge about editors. It's interesting to read Broadreach's slant on the editor-writer relationship. It's often difficult, even with reasonable experience (I can claim 17 years {albeit with a few long gaps} part-time writing for various specialist magazines in the UK and US so am starting to get the hang of it) meeting their needs, and in particular matching their house style - a very difficult skill. Deadlines occasionally move without warning (or interfere with your professional desire to do the job properly), and not every (read most) editor(s) will run sub-edited text past you before running to print, even if you did have it in well before the deadline. A certain magazine editor got a severe private broadside from me not long ago for inserting 5 column inches under my (real) name that I hadn't written; several figures have been edited in a piece that many of you have probably read this month (under my current favourite pseudonym) from the more correct ones I used, to the ones published by a certain manufacturer - a fair call on the part of the editor since it's he that will get solicitors letters, not me. But, that gives an idea of the process before something goes to print. (And anyway, he left in most of my other criticisms, so I'll forgive him !).
But raitfaiter, I'm afraid that you are wrong. Just as there are some pretty poor or unethical journalists out there, we rub shoulders with Engineers and Pilots whose ethics one might doubt under closer examination. The misguided scum who flew into the World Trade Centre, or designed Japanese Kamikazee aeroplanes did far more damage than any bad journalist can - and were trained in our professions. We need to protect ourselves, as aviation professionals, from the poor journalists, and get to know the good ones - usually those writing for the publications that I'm sure clutter up your coffee table and crewroom just as they do mine.
G
It's an interesting point when people like myself (that is professionals who write part time) get together we traditionally whinge about editors. It's interesting to read Broadreach's slant on the editor-writer relationship. It's often difficult, even with reasonable experience (I can claim 17 years {albeit with a few long gaps} part-time writing for various specialist magazines in the UK and US so am starting to get the hang of it) meeting their needs, and in particular matching their house style - a very difficult skill. Deadlines occasionally move without warning (or interfere with your professional desire to do the job properly), and not every (read most) editor(s) will run sub-edited text past you before running to print, even if you did have it in well before the deadline. A certain magazine editor got a severe private broadside from me not long ago for inserting 5 column inches under my (real) name that I hadn't written; several figures have been edited in a piece that many of you have probably read this month (under my current favourite pseudonym) from the more correct ones I used, to the ones published by a certain manufacturer - a fair call on the part of the editor since it's he that will get solicitors letters, not me. But, that gives an idea of the process before something goes to print. (And anyway, he left in most of my other criticisms, so I'll forgive him !).
But raitfaiter, I'm afraid that you are wrong. Just as there are some pretty poor or unethical journalists out there, we rub shoulders with Engineers and Pilots whose ethics one might doubt under closer examination. The misguided scum who flew into the World Trade Centre, or designed Japanese Kamikazee aeroplanes did far more damage than any bad journalist can - and were trained in our professions. We need to protect ourselves, as aviation professionals, from the poor journalists, and get to know the good ones - usually those writing for the publications that I'm sure clutter up your coffee table and crewroom just as they do mine.
G
Last edited by Genghis the Engineer; 7th Apr 2003 at 02:06.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
raitfaiter
Not sure where Gods Country (sic) is, but please try to contribute something a little more constructive, if not original. Maybe you or yours have been mistreated by me and mine at some point, but that's not so say all journalism is bad. Indeed, by posting on Pprune you take part in that very process - publishing. Think about that for a minute.
You are arguably every bit a journalist as those who also happen to get paid for it!
Meanwhile, consider this. Ever heard of Watergate, or Aitken? Could the actions of the Washington Post or The Guardian be considered diseased on those occasions?
Perhaps you can explain why you feel so strongly? ? ?
Genghis...
You said:
"...a fair call on the part of the editor since it's he that will get solicitors letters, not me."
Be careful my friend. If your editor inserts copy under your byline (pseudonym or not) you too will get a solicitor's letter. Your only defence on such occasions is to produce what used to be called a 'black', ie: your original copy as submitted. (The term comes from the colour of the carbon copy [remember those?] you kept when you mechanically typed your copy/text...Ah the good 'ol days)
These days this means a date stamped, and in any other way, validated copy of your email. Access to your hard drive can also help validate what you originally wrote. Suffice to say, regular floppy back-ups are a must in libel cases.
