CitationJet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2319 posts, RR: 3 Reply 2, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 3779 times:
I don't think that the average news reporter knows much about aviation. Today they are writing about aviation, tomorrow it may be a medical breakthru, and the next day a natural disaster. They are in such a hurry to get the scoop, that the facts and details are secondary. To them, any picture of a small commuter plane is close enough.
It makes one wonder how much to believe when you are reading non-aviation articles about medical findings, financial advice, political news, crimes or legal issues.
Stabilator From United States of America, joined Nov 2010, 560 posts, RR: 0 Reply 8, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 3334 times:
I think sensational media appeals more to the public, especially if it is related to aviation. When people go online to CNN, a headline reading "Loud Explosion-like Noise Heard on Delta Flight Leaves Families Terrified" gathers more attention than "Delta Flight Returns Safely After Compressor Stall". For some reason, I think the idea of danger captivates readers. I think news agencies could care less about the facts and like a previous poster said, its more of the "Brought to you first by FOX/CNN/MSNBC" factor they really care about.
Watching the coverage of the Colgan and Air France accidents made me cringe from all the poor reporting, which is why I used a.net as my primary source of info.
So we beat on against the current, borne back ceaselessly into the past.
nighthawk From UK - Scotland, joined Sep 2001, 5056 posts, RR: 36 Reply 9, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 3173 times:
Quoting silentbob (Reply 5): As far as the media is concerned, it's more important to be first than to be right. They can always clear up the facts later.
Quoting 7673mech (Reply 6): I would say their accuracy is similar to the majority of posters on this site. (I am not in anyway referring to you).
Just read any crash thread on a.net and you will see exactly the same thing - the first few posters will simply quote what they hear in the media and repost it, in an attempt to be first with the news. Even these seemingly knowledgeable people with regards to aviation will not bother to check the facts before posting, so why should the media be any different?
And yet the media gets a hard time for doing it, but no-one criticises those on a.net for doing the same...
Aesma From France, joined Nov 2009, 5742 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 3071 times:
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 9): Just read any crash thread on a.net and you will see exactly the same thing - the first few posters will simply quote what they hear in the media and repost it, in an attempt to be first with the news. Even these seemingly knowledgeable people with regards to aviation will not bother to check the facts before posting, so why should the media be any different?
And yet the media gets a hard time for doing it, but no-one criticises those on a.net for doing the same...
People here are knowledgeable. That's why they're here in the first place. That means if something isn't true, the truth will come out eventually, and in the meantime there will be no panic. For an incident like this, you can bet the media will never get back and change their error.
In the first minutes/hours of an incident/accident, information is lacking. I think it's normal that a thread be started here as soon as possible, and those with access to airlines databases and such can help. However, I also think the media just shouldn't report an incident like this, because there is no point if you can't get simple facts right (and not all such incidents are reported here, by the way). If there is a crash or a serious accident/incident with possible fatalities, strangely, they'll be more careful. Still getting things wrong but at least with more "it seems" and "maybe".
I just read the article here in full, and it's worse than wrong facts, there are contradicting sentences, it makes no sense at all. For example in the first sentence : "Passengers had a scare". Then they cite a passenger : “There was no scare whatsoever".
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
isitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 24 Reply 14, posted (3 years 3 weeks 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 2692 times:
They dont get the first few hours right because info they are given info thats sketchy at best.
My fav new cast was the night at LGA when the US Air F-28 crashed on take-off.
A CNN blonde(name and now where-abouts unknown) breaks in telling us about
the "Mcdonnell-Douglas Boeing DC-9 737 which crashed while landing at LaGuardia".
That one took the award for MF-UP news line ever.
youcanfigurethatoneout, can't you?
If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
Yes, but this is kind of a moot point if you ask me, as is a lot of the media-bashing when it comes to aviation.
There are certain things that are obvious, and mistakes that wouldn't happen if a reporter did a five second Google search. Then there are other things that I really wouldn't expect a reporter to know or even to be able to find out, and people here nitpick those things to death when it's really unwarranted if you ask me.
