Time Magazine Article "What's causing ATC delays"

"muzzy" wrote in message
...
Just another example of why the news media have lost the
respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?


Not likely, but remember that in their world, truth is relative and
subjective -- they see nothing wrong.

The word is: insolence.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"muzzy" wrote in message
Just another example of why the news media have lost the
respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media had
the respect of the American people?

Having said that, I expect a much greater degree of accuracy and research
from the weekly news magazines than I would the average daily newspaper.
Daily reporters face pretty fierce deadlines for which it's often impossible
to check every fact and detail, but when you're a major international news
magazine, that excuse isn't valid.

-c

"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

"muzzy" wrote in message
Just another example of why the news media have lost the
respect of the American people. Will they ever wake up?

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
had the respect of the American people?

Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.


Having said that, I expect a much greater degree of accuracy and research
from the weekly news magazines than I would the average daily newspaper.

Like Newsweek or Time? False expectation, I'm afraid.

Daily reporters face pretty fierce deadlines for which it's often
impossible to check every fact and detail, but when you're a major
international news magazine, that excuse isn't valid.

The issue isn't accuracy/fact checking, but deliberate distortion. For so
long the MSM had no competition and thus virtually no one to answer to.

An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of critical
thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes, either.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
had the respect of the American people?

Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.

Well, I have to disagree somewhat because public issues with the media go
back at least to the coverage of Vietnam. Can't remember how it faired
during World War II, but previous to that the respect factor would have more
to do with the cluefullness (lack thereof) of the public than the accuracy
of the media (lack thereof.) My point is that if you study the history of
mass media in the United States you won't find a period in which they were
particularly respected except by their own readers. Exceptions going back
to the 19th century include The Oregonian, The Chigaco Tribune and the New
York Times, but they weren't without sin either.

Recall Abraham Lincoln's marginally-constitutional imprisonment of several
critical publishers.

An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of
critical thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes,
either.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a science
minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees, Alar and
other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior thesis was to
interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat fiber versus wheat
bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or the other prevented hear
disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant difference.)

We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people believe
whatever they read. The only variable is what they choose to read, whether
it's USA Today, the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org

-c

"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

At the risk of going totally off-topic, at what point has the news media
had the respect of the American people?

Up until the 80's when alternative media came into being and the blatent
dishonesty, hypocrisy and slovenlyness became known.

Well, I have to disagree somewhat because public issues with the media go
back at least to the coverage of Vietnam.

Probably, and even further, but were the issues about Vietnam coverage known
THEN, or was it something that came later. The first real damning coverage
came IIRC, after Giap's book was published.

Can't remember how it faired during World War II, but previous to that
the respect factor would have more to do with the cluefullness (lack
thereof) of the public than the accuracy of the media (lack thereof.) My
point is that if you study the history of mass media in the United States
you won't find a period in which they were particularly respected except
by their own readers. Exceptions going back to the 19th century include
The Oregonian, The Chigaco Tribune and the New York Times, but they
weren't without sin either.

Funny you mention the Chicago Tribune, because (it they're the paper I'm
thinking of) they published confidential information during WWII.

I recall reading about some of the hysteria directed at Thomas Jefferson.


Recall Abraham Lincoln's marginally-constitutional imprisonment of several
critical publishers.

Yes, and John Adams "Sedition Act".


An America with short attention spans, poor memory, and a dearth of
critical thinking skills hasn't helped to keep them on their toes,
either.

Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees,
Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior
thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat
fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or the
other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant
difference.)

Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)

We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people
believe whatever they read.

"I only know what I read in the newspapers" -- Will Rogers.

or

(Insert strong scottish accent here) "Do ya dare to disbelieve it if it's in
PRINNNT" -- Jock Hutchison

The only variable is what they choose to read, whether it's USA Today,
the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org

Yes, the "single-sourcers", never cross-checking...

First, they said newspapers would open the world to us and make us smarter,
then they said TV would open the world to us and make us smarter.

Right, Dude!!!

I think the MSM hit the skids when they had to compete with TV for the short
American attention span. It then became the dog chasing its tail. It only
got worse when, like anyone in power, they started believing their own BS in
the manner that other elites believe their own PR pronouncements.

What we see now is desperation on a precarious stage.

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer bees,
Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My senior
thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits of oat
fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that one or
the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a signifcant
difference.)

Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)

Exactly. It takes just one newspaper, and then somebody can say "according
to..." It only took one newspaper to report a "UFO crash" at Roswell, New
Mexico to launch a conspiracy theory that continues even now. The problem
is, journalist pay is right there with flight instructors. You can barely
make a living doing it, so they get the young and unworldly doing much of
the gruntwork. The only reason I'm not a newspaper reporter or editor is
because the pay is terrible.

What's unfortunate in this case is that now the Time article can be used as
an information source.
-c

"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer
bees, Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My
senior thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits
of oat fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that
one or the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a
signifcant difference.)

Hell, see what they did with the "Nutrition Pyramid" even as little as a
couple years ago, or the "Eight glasses of water a day" tripe :~)

Exactly. It takes just one newspaper, and then somebody can say
"according to..." It only took one newspaper to report a "UFO crash" at
Roswell, New Mexico to launch a conspiracy theory that continues even now.
The problem is, journalist pay is right there with flight instructors.
You can barely make a living doing it, so they get the young and unworldly
doing much of the gruntwork. The only reason I'm not a newspaper
reporter or editor is because the pay is terrible.

What's unfortunate in this case is that now the Time article can be used
as an information source.

Just a thought: if the pay is so bad, why do so many flock to the
profession?

Now, granted, for many, loving your work is another form of compensation. In
the case of CFI's, there's a love of flying and the lure of flying the "big
iron". But if CFI's applied the same measure of diligence that reporters
seem to, every plane ever built would be a smoldering hulk long ago.

A profession such as reporters, that had repeatedly and vehemently denied
the idea of "objectivity" in reporting (and everything else) is akin to
electricians denying the existence of electricity, or physicists denying the
laws of physics.

As for your OSU professor, did he ever teach rules for objective reporting?
His requirements for study of science was a great start, just as study of
economics and commerce would be for other specialties (forget that clueless
fraud Paul Krugman, who is a prime example of NON-objective reporting). I
take it from your earlier post, he was adamant about honesty and integrity,
but those are, to me, ancillary and secondary.

"Gattman" wrote in message
...

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...


We live and will always live in a world where some amount of people
believe whatever they read. The only variable is what they choose to
read, whether it's USA Today, the Wall Street Journal or Moron.org


Addendum to previous post coming down the wi

I do, though, trust the MSM and even the newspapers when it comes to the
baseball box scores.


--
Matt Barrow
Performance Homes, LLC.
Cheyenne, WY

In rec.aviation.piloting, on Thu 30 Aug 2007 06:55:29p, "Gattman"
wrote:

Unfortunately, I can't disagree. I studied Journalism at OSU under an
two-time Pulizer prize winner who required all J students to have a
science minor because he was tired of hearing about bigfoot, killer
bees, Alar and other cyclical and nonsensical media phenomena. (My
senior thesis was to interpret scientific data on the dietary benefits
of oat fiber versus wheat bran, back when everybody was reporting that
one or the other prevented hear disease. Turns out there's not a
signifcant difference.)

So, does Big Foot prefer oat or wheat bran and does he like killer bee
honey on it?