Media screws up again...

[Sam]

Here's the link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html

Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

[John Clear]

In article >,
Sam > wrote:
>Here's the link:
>http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
>Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

Because the aviation use of 'stall' is totally foreign to them, and
they know what an engine stall is, and assume that is what happened.

I think whoever suggested replacing aerodynamic stall with the term
'wing fart' (Jim Weir maybe?) has the right idea. The only way to
get the general public to not think stall = engine stall is to use
a term that has no meaning to the general public.

John
--
John Clear - http://www.panix.com/~jac

[Andrew Gideon]

John Clear wrote:

>>Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
> Because the aviation use of 'stall' is totally foreign to them, and
> they know what an engine stall is, and assume that is what happened.

There was some movie my wife was watching recently while we worked in our
family room. She described it as something in which I'd have no interest,
which means that it wouldn't interfere with my work.

But it had an airplane, so I was watching. And then the aircraft pitched
*way* up (avoiding terrain) and stalled. Except for the poor choice in
maneuvers, it was a decent stall, with the nose suddenly dropping.
However, what's that *sputtering* sound I hear!?!

I started sputtering myself, at which point my wife started to question her
assessment of my ability to work while this movie played.

- Andrew

[gatt]

"Sam" > wrote in message \

> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
> Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

The media needs more discovery flights.

-c

[OtisWinslow]

What the media needs is integrity and a desire to tell the truth. And that
will
never happen. Media reporting is about entertainment .. not truth.


"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> "Sam" > wrote in message \
>
> > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
> >
> > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
> The media needs more discovery flights.
>
> -c
>
>

[BTIZ]

what the media needs is educated people... a degree in journalism means they
learn how to write and keep the readers attention... it does not mean they
know what they are writing about.

BT

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message
.. .
> What the media needs is integrity and a desire to tell the truth. And that
> will
> never happen. Media reporting is about entertainment .. not truth.
>
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Sam" > wrote in message \
> >
> > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
> > >
> > > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
> >
> > The media needs more discovery flights.
> >
> > -c
> >
> >
>
>

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Sam" > wrote in message
om...
> Here's the link:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
> Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

For the same reason they screw up most topics -- they feel compelled to
comment about things of which they are completely clueless.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message
news:z6pxc.5042$fZ1.2463@fed1read03...
> what the media needs is educated people... a degree in journalism means
they
> learn how to write and keep the readers attention... it does not mean they
> know what they are writing about.

Or in the case of NY Times Paul Krugman, education, even on the topic he
writes about, is no quarantee either.

[C J Campbell]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sam" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Here's the link:
> > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
> >
> > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
> For the same reason they screw up most topics -- they feel compelled to
> comment about things of which they are completely clueless.

Thank heavens none of us are like that.

[tony roberts]

> > > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
> >
> > For the same reason they screw up most topics -- they feel compelled to
> > comment about things of which they are completely clueless.

And CJ Campbell writes:

> Thank heavens none of us are like that.

Every year, one post rises head and shoulders above the usual mix of
dross, old topics rehashed, and rehashed, and rehashed, and . . . good
solid keepers.

This one has my vote :)

Tony

--

Tony Roberts
PP-ASEL
VFR OTT
Night
Almost Instrument :)
Cessna 172H C-GICE

[Manuel]

"Sam" > ha scritto nel messaggio
om...
> Here's the link:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
> Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??


Quote: "The landing gear was down, the propeller was turning. It doesn't
make a lot of sense to me why he was making an emergency landing, whoever
was flying," McKenna said.


Well... wasn't it so that during an engine failure the prop doesn't always
stop turning? ...

-Manuel
PPL(A) SEP

[Tom Sixkiller]

"C J Campbell" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Sam" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Here's the link:
> > > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
> > >
> > > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
> >
> > For the same reason they screw up most topics -- they feel compelled to
> > comment about things of which they are completely clueless.
>
> Thank heavens none of us are like that.

None of us get paid BIG BUCKS for shooting our mouths off in front of
millions of people, most of whom take us as credible. None of us shooting
our mouths off is a factor in setting national policy (at least not until I
become King).

[Earthquake McGoon]

John or Martha?