Field reporters are generally not specialists (a few are, but they get assigned to really important stories, not stuff like emergency landings in which everybody gets out ok). They should know about journalistic ethics and methods, but otherwise they are just regular people. Just as they wouldn't laugh at you for not knowing anything about how the newspaper business works, there's no reason to take them to task for not knowing the ins and outs of an airplane or the overall aviation industry.
It annoys me when I see reporters say things like "A Qantas airbus made an emergency landing today" or the even worse "Boeing airbus" (which I've actually seen) - this is one of those things that's a 2 second question over the phone and then if you didn't quite get the model number right, a 5 second google search to verify there even is such a thing as a "Boeing airbus".
But on the other hand, I'll see people here criticize reporters for not knowing there are three wing spars in an A380 wing. How is a general field reporter supposed to know that? Do you expect reporters to study A380 schematics? Do you expect them to have gone to engineering school to even recognize that there is more than one wing spar on that schematic? This is not the kind of thing that I think even makes for an obvious followup question if there happens to be a press conference. If a reporter sees or hears of "wing spar damage", I don't think the next obvious question is "how many wing spars are there?" unless you have an engineering background.
But yes, reporters make mistakes like everyone else, and they don't know as much about anything they're reporting on as specialists in the fields in question do. I think we can all have the expectation that they should get the basic facts right, but beyond that, I think it's good to keep some realistic expectations for how deep the knowledge of technical things can go for a reporter that may be reporting on airplanes one day and baby crib recalls the next.
I'm tired of being a wanna-be league bowler. I wanna be a league bowler!
frmrCapCadet From United States of America, joined May 2008, 1633 posts, RR: 1 Reply 16, posted (3 years 3 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 2519 times:
And with the print industry in likely terminal financial problems it will get worse. Reporters will be expected to cover ever more beats. I expect the two (actually 1 1/4) Seattle papers to do a pretty good job, and they do because of Boeing's presence, but the outlying newspapers commit some real boopers. As when the Bremerton paper reported the airport was getting a jumbo - when a 737 landed. OTOH a 737 is pretty jumbo compared to a Cesna 172. The previous comment that reporters should probably google and wiki more is probably correct.
Buffet: the airline business...has eaten up capital...like..no other (business)
KGRB From United States of America, joined Sep 2010, 650 posts, RR: 1 Reply 18, posted (3 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2429 times:
I appreciate the discussion that's taking place, but it's all based on a false premise. Look at the link above -- it appears to be an aviation blog of some sort -- not a newspaper, radio station, or television station. It's very important as a reader to make sure the "news source" you're using is credible. I'm not dissing the website, per se, but it is not a trusted outlet in the same vein as CBS or the New York Times, for example.
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 15): Field reporters are generally not specialists (a few are, but they get assigned to really important stories, not stuff like emergency landings in which everybody gets out ok). They should know about journalistic ethics and methods, but otherwise they are just regular people. Just as they wouldn't laugh at you for not knowing anything about how the newspaper business works, there's no reason to take them to task for not knowing the ins and outs of an airplane or the overall aviation industry.
Well said. There are certain mistakes that really make me scratch my head, but A.netters do tend to nitpick over certain details that are small and make no difference when it comes to reporting the "meat of the story." The other factor at play here is where a media outlet is getting their information from. I'm not passing the blame, but it is important to keep in mind that in an aviation disaster situation, journalists are simply repeating the information given to them by police or fire departments -- which, in some cases, isn't always completely accurate.
Now in ATW, proudly working for Delta Connection & United Express
adxmatt From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 946 posts, RR: 2 Reply 19, posted (3 years 3 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 2416 times:
Quoting KGRB (Reply 18): I appreciate the discussion that's taking place, but it's all based on a false premise. Look at the link above -- it appears to be an aviation blog of some sort -- not a newspaper, radio station, or television station. It's very important as a reader to make sure the "news source" you're using is credible. I'm not dissing the website, per se, but it is not a trusted outlet in the same vein as CBS or the New York Times, for example.
