Media screws up again...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Rich Ahrens" wrote in message
isi.com...

Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"gatt" wrote in message



http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot

of

money from advertising revenue.


Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?

Because Fox is better at whoring?


Like your Mom?

Awww...is wittle Tommy upset now? Lie down for a nap and see if you can
play better with others when you wake up and have your milk.

gatt wrote:

"Jack" wrote in message news:

gatt wrote:

Did they teach you the difference between aerodynamic
and mechanical stall in high school?

They taught me to write about what I know.

Did you take any coursework in Journalism...?

Yes, amazingly enough. And though I was encouraged by my professor to pursue the
craft, I wisely chose to remain in the physical world rather than in one where
subjectivity, imagination, and ignorance is acceptable simply due to the
constraints of a "deadline".

I know how the media works by studying it closely, attempting to use it to my
benefit where possible, and understanding the compromises required -- about the
same way I understand the value of my aircraft, even though I didn't build it.



Jack

gatt wrote:

Enlighten us. Where did you get your media expertise? Let me guess. You
watch TV.

Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.

Won any yourself?

A journalism award would automatically be tainted -- being a journalism award,
and all. Only a journalist would want one.

Too bad the good journalists have to carry on with the average journalists hung
'round their necks like albatrosses.



Jack

"Jack" wrote in message
gy.com...
gatt wrote:

Enlighten us. Where did you get your media expertise? Let me guess.
You
watch TV.

Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.

Won any yourself?

A journalism award would automatically be tainted -- being a journalism
award,
and all. Only a journalist would want one.

Too bad the good journalists have to carry on with the average journalists
hung
'round their necks like albatrosses.

Like good lawyers have to drag around the "ambulance chasers", good doctors
have to drag around the quacks, honest politicians have to drag around
the...ah,...never mind.

The problem arises when media reporters editorialize or slant the stories
based on their own personal opinions, instead of sharing all of the facts.

It happens quite frequently on television, but also in other journalistic
media. Expressing an emotion or an opinion disqualifies a journalism piece
from being journalism... Omitting facts in order to create a specific
opinion is equally as biased.

For example, as I sit here typing this message, the anchor on the local
news broadcast on Fox followed a story from one of his colleagues with a
comment - "Unbelievable!". While the original story was factual and not
biased, the anchor's comment sensationalized the story, and rendered the
fact-delivering news piece editorialized. I suspect it may evev have bee
unintentional, and surely it was not the fault of the reporter.

In the interim, several other reports were presented, followed by the
anchor's obviously ratings-driven editorial comments, some of which were
probably not too damaging (for example, "fascinating" following a health
news story).

Managing editors really need to better manage the ratings-driven approach
to anchor filler in order to avoid editorializing the pieces and rendering
even the unbiased stories as slanted...

Of course, since ALL for-profit media outlets are in the business of
selling advertising, which depends on viewership (or readership), the
ratings-driven approach is most likely to beat out the unbiased one...

That's doesn't mean that every journalist is "bad". But most of the popular
media outlets have "sold out" to the ratings business for the sake of
generating revenue.

Oh, yeah, and there are definitely a fair share of journalists who
selectively share facts so as to create a very specific public perception
that is in line with the agenda of the reporter, the newspaper, or both.


("I'm not really a Media Analyst, but I play one on Usenet.")

"gatt" wrote in
:


"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message

Yep. Abuses happen in every industry from journalism to law
enforcement. And lots of small planes crash. You hear about it on
the news all the time. A sucker might be given to believe that it
happens more often than not because of what they hear in the media.

Actually, relatively few crash. If lots of them did, it wouldn't be
news.

My point exactly. People who do not understand how the media works
think they can't go out at night without being victimized, can't get in
airplanes without crashing, can't drive a jeep without it flipping
over...

Mechanically speaking, however, that is the reader's interpretation of
the information. An informed reader would note the dramatic footage of
a news helicopter crashing and understand that it was a rare and
dramatic event. Another viewer might assume that all news helicopters
crash.