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> None of us get paid BIG BUCKS for shooting our mouths off in front of
> millions of people, most of whom take us as credible. None of us shooting
> our mouths off is a factor in setting national policy (at least not until
I
> become King).
>
>
>
>

[gatt]

"OtisWinslow" > wrote in message news:ZGoxc.17162721

> What the media needs is integrity and a desire to tell the truth. And that
> will never happen. Media reporting is about entertainment .. not truth.

To be fair, it various from source to source. Media -reporting- is about
truth. What the publishers and editors do to it to sell ads is another
issue, but it's not consistent. It's difficult to measure up to the ideal
when advertisers seem to pull support at the drop of a hat.

What might solve some of the ignorance (viz the "stall" confusion) is some
sort of informational brochure or handbook that teaches at least the very
basics of GA terminology and science, and encourages introductory or
discovery flights for reporters. In fact, if the GA community tried hard
enough, they could probably get the aerodynamic definition of a "stall"
added to the Associated Press Stylebook.

Hmm. That gives me an idea...

-Chris Gattman
[PP/SEL instrument and commercial student.
freelance writer, former magazine editor-in-chief
Bachelor of Science, Journalism]

[gatt]

"BTIZ" > wrote in message news:z6pxc.5042

> what the media needs is educated people... a degree in journalism means
they
> learn how to write and keep the readers attention... it does not mean they
> know what they are writing about.

BINGO! This is the most accurate assessment of the media I've heard in a
long time.

In fact, I have a degree in journalism with a science minor BECAUSE of this.
The head of the OSU college of journalism (two-time Pulitzer winner Jon
Franklin) required all students to earn science or technical minors because,
he said, of the urgent need for science-minded journalists.

To be fair, they learn about ethics, law, media history and our taught
RIGIDLY to report accurately to the best of their ability. (You would fail
a final exam, for example, by a single misspelling of a name.) It's
journalists such as those you describe who are responsible for the regular
rounds of killer bee scares, bigfoot and UFO stories, the Alar scare, comets
coming to kill us...

-c

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:KAsxc.352$

> > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
> For the same reason they screw up most topics -- they feel compelled to
> comment about things of which they are completely clueless.

Yes. It's their job. Reporters are generally expected to know everything.
The expectation comes from those who believe that they themselves already
do.

-c

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:QDGxc.70

> > Thank heavens none of us are like that.
>
> None of us get paid BIG BUCKS for

When I earned my Journalism degree in 1993, "big bucks" was something like
$17,000 a year. It's about the same now. Maybe $20K.

It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not knowing
everything and assuming that journalists make "big bucks." There's
interesting similarities. It's one of the highest-profile and most
treacherous trades, and also one of the lowest-paying.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Earthquake McGoon" > wrote in message
...
> John or Martha?
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > None of us get paid BIG BUCKS for shooting our mouths off in front of
> > millions of people, most of whom take us as credible. None of us
shooting
> > our mouths off is a factor in setting national policy (at least not
until
> I
> > become King).

I go both ways!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Yes. It's their job. Reporters are generally expected to know everything.
>

Really? By whom?


>
> The expectation comes from those who believe that they themselves already
> do.
>

Hmmm..... Why would such people pay any attention to reporters?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:QDGxc.70
>
> > > Thank heavens none of us are like that.
> >
> > None of us get paid BIG BUCKS for
>
> When I earned my Journalism degree in 1993, "big bucks" was something like
> $17,000 a year. It's about the same now. Maybe $20K.
>
> It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not knowing
> everything

I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the answer,
they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.

> and assuming that journalists make "big bucks."

Know how much the talking heads on TV make?

> There's
> interesting similarities. It's one of the highest-profile and most
> treacherous trades,

Yeah...so many got killed last year.

>and also one of the lowest-paying.

I doubt a $20K a year journalist is very influential, which is what we were
talking about.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not knowing
> everything
>

Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything. Pilots
trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
frequently harmful to it.


>
> and assuming that journalists make "big bucks." There's
> interesting similarities. It's one of the highest-profile and most
> treacherous trades, and also one of the lowest-paying.
>

Because it's something that just about anyone can do.