Along with a picture of a Colgan Q400 in Continental paint.
The Helena to Denver flight in the incident is a CRJ operated by Skywest.
Not even close! Who does their fact checking?
does the media mess up in other areas as much as in aviation?
It happens because to the average non-aviation enthusiast, an airplane is an airplane. They're all the same. Big aluminum tubes with either jet engine or propellers. Not only would the average person not even pick up on the fact that a photo in the paper isn't the type of plane referred to in the story, but even if they did notice, they wouldn't care because it's no big deal. A plane is a plane.
Aviation enthusiasts are blind to the thought process of the average person who doesn't have any interest in planes. Just like I don't have any real interest in cruise ships, if there was an incident with a major cruise ship -like the one a few weeks ago off the coast of Mexico- and the media used a stock image of another model of ship, I wouldn't even notice the mistake. And if it was brought to my attention that a picture of an entirely different model of ship was used, my reaction would probably be "Who cares? I get the idea. It's just a big ship, and they all looks the same to me"
pilotpip From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 3119 posts, RR: 11 Reply 22, posted (3 years 3 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 2219 times:
The general public will look at a Q-400 sitting next to a 727 and think the 727 is the more modern of the two because of the engines. As a result of the turbofans, they will also automatically assume it is safer.
Most reporters know about as much about aviation as does the general public.
Regardless of the events during an accident eye witnesses will also nearly always mention explosions, flames and other big events that may not have happened.
BlueFlyer From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 3487 posts, RR: 1 Reply 23, posted (3 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
Quoting nighthawk (Reply 9): the first few posters will simply quote what they hear in the media and repost it, in an attempt to be first with the news.
It's not just a quest of being "first with the news" that's afflicting a.net, it's being "first with a reply." How many times have you seen a thread where the OP links to an article and the first few replies are completely off the mark, showing with blinding clarity that the posters either didn't read the article at all, or didn't make it past the first paragraph in their haste to be first to comment...
Quoting spacecadet (Reply 15): It annoys me when I see reporters say things like "A Qantas airbus made an emergency landing today" or the even worse "Boeing airbus"
Even there you might be asking for too much for field reporters who may have less knowledge in aviation than they even think they have. Fact-checking should be used more often, but you need to know which facts to check and where. Not all facts are checked all the time, field reporters make decisions about what to check all the time. If they think their source (or personal knowledge or assumption) is reliable, they're not going to check that an Airbus is indeed an Airbus.
Not too long ago, a newspaper did a story on a new data server we opened, including a line along the lines of how impressive it was to see so much Sysco gear humming quietly. The writer knew about Sysco, had a vague idea of what they did and who used them, and went with it, when in fact not a single piece of equipment in that room came from Sysco, but because Sysco was such an obvious, well-known brand, he didn't bother to check that part of his story.
(yes, it is Cisco, not Sysco, just wondering whether I will be called upon for my "fact-checking")
FlyNWA727 From United States of America, joined Jan 2010, 305 posts, RR: 0 Reply 24, posted (3 years 3 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2176 times:
I get so sick of the media inaccuracies. Just the other day, my local Fox news station kept reporting on another Qantas incident involving a Boeing 737. The problem was, they kept showing a rather lengthy video of a Qantas Boeing 767-300ER! I emailed them about the egregiousness of their inaccurate reporting, but I'll be damned if hours later on the late night news, they still weren't showing that same video of the QF 763 yet they were talking about a QF 737. It gets really old. Then, another news channel kept referring to QF as "Qantas Airlines". I know that's nowhere near anything to get all riled up about, but the name is "Qantas Airways". They couldn't even get something that basic, correct.
First flight aboard a Northwest B727-251ADV out of BWI Thurgood Marshall Airport, my hometown airport.
25 type-rated: And there are people who actually fly that don't even notice if the plane has jet engines or propellers, nor do they care!
26 KGRB: Do you actually think that a local affiliate station has stock footage (or "B-roll" as it's called in the industry) of every single aircraft in the Q