Air France Accident - The newspaper silliness begins

Matt Barrow wrote:

Don't you people ever say anything nice about the media?

Yep. When they say something nice about us. Can't remember exactly when the last
time was, but I'm sure they did sometime. Maybe.

George Patterson
Give a person a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a person to
use the Internet and he won't bother you for weeks.

In article ,
says...


Don't you people ever say anything nice about the media?



Well, the media are arguably the most influential political entity in the
US, yet they are held to virtually no ethical standard. They routinely
resort to hyperbole, dramatisation, scare tactics, anti-intellectual
analysis, egregious populism and virtually every other form of
disinformation to sell copy. This would be fine, you say, they distort,
we decide, yet by placing angel-faced intellectual zombies to report on
complex issues, they affect our lives in more ways than we would like. If
a news reporter feels that an accident can be used to sell copy, through
a "Planes are dangerous - GA must be curbed" viewpoint, then there is
nothing to stop them from so doing, and knowledgable rebuttals will never
get the air time the initial chill story received.

So how did Ms Horsey get the job of telling the world the technical
details about this crash, when she doesn't know that an A340 has four,
wing-mounted engines? Obviously, she has to report on an aviation
accident one day, and a cloning controversy the next, with Adidas'
takeover of Reebok thrown in between - and no one can be fully versed in
every subject, but is this a satisfactory excuse? Considering the effect
they have on our lives, can we expect no entry-level competence in
reporting?

"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...


Don't you people ever say anything nice about the media?



Well, the media are arguably the most influential political entity in the
US, yet they are held to virtually no ethical standard. They routinely
resort to hyperbole, dramatisation, scare tactics, anti-intellectual
analysis, egregious populism and virtually every other form of
disinformation to sell copy. This would be fine, you say, they distort,
we decide, yet by placing angel-faced intellectual zombies to report on
complex issues, they affect our lives in more ways than we would like. If
a news reporter feels that an accident can be used to sell copy, through
a "Planes are dangerous - GA must be curbed" viewpoint, then there is
nothing to stop them from so doing, and knowledgable rebuttals will never
get the air time the initial chill story received.

So how did Ms Horsey get the job of telling the world the technical
details about this crash, when she doesn't know that an A340 has four,
wing-mounted engines? Obviously, she has to report on an aviation
accident one day, and a cloning controversy the next, with Adidas'
takeover of Reebok thrown in between - and no one can be fully versed in
every subject, but is this a satisfactory excuse? Considering the effect
they have on our lives, can we expect no entry-level competence in
reporting?


I'm surprised no "reporters" have called the A-340 the largest commericial
aircraft in service with two decks (confusing it with the A-380).

-------------------------------------------
DW

On Wed, 3 Aug 2005 11:45:10 -0700, "Matt Barrow"
wrote:


wrote in message
roups.com...
Wow, Michael... you don't miss a thing : )

I think Greg was quoting some knucklehead Canadian reporter that knows
how to read copy but knows nothings about airliners...


Don't you people ever say anything nice about the media?


I watched the cable news coverage of the accident yesterday for about an
hour or so. What details that were available were covered fairly well.
After watching the coverage I knew that the aircraft had landed, maybe fast
and hard, then unable to stop, had slid off the end of the runway into a
ravine. The aircraft broke into at least two pieces and started burning.


So.... I switch over to the local news at 6:00 EST (NBC in Columbus, OH)
and the first thing to pop out of the newscuties mouth was "... the
airplane broke in two after landing.."

I guess NBC here doesn't have cable or access to the newswire, other wise
she would have known at least the basic details of the accident like I did.

If I hadn't watched the cable coverage I would have thought that the
aircraft had broken in two on the runway after landing.

Another example of the sad state of journalism. No information is better
than incorrect information in my book.
--

Dave in Columbus

"Dave in Columbus" wrote in message
...
I watched the cable news coverage of the accident yesterday for about an
hour or so. What details that were available were covered fairly well.
After watching the coverage I knew that the aircraft had landed, maybe
fast
and hard, then unable to stop, had slid off the end of the runway into a
ravine. The aircraft broke into at least two pieces and started burning.


So.... I switch over to the local news at 6:00 EST (NBC in Columbus, OH)
and the first thing to pop out of the newscuties mouth was "... the
airplane broke in two after landing.."

I guess NBC here doesn't have cable or access to the newswire, other wise
she would have known at least the basic details of the accident like I
did.

If I hadn't watched the cable coverage I would have thought that the
aircraft had broken in two on the runway after landing.

Another example of the sad state of journalism. No information is better
than incorrect information in my book.
--

Dave in Columbus

Dave,

In this particular case, you are commenting on the "sad state" of journalism
in Columbus, OH, the #34 market in the country.

I'm not saying the major networks get it right all the time either, but,
IMO, you are comparing apples to avocados.

Fair and Balanced...

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

"Dave in Columbus" wrote in message

Another example of the sad state of journalism. No information is better
than incorrect information in my book.

I read in the local tabloid (Toronto Sun):

"During a landing a plane entering a microburst encounters head winds that
increase airspeed."

The source cited is NASA.

moo

Michael Houghton wrote:

Howdy!

In article ,
Greg Farris wrote:
From Jen Horsey (Canadian Press)

The Airbus A-340's twin tail-mounted engines had just started to burn
when Figiola arrived on the scene less than a minute after the crash.

Ummm... which "twin tail-mounted engines" are you referring to on the
four-engined (on the wings) Airbus A-340?

Did you read the subject line of the message you responded to?

amazing there where no fatalities.

Capt Pierre had little Euro experience with nasty N. Amer. T-storms.
Now that Murphy
has struck again maybe it is time to fly, just not UAL.

JG

The news this morning said they had enough gas to get to Montreal and that
they touched down too far down the runway.

I wonder why they didn't go elsewhere?

Terry

wrote in message
oups.com...
Capt Pierre had little Euro experience with nasty N. Amer. T-storms.
Now that Murphy
has struck again maybe it is time to fly, just not UAL.

JG