Sorry to go off message for a bit, but as I started this thread I reckon I've got the right...so there!
You are arguably every bit a journalist as those who also happen to get paid for it!
Meanwhile, consider this. Ever heard of Watergate, or Aitken? Could the actions of the Washington Post or The Guardian be considered diseased on those occasions?
Perhaps you can explain why you feel so strongly? ? ?
Genghis...
You said:
"...a fair call on the part of the editor since it's he that will get solicitors letters, not me."
Be careful my friend. If your editor inserts copy under your byline (pseudonym or not) you too will get a solicitor's letter. Your only defence on such occasions is to produce what used to be called a 'black', ie: your original copy as submitted. (The term comes from the colour of the carbon copy [remember those?] you kept when you mechanically typed your copy/text...Ah the good 'ol days)
These days this means a date stamped, and in any other way, validated copy of your email. Access to your hard drive can also help validate what you originally wrote. Suffice to say, regular floppy back-ups are a must in libel cases.
Sorry to go off message for a bit, but as I started this thread I reckon I've got the right...so there!
Last edited by Dantruck; 7th Apr 2003 at 02:44.
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Location: Location:
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting points on this thread and some that are piercing my rhinoceresque skin.
t'aint natural,
Perhaps your sweeping generalisations are indicative of the quality of journalism that you once practised, but don't you bloody dare state that ALL of us have the same pathetic standards as yourself and your 'many friends in journalism'.
Over the past seven years two of my colleagues, both of whom were friends of mine, were murdered as a direct result of their tireless campaigns to bring the truth about various individuals and organisations to the public. Others I know live under constant fear of death. These people were not out 'for the most saleable story'. They were meticulous in their research and it really, really battered their professional pride when they occasionally got things wrong.
The majority of journalists with whom I work have the same standards and I know that most of MY friends in the business would agree with me.
For the record, I work as a senior editorial executive on a non-UK national newspaper and also have many years experience in 'the game'. I am also a pilot, albeit in a private capacity for now.
raitfaiter,
Excellent contribution. Perhaps you would care to expand on your theory.
Apologies in advance for any errors in spelling or grammar: all the bloody subs have gone to the pub.
t'aint natural,
Perhaps your sweeping generalisations are indicative of the quality of journalism that you once practised, but don't you bloody dare state that ALL of us have the same pathetic standards as yourself and your 'many friends in journalism'.
Over the past seven years two of my colleagues, both of whom were friends of mine, were murdered as a direct result of their tireless campaigns to bring the truth about various individuals and organisations to the public. Others I know live under constant fear of death. These people were not out 'for the most saleable story'. They were meticulous in their research and it really, really battered their professional pride when they occasionally got things wrong.
The majority of journalists with whom I work have the same standards and I know that most of MY friends in the business would agree with me.
For the record, I work as a senior editorial executive on a non-UK national newspaper and also have many years experience in 'the game'. I am also a pilot, albeit in a private capacity for now.
raitfaiter,
Excellent contribution. Perhaps you would care to expand on your theory.
Apologies in advance for any errors in spelling or grammar: all the bloody subs have gone to the pub.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: London
Posts: 528
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting sentiments. What surprises me most is the fact that most readers remain charitably disposed to believe what they read in newspapers, despite the evidence of their own eyes. Dantruck dredges pretty far into the past to show a newspaper in a good light - it's now nearly 30 years since the Washington Post brought down the American government. My most cherished memory of the Post is of it winning a Pulitzer Prize for a story about a nine-year-old heroin addict, which it later had to admit was invented in its entirety. As to the Guardian, mention of the Stothard Affair quietens them pretty quickly.
I have written for many years for aviation publications as well as Fleet Street newspapers, and I have to say that comparing the two is simply not valid. They have in common the use of the written word, in the way that priests and arsonists have candles in common; beyond that, their purpose, imperatives and approach are so disparate that no true comparison can be made.
One final thought; all the major players in the British print media refuse to be interviewed in newspapers. How many interviews have you seen with Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail? Rupert Murdoch? Les Hinton, executive chairman of News International? Lord Rothermere? If they avoid talking to the press, shouldn't you?
