Musta been a slow news day in CA yesterday. A Warrior made an emergency
landing with its left main gear hanging by the brake line. Reportedly
there was a student & instructor onboard. I'm guessing they clipped
something after rotation or were way below glidepath on landing
approach?? <blind speculation mode off>

The narration had me rolling my eyes - "The pilot managed to touch the
runway before the left wing collapsed" As a former aiport ops/crash
truck driver, I've seen my share of gear-up landings and (call me
jaded) they're just not a big deal if handled with a cool head. I also
understand your typical media type has little or no understanding of
aviation and the planes we fly.

http://player2.clipsyndicate.com/player/play_url?url=http://www.clipsyndicate.com/clipsyndicate/play_asx.php?clip_id=93797

> I also understand your typical media type has little or no understanding of
>aviation and the planes we fly.

I, too, get annoyed at ignorant stories about aviation.

But to be realistic, you can't expect "your typical media type" to be
expert in all the fields he or she has to write about: aviation,
criminology, firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture,
ecology, the military, economics, politics, etc.etc.etc.

I would suggest, though, that "your typical media type" knows more
about aviation than "your typical R.A.P. poster" knows about English
spelling, grammar, punctuation, and syntax.

(Despite the fact that every American adult was taught those topics
year after year after year in the schools of this country.)

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>
> I, too, get annoyed at ignorant stories about aviation.
>
> But to be realistic, you can't expect "your typical media type" to be
> expert in all the fields he or she has to write about: aviation,
> criminology, firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture,
> ecology, the military, economics, politics, etc.etc.etc.
>

Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the military,
economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.

> > I, too, get annoyed at ignorant stories about aviation.
> >
> > But to be realistic, you can't expect "your typical media type" to be
> > expert in all the fields he or she has to write about: aviation,
> > criminology, firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture,
> > ecology, the military, economics, politics, etc.etc.etc.
> >
>
> Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
> firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the
military,
> economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.
>
>
Regrettably, that is exactly true.

>> Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
>> firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the
>military,
>> economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.
>>
>Regrettably, that is exactly true.

Yes, it is. Until publishers and broadcasters become willing to pay
more attractive salaries, it will remain that way.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>>> Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
>>> firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the
>>military,
>>> economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.
>>>
>>Regrettably, that is exactly true.
>
> Yes, it is. Until publishers and broadcasters become willing to pay
> more attractive salaries, it will remain that way.
>
You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all those,
isn't enough?

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
> ...
> >>> Realistically, "your typical media type" knows as much criminology,
> >>> firefighting, public finance, education, agriculture, ecology, the
> >>military,
> >>> economics, politics, etc.etc.etc., as he or she knows about: aviation.
> >>>
> >>Regrettably, that is exactly true.
> >
> > Yes, it is. Until publishers and broadcasters become willing to pay
> > more attractive salaries, it will remain that way.
> >
> You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all those,
> isn't enough?
>
>
Take a look at the entry level salaries.

Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.

Peter

"Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
. ..
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> ...
>> >
>> You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all
>> those,
>> isn't enough?
>>
>>
> Take a look at the entry level salaries.

Take a look at the starting salaries in any _glamour_ field. You could say
the same thing for baseball for example. Look at the pay scales for guys in
"A" level ball compared to, say, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez.

>
> Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.
>

It's a field for people with little or no talent, but a lot of fantasies.

BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry is
NOT paying adequate wages for entry level people? I thought only
conservative/rightwingnuts did that?


--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Peter Dohm" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> >
> >> You mean, the $$$multi-millions they pay the Katie Cupcake, and all
> >> those,
> >> isn't enough?
> >>
> >>
> > Take a look at the entry level salaries.
>
> Take a look at the starting salaries in any _glamour_ field. You could say
> the same thing for baseball for example. Look at the pay scales for guys
in
> "A" level ball compared to, say, Roger Clemens and Alex Rodriguez.
>
> >
> > Initial recruitment does contribute to the final result.
> >
>
> It's a field for people with little or no talent, but a lot of fantasies.
>
I would tend to substitute knowledge or diligence, but don't dissagree.

> BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry
is
> NOT paying adequate wages for entry level people? I thought only
> conservative/rightwingnuts did that?
>
Yes, I do mean to tell you that; and there is reason to suppose that the
farthest left/liberal components pay the least. BTW, I doubt that this
astounds you. ;-)
>
> --
> A nation can survive its fools, and even the
> ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
> within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
> for he is known and carries his banner openly.
> But the traitor moves amongst those within
> the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
> all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
> itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
> speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
> he wears their face and their arguments, he
> appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
> hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
> he works secretly and unknown in the night
> to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
> the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
> A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero
>
>
>

>BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry

Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
"left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
about 1936, except for 1964?

(Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
newspaper business.)

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> >BTW, do mean to tell me that such a overwhelmingly left/liberal industry
>
> Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
> "left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
> candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
> about 1936, except for 1964?
>
> (Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
> newspaper business.)

E&P has ZERO credibility, but even if true, consider the statistical sample
(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
LATimes...

BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
endorsing the challenger to FDR.

Again, check their statistical sample.


Matt
--
A nation can survive its fools, and even the
ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from
within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable,
for he is known and carries his banner openly.
But the traitor moves amongst those within
the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through
all the alleys, heard in the very halls of government
itself. For the traitor appears not a traitor; he
speaks in accents familiar to his victims, and
he wears their face and their arguments, he
appeals to the baseness that lies deep in the
hearts of all men. He rots the soul of a nation,
he works secretly and unknown in the night
to undermine the pillars of the city, he infects
the body politic so that it can no longer resist.
A murderer is less to fear. -- Marcus Tullius Cicero

>> Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
>> "left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
>> candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
>> about 1936, except for 1964?
>>
>> (Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
>> newspaper business.)
>
>E&P has ZERO credibility...

That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
decades ago.

> but even if true, consider the statistical sample
>(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
>LATimes...

You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?
>
>BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers were
>endorsing the challenger to FDR.

That shows how little you know about American history and the
newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
newspapers.

>Again, check their statistical sample.

It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
the difference.

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>>> Matt, can you explain to me why about four times as many of those
>>> "left/liberal" newspapers have endorsed the Republican presidential
>>> candidate as endorsed the Democratic candidate, every four years since
>>> about 1936, except for 1964?
>>>
>>> (Source of that info: _Editor & Publisher_, the trade paper of the
>>> newspaper business.)
>>
>>E&P has ZERO credibility...
>
> That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
> credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
> decades ago.

Like national Enquirer...?

>
>> but even if true, consider the statistical sample
>>(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
>>LATimes...
>
> You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?

There's two.
>>
>>BTW, I find it hard to believe that in 1936, 1940, 1944, the newspapers
>>were
>>endorsing the challenger to FDR.
>
> That shows how little you know about American history and the
> newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
> newspapers.

I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
a fairly good knowledge of American history.
>
>>Again, check their statistical sample.
>
> It is not a "statistical sample." It is a census. I assume you know
> the difference.

Yes, a sample is a subset. Now, how did E&P do a census of the many
newspapers that long out of business and not archived?

But, even more, you made my point -- thank you.

Now, for all that IRRELEVENT drivel and fodder for "Trivial Pursuit", you
point is...what?

>>>E&P has ZERO credibility...
>>
>> That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
>> credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
>> decades ago.
>
>Like national Enquirer...?

A ridiculous comparison and you know it. E&P is read by people in
the newspaper business and they want good info about what's going on.

NE is read by housewives for entertainment.
>>
>>> but even if true, consider the statistical sample
>>>(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
>>>LATimes...
>>
>> You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?
>
>There's two.

Two is one more than it takes to refute your implied porposition that
only small town papers are conservative. I could add the Greensburg
Tribune and the Harrisburg Patriot News, but I'm sure you never heard
of them. They are not published in "small towns."
>>>
>> That shows how little you know about American history and the
>> newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
>> newspapers.
>
>I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do dhave
>a fairly good knowledge of American history.

