C-172 down at HPN - 2 fatalities

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is to
the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very beginning.
Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't conflict with
revenue generation.

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

In the publications I've worked for (UK IT press), and indeed still work
for, the editorial and advertising divisions have been deliberately
separate. While the editorial people are sufficiently bright to realise that
it's the advertising that pays their wages, the advertising people are also
sufficiently bright to realise that (a) advertising revenue is proportional
to size of readership; and (b) size of readership is proportional to quality
of editorial. The two sides are therefore mutually sustaining.

I have had instances where advertisers have made hints that they'll spend
more if we write more about them (or, on rare occasions, if we'll be nicer
about them than in the past). In all cases, the answer has been "no", and
the publishers have stood behind us all the way. Not that they had any
choice, actually, because writers and editors are fiercely protective of
their personal integrity and reputation.

Interestingly, though, where an advertiser has been upset that we've "not
written enough about them" it has often been solved by a few minutes on the
phone explaning how the editorial process works. I remember one case where
we invited a furious advertiser to the office to explain to him the
relationship between ads and editorial, and he went away smiling. All we'd
done was point out that his PR people used to send us, on average, ten press
releases a week - all about piddly little things, and none about their new
product line (which was actually quite nice!) - and that if they restrained
themselves and only told us, in decent sized chunks, when something happened
that actually mattered, he'd stand half a chance of being written about.

D.

UK is a whole different animal. After all - you guys don't even have
FSIs!

And of course, that is why all us Americans who are looking for honest
newscasts watch the BBC on PBS instead of the BS on CNN...



"David Cartwright" wrote in
:

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
Advertising pays the bills, and the newspaper's first allegiance is
to the advertiser. It's been that way pretty much from the very
beginning. Journalistic Integrity is only a priority if it doesn't
conflict with revenue generation.

In theory, perhaps, but not in practice.

In the publications I've worked for (UK IT press), and indeed still
work for, the editorial and advertising divisions have been
deliberately separate. While the editorial people are sufficiently
bright to realise that it's the advertising that pays their wages, the
advertising people are also sufficiently bright to realise that (a)
advertising revenue is proportional to size of readership; and (b)
size of readership is proportional to quality of editorial. The two
sides are therefore mutually sustaining.

I have had instances where advertisers have made hints that they'll
spend more if we write more about them (or, on rare occasions, if
we'll be nicer about them than in the past). In all cases, the answer
has been "no", and the publishers have stood behind us all the way.
Not that they had any choice, actually, because writers and editors
are fiercely protective of their personal integrity and reputation.

Interestingly, though, where an advertiser has been upset that we've
"not written enough about them" it has often been solved by a few
minutes on the phone explaning how the editorial process works. I
remember one case where we invited a furious advertiser to the office
to explain to him the relationship between ads and editorial, and he
went away smiling. All we'd done was point out that his PR people used
to send us, on average, ten press releases a week - all about piddly
little things, and none about their new product line (which was
actually quite nice!) - and that if they restrained themselves and
only told us, in decent sized chunks, when something happened that
actually mattered, he'd stand half a chance of being written about.

D.

I flew with this instructor...we finished the Instrument Rating I had
started 10 years ago.

He was a careful pilot. He was meticulous in checking the weather.

We did approaches that went missed in IMC, particularly at FOK..

Greg
PP-ASEL-IA


"Tom Fleischman" k wrote
in message
news:240420051342072877%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjun ...

A Cessna 172 crashed yesterday short of the approach end of RWY 16
killing the pilot and instructor aboard. No cause for the accident has
yet been established, but the weather was at or near minimums for the
ILS-16 approach at the time of the crash and and tracking the flight
on:

http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html

at 15:10 local time on 4.23.05 shows the flight significantly below the
glideslope for much of the approach.

From the news reports I'd guess that it was an instrument student and a
CFII returning from ALB on a long IFR cross country flight.

Here are a couple of news reports:

http://www.capitalnews9.com/content/...27983&SecID=33
http://www.wfsb.com/Global/story.asp?S=3252575