[Rich Ahrens]

Sam wrote:

> Here's the link:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
> Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

You know, if you reread the story, you'll see that it appears it wasn't
the reporter who made the error:

"Flight simulator technician Scott McKenna of Platteville said he saw
the plane appear to descend for an emergency landing when it slowed down
too much and the wing dipped. The pilot overcorrected and the engine
stalled, he said. The plane headed nose down, cartwheeled and landed on
its belly, McKenna said."

Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his statement.
Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to the
site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?

[Dylan Smith]

In article e.com>, Andrew Gideon wrote:
> But it had an airplane, so I was watching. And then the aircraft pitched
> *way* up (avoiding terrain) and stalled. Except for the poor choice in
> maneuvers, it was a decent stall, with the nose suddenly dropping.
> However, what's that *sputtering* sound I hear!?!

On a point of pedantry, if you did that in our C140 with less than about
1/3rd fuel in the tank you had selected, the engine would indeed stop.
The fuel pickups are about the mid point between the front and back of
the tank, so as you pitch hard up, all the fuel slops to the back of the
tank. If the level is low enough, it'll unport as it all goes to the
back of the tank.

--
Dylan Smith, Castletown, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net
"Maintain thine airspeed, lest the ground come up and smite thee"

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:DxLxc.101

> > It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
knowing
> > everything
>
> I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the answer,
> they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.

Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom reporters
are?

> > and assuming that journalists make "big bucks."
>
> Know how much the talking heads on TV make?

They make a lot, but they don't generally write the news content. That
usually comes off the AP wire from some reporter in the field who has to
file the stuff as fast as he or she possibly can. A lot of times, if they
don't file before a competitor, they don't get paid for the story which
means they may have wasted an entire day.

In fact, a crewmember of the B-17s "Outhouse Mouse" and "Nine-O-Nine" (91st
BG) said that a reporter who flew a combat mission was threatened by his
(the vet's) skipper with containment at gunpoint because he tried to bail
out over London to try to file the story first. The reporter was Walter
Cronkite.

> > There's
> > interesting similarities. It's one of the highest-profile and most
> > treacherous trades,
>
> Yeah...so many got killed last year.

Gee. You are you suggesting that General Aviation is dangerous? ;>

Seriously, though. You print something, even if it's TRUTH, and you hear
from lawyers threatening to sue you for thousands, tens of thousands,
millions, etc. One misprint can destroy a reporter's career or the
integrity of a publication. It's, like I said, treacherous.

> >and also one of the lowest-paying.
>
> I doubt a $20K a year journalist is very influential, which is what we
were
> talking about.

You'd be surprised. Is a $20K/year CFI not very influential?

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
knowing
> > everything
> >
> Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything.
Pilots
> trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
> authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
> frequently harmful to it.

Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do about
whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they still
read the papers, still watch the news...
We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from Iraq.
Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage of
action and soldiers in Iraq.

> > It's one of the highest-profile and most
> > treacherous trades, and also one of the lowest-paying.
> >
> Because it's something that just about anyone can do.

Yeah, and so is flying. Unlike most readers here, I'm willing to bet, I've
done both so I'm uniquely qualified to say that one is no more difficult
than the other.

Here's an actual case. A streetcar catches fire and because the streetcar
had inadequate or inoperative exits, the people inside tried to crawl out
the side windows but burned to death before they could get out. You've got
a public photo of a burned out streetcar with over a dozen charred corpses
still in the position of desperately trying to get out of the windows. Can
you, or can you not, publish the story? Quick: You have an hour to make
deadline.

Your former state governor is accused of repeatedly molesting a 13 year old
when he was the mayor of your city. Can you or can you not report the
story? If so, will his lawyers sue you anyway?

You witness a murder and recognize both the victim and the killer. Can you
or can you not print a story or show photos, and can you or can you not
print their names.

There's a school shooting. It's major news; people's kids are being killed.
What do you do?
Quick: IT'S HAPPENING RIGHT NOW AND YOU MUST REPORT FOR LIVE TELEVISION
RIGHT -NOW-.