But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?
>
>But, even more, you made my point

Only in your mind-- which was already made up. Since you know little
about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
credibility"? Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>>>>E&P has ZERO credibility...
>>>
>>> That is just your personal opinion, not a fact. If it has "zero
>>> credibility," no one would read it and it would have gone belly up
>>> decades ago.
>>
>>Like national Enquirer...?
>
> A ridiculous comparison and you know it. E&P is read by people in
> the newspaper business and they want good info about what's going on.

Uh huh!

>
> NE is read by housewives for entertainment.
>>>
>>>> but even if true, consider the statistical sample
>>>>(hundreds of small town (i.e., quite conservative) versus the NYTiLies,
>>>>LATimes...
>>>
>>> You've never heard of the Wall Street Journal or the Chicago Tribune?
>>
>>There's two.
>
> Two is one more than it takes to refute your implied porposition that
> only small town papers are conservative.

SHow me where I said "only".

If your can't read

> I could add the Greensburg
> Tribune and the Harrisburg Patriot News, but I'm sure you never heard
> of them. They are not published in "small towns."
>>>>
>>> That shows how little you know about American history and the
>>> newspaper business. Go to a library and read some of those
>>> newspapers.
>>
>>I may not know the newspaper business circa 1930's and 40's, but I do
>>dhave
>>a fairly good knowledge of American history.
>
> But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
> which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?
>>
>>But, even more, you made my point
>
> Only in your mind-- which was already made up. Since you know little
> about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
> credibility"? Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
> that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?
>
And since you still haven't answered my question, instead, typically, ran
off in all different directions, engaged in massive evasions, can't follow a
point, I find it pointless to discuss anything with you.

Make your point or STFU.

You can't.

>> But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
>> which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?

You haven't answered this question.

>> Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know that E&P has "zero
>> credibility"?

You haven't answered this question.

>> Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
>> that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?

You haven't answered this question.

>Make your point or STFU.

Do you always resort to invective?

vince norris

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
>>> But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
>>> which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?
>
> You haven't answered this question.

You haven't addressed my FIRST point, much less anything since.

Your point in response to mine about the media (specifically newspapers) was
that the majority of newspapers since 1936 endorsed the republican
presidential candidate.

So my question is: so what?

>
>>> Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know
>>> that E&P has "zero
>>> credibility"?
>
> You haven't answered this question.

As well
>
>>> Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
>>> that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?
>
> You haven't answered this question.

As well
>
>>Make your point or STFU.
>
> Do you always resort to invective?

Only to people in gross denial and evasion.

As typical of the MSM industry, you can't follow even the simpleist line.

Pull your head out of your barfback mindset and come back when you get a
clue.

Discussing anything with an irrational subjectivist is pointless.

Grow up!

>>>> But you're not aware of the resistance of the business community (of
>>>> which newspapers are a part) to FDR's New Deal?
>>
>> You haven't answered this question.
>
>You haven't addressed my FIRST point, much less anything since.
>
>Your point in response to mine about the media (specifically newspapers) was
>that the majority of newspapers since 1936 endorsed the republican
>presidential candidate.
>
>So my question is: so what?

I didn't recognize that as a question, despite the punctuation. It
seemed more like a smart alec remark.

The answer is: Matt Whiting said, IIRC, that the media are "liberal."
My question was, and still is, why would "liberal" media urge their
readers to vote for the Republican Presidential candidate?

I still haven't read an answer to that question. Can you answer it?
Will you?
>>
>>>> Since you know little about the newspaper business, how would you know
>>>> that E&P has "zero
>>>> credibility"?
>>
>> You haven't answered this question.
>
>As well
>>
>>>> Did you have any opinion at all, or did you even know
>>>> that Editor & Publisher existed, before you read my earlier post?
>>
>> You haven't answered this question.
>
>As well
>>
>>>Make your point or STFU.
>>
>> Do you always resort to invective?
>
>Only to people in gross denial and evasion.
>
>As typical of the MSM industry, you can't follow even the simpleist line.

What is the MSM industry?
>
>Pull your head out of your barfback mindset and come back when you get a
>clue.
>
>Discussing anything with an irrational subjectivist is pointless.
>
>Grow up!

My goodness gracious! If you keep sayjng mean things like that, you
might hurt my feelings! (You know I take everything you say very
seriously!)

vince norris