C-172 down at HPN - 2 fatalities

When I read posts critical of the knowledge of reporters I think one of
two scenarios: One, the poster has forgotten how much training it took
for him to get so "smart" and thereby figures the reporter and anyone
else should know as much as he does. Or, second, criticizing others is a
way for some to pump up their own egoes. Some reporters are better than
others (as are pilots), and they have to report on a wide variety of
topics in a timely fashion and often make statements that are erroneous
or seem juvenile. They can't all be perfect or there would be only one
newspaper in the country. Some of these statements, however, answer the
questions that uninformed readers may want to know, such as the fact
that 172s don't have a black box: A stupid statement to a pilot but not
to the readership. I think "assoholic" does not apply to the reporter of
this particular story. Now, politically motivated stories are another
matter...


wrote:
What does the reporter say in the article that causes you to classify him as an "assoholic?"

"R.L." wrote:

RomeoMike wrote:

They can't all be perfect or there would be only one
newspaper in the country.

I don't expect a reporter to know all subjects. I expect them to ask
intelligent questions, collect and understand the answers, and report from
that. This obviously has not occurred to some degree with this reporter.

However, the reporter also chose inflammatory phases (if you'll forgive the
pun), which does - in my opinion - earn distain. The question as to
whether he or she discussed the last few decades of automobile accidents
while reporting on every accident on the road is a good one, and points out
the bias reflected in the reporting.

Some of these statements, however, answer the
questions that uninformed readers may want to know, such as the fact
that 172s don't have a black box: A stupid statement to a pilot but not
to the readership.

I don't think that anyone questions the utility of these informational
points. It would have been nice had the reporter indicated that this type
of aircraft is not required to - and such almost never do - carry a black
box. Instead, he left that hanging as if the plane was in violation of
some rule which will prevent experts from reconstructing the accident.

Further, the mention of "arrival not scheduled" without context implies a
rogue operation, as opposed to someone operating under ATC control but
without being a part of an airline. It's just as bad as the reporters that
love to write "w/o filing a flight plan" yet apparently hate to write
"which wasn't required".

- Andrew

It doesn't take all that much training to recognize when a reporter is
willing to compromise his integrity by attempting to slant his article
toward an agenda.

Unfortunately, these days, it is rare to see an unslanted report,
regardless of the topic.

It's a shame it doesn't require more training to become a reporter.


RomeoMike wrote in
:

When I read posts critical of the knowledge of reporters I think one
of two scenarios: One, the poster has forgotten how much training it
took for him to get so "smart" and thereby figures the reporter and
anyone else should know as much as he does.

snip

Judah wrote:
It doesn't take all that much training to recognize when a reporter is
willing to compromise his integrity by attempting to slant his article
toward an agenda.

Yes, you only need to know how to read...


Matt