Typical News Reporting on an accident

On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 10:57:40 -0500, Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

BUT.... I didn't have the internet back then that if I were in the
business now it would allow me to check on just about any topic at
virtually no cost.

The WWW in general really isn't very good at certain types of content
checking. Even ignoring the issue of information quality/reliability,
it's a matter of asking the question in the right way or even knowing to
ask the question at all. That requires some knowledge.

A reporter wouldn't typically even question the [mis]use of the word
"stall", for example.

USENET, on the other hand, provides near-immediate access to a wealth of
self-proclaimed experts in most fields that are by definition willing to
"consult" for free.

Of course, we wouldn't be having this conversation if it weren't a bad
idea to ignore the issue of information quality/reliability, and USENET
does have some of that issue as well.

Grin

- Andrew

"Gig 601XL Builder" wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote in message
...

CNN, ABC, CBS, FOX and NBC do have people they can call and the internet
and they still get it wrong. It is sad.

Too true, unfortunately. It's sad that the pressure has always generally
been to beat the competitor to the press, not to be more accurate than the
competitor even if the story comes out a couple of hours later.

-c

"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
news
Unfortunately, most reporters don't make nearly enough money to
dump into an aviation hobby.

I've often wondered this, and you seem to be a person to ask: why not
have a stable of experts on particular topics for content checking when
appropriate? They'd not be journalists, but people to whom journalists
could turn for content/terminology/fact checking in various areas of
enterprise.

A similar idea has been hatched and is underway.

Somehow, I became the person one particular reporter called for
Internet-related stories. I was happy to spend the few minutes
occasionally required simply to be sure that stories were accurate. I
expect that there are plenty of people in any field with a similar motive.

That kind of thing helps develop a trusted relationship between the media
and general aviation. Poltically, now's the time to act; -everybody's- mad
at the airlines these days.

-c

El Maximo writes:

I was more referring to his sweeping statement that "They often get all
sorts of things wrong".

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, will get all sorts of things wrong ... and that includes
journalists, who are no more omniscient than anyone else (although they may
have a pretty broad superficial exposure to many subjects). But since
journalists explain things to other people, their mistakes are more
significant.

As a journalist, I consider you to be qualified to weigh in on this subject.

Thanks.

"Mxsmanic" wrote in message
...

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, will get all sorts of things wrong .

You are incorrectly applying your traits to the rest of humanity again (most
people).

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS.

El Maximo writes:

Most people, when talking about something with which they are not already
fairly familiar, LISTEN TO THE ANSWERS.

Alas! If only that were true.