One of my reporters--an unpaid intern--wrote a critical review of somebody
one time, telling the absolute truth, and ended up with his jaw wired shut
for eight weeks because the tweaker he wrote about saw him on the street.
I've been threatened with lawsuit, threatened with assault...sometimes for
articles I didn't even write.

Have any of you written reporters to correct them, or do you just complain?

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> > Yes. It's their job. Reporters are generally expected to know
everything.
> >
> Really? By whom?

Ever edited a magazine and fielded complaints from, well, everybody?
Believe me; you make a mistake, or you're -perceived- to have made a
mistake, you're going to hear about it from the public. And it's always
prefaced with something like "hey, idiot."

> > The expectation comes from those who believe that they themselves
already
> > do.
> >
> Hmmm..... Why would such people pay any attention to reporters?

Because despite the arrogance and pomposity of much of the general public,
they still read newspapers, read news magazines, read web news and watch
news television.

That's why.

-c

[gatt]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c87dd2$0$90559

> Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
> On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his statement.
> Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to the
> site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?

WELL SAID! THANK YOU!

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:DxLxc.101
>
> > > It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
> knowing
> > > everything
> >
> > I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the answer,
> > they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.
>
> Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom reporters
> are?

When an entire 100 man crew is waiting....yes.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>
> > > It's interesting watching pilots trash-talking journalists for not
> knowing
> > > everything
> > >
> > Pilots don't trash-talk journalists for for not knowing everything.
> Pilots
> > trash-talk journalists for knowing nothing about aviation yet
> > authoritatively saying something about aviation that is incorrect and
> > frequently harmful to it.
>
> Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do about
> whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they still
> read the papers, still watch the news...

Non-sequitur.

Women get raped, but they still go into town...

> We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from Iraq.
> Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage of
> action and soldiers in Iraq.

Non-sequitur.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c87dd2$0$90559
>
> > Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
> > On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his statement.
> > Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to the
> > site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?
>
> WELL SAID! THANK YOU!

So why is that entire industry so impervious to correcting it's major fault?

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:tz4yc.31

> > > I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the
answer,
> > > they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.
> >
> > Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
> > are?
>
> When an entire 100 man crew is waiting....yes.

And what is the turnaround time for an average project? Turnaround from an
actual news event to press, or air time, is measured in minutes. And the
population of viewers or readers can be measured in tens of thousands,
hundreds of thousands or millions, and the revenue lost if you're behind the
ball can be measured in same.

Here's a more direct approach. The phrase "media screw up again" because
one guy allegedly confused aerodynamic with mechanical stall would be like
the media saying "general aviators screw up again" or that flying is unsafe
because one guy augured.

-c

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:BA4yc.32$

> > We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from
Iraq.
> > Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage
of
> > action and soldiers in Iraq.
>
> Non-sequitur.

No, it's no more of a nonsequitor than your exact statment, in response to
my
"It's one of the highest-profile and most treacherous trades" which was:
[you:]

>>Yeah...so many got killed last year."

Which, like I said, also insinuates that flying is dangerous.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:tz4yc.31
>
> > > > I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the
> answer,
> > > > they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.
> > >
> > > Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
> reporters
> > > are?
> >
> > When an entire 100 man crew is waiting....yes.
>
> And what is the turnaround time for an average project?

Wrong analogy.

> Turnaround from an
> actual news event to press, or air time, is measured in minutes.

So, their own self-imposed restriction is a child's excuse for inaccuracy?

And they wonder why their market is crashing.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:BA4yc.32$
>
> > > We've got journalists coming home unceremoniously in body bags from
> Iraq.
> > > Bet you don't even know their names, but I bet you've seen the footage
> of
> > > action and soldiers in Iraq.
> >
> > Non-sequitur.
>
> No, it's no more of a nonsequitor than your exact statment, in response to
> my
> "It's one of the highest-profile and most treacherous trades" which was:
> [you:]
>
> >>Yeah...so many got killed last year."
>
> Which, like I said, also insinuates that flying is dangerous.
>

Of those things you listed that they ostensibly teach in journalism schools,
evidently logic and critical thinking are not on the list.