I have written for many years for aviation publications as well as Fleet Street newspapers, and I have to say that comparing the two is simply not valid. They have in common the use of the written word, in the way that priests and arsonists have candles in common; beyond that, their purpose, imperatives and approach are so disparate that no true comparison can be made.
One final thought; all the major players in the British print media refuse to be interviewed in newspapers. How many interviews have you seen with Paul Dacre, editor of the Daily Mail? Rupert Murdoch? Les Hinton, executive chairman of News International? Lord Rothermere? If they avoid talking to the press, shouldn't you?
Where I had effectively stated that a manufacturer was not telling the truth about their product, and the editor felt they didn't want to run that, I felt that was his right.
Where copy was inserted in my name, trust me, the editor, his boss, and his bosses boss knew very quickly - the apology was very private, but also very grovelling and in writing - I aint daft.
G
Where copy was inserted in my name, trust me, the editor, his boss, and his bosses boss knew very quickly - the apology was very private, but also very grovelling and in writing - I aint daft.
G
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Gods Country
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ah, yes Watergate, the epitome of investigative journalism......just think of what would have happened if there never was a Watergate.......****** all frankly!
For those who need a reminder of what investigative journalism is all about, how about the posthumous demolition of the crew, especially the flight engineer, on the Saudia L1011, what a bunch of prats eh?
The facts of the incident were never reported, (try reading the independent accident investigation report), the vivid image of some prostitute of an actor sitting next to the F/E panel mouthing 'no problem' as some journo prat flashed the panel test lights switch on and off is indelible, as is the portrayal of the two pilots as a pair of idiots who gave up, moaning insh'allah and singing religious songs.
The journos in charge of this should have been publicly horsewhipped, preferably by the relatives of the crew............
For those who need a reminder of what investigative journalism is all about, how about the posthumous demolition of the crew, especially the flight engineer, on the Saudia L1011, what a bunch of prats eh?
The facts of the incident were never reported, (try reading the independent accident investigation report), the vivid image of some prostitute of an actor sitting next to the F/E panel mouthing 'no problem' as some journo prat flashed the panel test lights switch on and off is indelible, as is the portrayal of the two pilots as a pair of idiots who gave up, moaning insh'allah and singing religious songs.
The journos in charge of this should have been publicly horsewhipped, preferably by the relatives of the crew............
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: SE UK
Posts: 242
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noam Chomsky has you lot sussed....
What the finest thinker alive thinks about Journalists
Enjoy the read....
What the finest thinker alive thinks about Journalists
Enjoy the read....
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: LEAX, Spain
Age: 62
Posts: 261
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
t'aint natural
t'aint
I only chose Watergate as an example because more Ppruners would know of it, especially our non-Brit friends. There are many more recent examples, as it would appear you should know.
And I think you'll find editors avoid giving interviews to rivals more simply because they are rivals, not because they fear being misquoted or otherwise. You only have to turn on the telly to see newspaper editors talking to non-rival media.
And raitfaiter...
...If you choose to get your news from what you indicate was some kind of TV dramatisation, you'll see what you bloody well deserve. You really are missing the point about the value of good journalism and, for that matter, the purpose of this thread. Try reading a serious newspaper more than once and then come back and contribute something interesting.
I only chose Watergate as an example because more Ppruners would know of it, especially our non-Brit friends. There are many more recent examples, as it would appear you should know.
And I think you'll find editors avoid giving interviews to rivals more simply because they are rivals, not because they fear being misquoted or otherwise. You only have to turn on the telly to see newspaper editors talking to non-rival media.
And raitfaiter...
...If you choose to get your news from what you indicate was some kind of TV dramatisation, you'll see what you bloody well deserve. You really are missing the point about the value of good journalism and, for that matter, the purpose of this thread. Try reading a serious newspaper more than once and then come back and contribute something interesting.
FX Guru
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Greenwich
Age: 67
Posts: 900
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Raitfaiter - I said earlier in this thread I talk to the wire services.
Reuters are now mourning the death of one of their guys in Baghdad.
Tell this man's widow and son that he's a disease.
Reuters are now mourning the death of one of their guys in Baghdad.
Tell this man's widow and son that he's a disease.