Typical News Reporting on an accident

"El Maximo" wrote in message
...

I'm a former journalist with a degree in technical journalism. There is
no part of the curriculum or stylebook pertaining to aviation and at no
point does somebody come up to a student journalist or young reporter and
say "Look, you guys. It's called an engine failure. Not an engine
stall..."

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

Yeah. It's pretty easy to trash-talk somebody who writes under a deadline,
probably lives in near poverty and might have to cover politics, medical
science, aviation or economics on any given day. Journalists get a lot of
crap because they're never as much of an expert as the experts they're
quoting.
Granted...some reporting is just stupid. It would be useful for local
publications if they had journalists who were aviation experts, or medical
experts, or whatever but not all of them can or do.

CNN has a few pilots on its staff that they consult whenever there's an
accident. That's useful. Plus, it adds a -lot- of credibility to that news
outlet. Unfortunately, most reporters don't make nearly enough money to dump
into an aviation hobby.

The easiest way to convert a publication that may be lukewarm or clueless
about general aviation is to take some of them flying. A professional pilot
in a clean aircraft who can demonstrate the concepts to them and answer
their questions will gain their respect. The FBO owner in Troutdale has
done just such a thing; when he installed his new TruFlite sim he put some
reporters in it and appeared quite favorably in at least two newspapers and
local TV.
That's good advertising! (The TV reporter augered, though.)

-c

On Jun 19, 9:39 am, "Gatt" wrote:

Yeah. It's pretty easy to trash-talk somebody who writes under a deadline,
probably lives in near poverty and might have to cover politics, medical
science, aviation or economics on any given day. Journalists get a lot of
crap because they're never as much of an expert as the experts they're
quoting.

That's one of the reasons I take for granted very little of what gets
printed. I consider the source--the author, the "expert" being
quoted, etc. Newspapers and magazines (and tv/radio) are just
starting points, and little more.

ANYthing that requires specialized knowledge is likely to be incorrect
in mainstream reporting, even if there is no bias. I usually get a
chuckle out of anything to do with nuclear energy. And someone
covering a recent (and unfortunately fatal) accident reported that a
"cessna diamond da-40" plunged into a lake. You have to wonder: if
they got the Diamond DA-40, where did they get "cessna"?

On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:39:12 -0700, Gatt wrote:

CNN has a few pilots on its staff that they consult whenever there's an
accident. That's useful. Plus, it adds a -lot- of credibility to that news
outlet. 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.

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.

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon wrote:
On Tue, 19 Jun 2007 09:39:12 -0700, Gatt wrote:

CNN has a few pilots on its staff that they consult whenever there's
an accident. That's useful. Plus, it adds a -lot- of credibility to
that news outlet. 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.

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.

- Andrew


I'm not answering for Gatt but when I was a TV reporter I did have a number
of people I would call if I had time. These were all unpaid people I knew
because in a small market there isn't the budget to have experts in any
fields on retainer much less all fields.

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.

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

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