A third viewer will videotape the story, watch it over and over and
then rant about media bias, and a forth, who flew MS Flight Simulator
2004 a lot and thinks he's a pilot, might assert that it was pilot
error and anybody who tells them otherwise obviously didn't get proper
helicopter flying instruction. There are a couple of the latter on
this newsgroup, it would seem.

-c

"gatt" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:69uzc.24424

Doesn't do much for the credability of the award.

I'm sure you'll have no difficulty providing a source. Of course, if
you
do, it will be a media source. Now, ain't that ironic?

Janet Cooke, Washington Post, 1981. She made up a story about an 8 year
old
heroin addict. The story was a total fabrication.

Wow. So the closest example you could find was 23 years ago, which means
there are pilots on this forum that weren't yet born when it happened.
But
I commend you for finding a reference anyhow.

-c

She got caught and was a pulitzer winner. No doubt there have been hundreds
if not thousands of other "media" people that have made up stories or have
significantly distorted or ignored facts to increase ratings. Once the
"media" turned into entertainment it was guaranteed to happen.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

Jack wrote:

Too bad the good journalists have to carry on with the average journalists
hung 'round their necks like albatrosses.

Like good lawyers have to drag around the "ambulance chasers", good doctors
have to drag around the quacks....

The difference with journalists is as I stated. Whereas with the professions you
mentioned the problems are caused by a few rotten eggs, with journalists the
average create a morass from which the exceptional can barely extricate themselves.


Jack

"Bill Denton" wrote in message
...
Think of everyone you know, and what their job is. There is no way a
journalist, or anyone else, can be an expert in all of those fields.

I don't know how it works in the US, but in the UK, at least
in the BBC, there are different correspondants. For war issues
you have a war corresponsdant, for political issues a political
correspondant...for science based issuses a science correspondant
and for aviation issues an aviation correspondant.

If an expert is required, they usually have a bank of people to call.

For aviation issues in the UK, it's inevitable that they will speak
to David Learmount, of Flight International Magazine. See
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1538397.stm

Another example, for Concorde related issues they used to go to
Brian Trubshaw, the test pilot, but unfortunately he died 3 years ago.
http://www.concordesst.com/history/trubshaw.html

Paul

"gatt" wrote in message
...

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:dXpzc.54

That is solid reporting.

Unfortunately that type of reporting is for all practical purposes
extinct.

That's an opinion from somebody on the internet. Do you have supporting
data?

I think probably most people watch the television news or read
newspapers. It's quite funny looking at the US media from outside.
Unfortunately not funny enough as the news seems to be going that
way here in the UK too. Too many channels, not enough good
journalism. The BBC news remains pretty good, but the others all
seem to be dumbing down. ITN (now ITV News) used to be pretty
good, but recently it's gone the way of Channel 5 news, or at least is
going that way. They've even got Trevor McDonald to change his style.
I can't watch it any more. ( http://www.itv.com/news/658340.html )

Channel 5 news used to play music through the news headlines,
don't know if they still do. Our local radio station here has started
doing it too, it's most annoying.

Seeing Fox News here, it's incredible that there are some people
who think of it as news! :-)

Paul

"Dave Stadt" wrote in message
. ..

"gatt" wrote in message
...
"Dave Stadt" wrote in message news:69uzc.24424

Doesn't do much for the credability of the award.

I'm sure you'll have no difficulty providing a source. Of course,
if
you
do, it will be a media source. Now, ain't that ironic?

Janet Cooke, Washington Post, 1981. She made up a story about an 8
year
old
heroin addict. The story was a total fabrication.

Wow. So the closest example you could find was 23 years ago, which
means
there are pilots on this forum that weren't yet born when it happened.
But
I commend you for finding a reference anyhow.

-c

She got caught and was a pulitzer winner. No doubt there have been
hundreds
if not thousands of other "media" people that have made up stories or have
significantly distorted or ignored facts to increase ratings. Once the
"media" turned into entertainment it was guaranteed to happen.

That (transitioning to "entertainment") was inevitable when they stopped
attempting to maintain objectivity. Matter of fact, they said it
(objectivity) was impossible.