Thomasphoto60 From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 3779 posts, RR: 24 Reply 9, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2344 times:
Pretty rookie mistake on the editor and photogs part. Even if you are not an airline employee or an aviation enthusiast, this kind of screw up is inexcusable. I suspect that the Observer is a Hurst publication much like Houston's beloved "Barnicle" .
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53 Reply 10, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2336 times:
Ok since there seems to be a lot more confusion on this than I expected (my original post was a bit vague on it, I didnt expect people to be so 'inbetween the lines' on it), the blunder is what ILoveORD got first followed 11 seconds later by GalvanAir777...the photograph is of a United jet (a 737-200 which makes it a stock photo since UA's 732's are long gone but thats kinda irrelevant) but the caption reads "A US Airways jet..." The two liveries dont even resemble each others all that much, and especially since CLT is a US hub, you'd think the locals could tell the difference between US and other airlines...sigh...
[Edited 2003-10-02 06:39:27]
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
RNOcommctr From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 826 posts, RR: 3 Reply 12, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2307 times:
Amazing, a mistake! As I have said on other similar threads, what other job besides the news media requires you to have your work in the public eye all the time, every day? Even with 99% accuracy, someone, somewhere, is going to find that 1% error and rake you over the coals for it. I am not condoning inaccuracy. But it happens. And it is especially visible in the news media. A reporter doesn't eat/live/breathe planes like we do. They cover the airport one hour; the school district the next hour; and a homicide the next hour. They must be generalists. By and large, I think they do a pretty good job.
USAFhummer, do you get 100% on all your exams at school?
USAFHummer From United States of America, joined May 2000, 10685 posts, RR: 53 Reply 13, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2286 times:
No, but obviously since this is a stock photo, someone had to go looking for it in some database somewheres, and since this is a CLT paper, the US Airways brand is pretty prominent there, so I would imagine a good number of people (even not a.net members) in the CLT area read the observer and noticed this..."Hmm, that doesnt look like a US Airways plane in the picture..."
Chief A.net college football stadium self-pic guru
Startvalve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 14, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2255 times:
100% accuracy is not going to happen all the time. The idea is to get the easy ones and if you are going to make a mistake its something just about anyone else would screw up, or something you can screw up and nobody will notice. As someone pointed out this is a stock photo, someone went hunting for this and it came out as US Airways. This means there was a chain of screw ups leading to this event which makes the paper look stupid. Another thing, considering part of the focus of this article relates to US Airways you would think maybe just maybe the person writing about them, in researching the topic MAYBE saw a picture of one of their airplanes and got a clue as to what their livery looked like.
N844AA From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 1352 posts, RR: 1 Reply 15, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2251 times:
Ha, talk about missing the forest for the trees! That will teach me not to concentrate so closely on the caption next time! I hate it when this happens to me ...
I know reporters have a tough job and, more often than not, the page designers aren't really worrying about issues like this, but come on: getting facts like this right is a basic issue of journalistic craft/integrity. They really ought to keep a closer eye on this next time (as I should as well.) Good catch, Greg.
[Edited 2003-10-02 07:18:18]
New airplanes, new employees, low fares, all touchy-feely ... all of them are losers. -Gordon Bethune
ILoveORD From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 220 posts, RR: 2 Reply 16, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2225 times:
I have to agree with RNOcommctr on this one, I don't see what the big deal is; so what, the caption is wrong--big deal. The article itself is well-written and the mistake doesn't detract from the author's objective and topic. Lighten up guys, don't over-exaggerate the severity and importance of small blunders like this. It's nothing more than a small mole hill on the scale of journalistic errors (anyone remember the NY Times scandal with Jayson Blair?); please, don't make this out be a mountain...
Backhanding the left into submission, one activist judge at a time.
Startvalve From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 17, posted (10 years 2 months 1 week 20 hours ago) and read 2087 times:
You don't think this article (assuming it looked the same way if and when it was published on actual paper) is hanging in a break room at CLT getting a few yucks from some US Airways employees? Or some UAL employees. Yeah the article is ok but it takes away from it when the people its topic effects are probably just going to remember it for its mistake. Yes they probably read it but I the thing they will remember is the screwed up caption.