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:wC4yc.33

> > > Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it
wrong.
> > > On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his
statement.
> > > Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to
the
> > > site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?
> >
> > WELL SAID! THANK YOU!
>
> So why is that entire industry so impervious to correcting it's major
fault?

It's interesting hearing comments from people who say that anybody can be a
journalist, who themselves don't even have a high school-level grasp of
their own language. There is no apostrophe in "its major fault." "It's"
is a contraction of "it is."

Now, addressing what Rich was getting at: Rather than bitching on amUsenet,
have you actually bothered to correct a reporter or editor who misused the
term? And, it turns out, the reporter in this case merely reported the
information as it was given to him. So, if the subject were to be targetted
accurately it should read "Aviation industry screws up again," which makes
about as much sense.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:wC4yc.33
>
> > > > Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it
> wrong.
> > > > On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his
> statement.
> > > > Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to
> the
> > > > site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?
> > >
> > > WELL SAID! THANK YOU!
> >
> > So why is that entire industry so impervious to correcting it's major
> fault?
>
> It's interesting hearing comments from people who say that anybody can be
a
> journalist, who themselves don't even have a high school-level grasp of
> their own language. There is no apostrophe in "its major fault." "It's"
> is a contraction of "it is."

Geez...when your face is shoved into a toilet, don't hit the handle.

Don't get all pompous that if we can't write like an expert, we can't
comment.

Take that attitude (so commonplace in your field) and stick it where the sun
doesn't shine.

>
> Now, addressing what Rich was getting at: Rather than bitching on
amUsenet,
> have you actually bothered to correct a reporter or editor who misused the
> term?

I've sent letters to the papers about major mistakes in facts (I don't
bother correcting their gramatical erros which are numerous) and got
NOTHING.

AAMOF, there's a website dedicated just to correcting errors in the NY Times
economic reporting.

Guess what their response is.

>And, it turns out, the reporter in this case merely reported the
> information as it was given to him. So, if the subject were to be
targetted
> accurately it should read "Aviation industry screws up again," which makes
> about as much sense.

Okay...here's a clue about the media: they don't report, they pontificate.
They are impervious to correction. They promote themselves (virtually) as
experts in every field.

And they wonder why their credibility is diminishing by the hour.

I understand your concern for your industry, but like so many other facets
of life, they're their own worst enemy. And
making childish excuses only exacerbate the problem.

Tom
--
Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts.

[Rich Ahrens]

gatt wrote:
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c87dd2$0$90559
>
>
>>Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
>> On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his statement.
>>Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to the
>>site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?
>
>
> WELL SAID! THANK YOU!

As are your efforts to preach to the closed-minded. Drop me an email
with a usable return address, will you?

[Sam]

Rich Ahrens > wrote in message om>...
> Sam wrote:
>
> > Here's the link:
> > http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
> >
> > Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
> You know, if you reread the story, you'll see that it appears it wasn't
> the reporter who made the error:
>
> "Flight simulator technician Scott McKenna of Platteville said he saw
> the plane appear to descend for an emergency landing when it slowed down
> too much and the wing dipped. The pilot overcorrected and the engine
> stalled, he said. The plane headed nose down, cartwheeled and landed on
> its belly, McKenna said."
>
> Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
> On the other hand, the reporter may have misinterpreted his statement.
> Either way, don't you think it would be more productive to write to the
> site and educate the reporter than just bitch about it?

When I first read the report, my first thought was also that the
witness screwed up. But then I started thinking that a flight
simulator technician must know the difference between an aero stall
and an engine "stall", and that the reporter misintrepreted. Either
that or the flight sim tech is a complete idiot. If it was Joe Public
that said it, I'd just say he doesn't have knowledge of the subject.
But I would think a flight sim tech would, particularly since he
probably brought up his aviation credentials to the reporter.

BTW, I did send an email to that station politely informing them of
the error. They're usually pretty good about getting things right.

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> And, it turns out, the reporter in this case merely reported the
> information as it was given to him.

Or the reporter misread his shorthand notes on the interview, or the editor decided
to "correct" an obvious mistake, or ....

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom reporters
> are?
>

I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do about
> whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they still
> read the papers, still watch the news...
>

Yeah, but I read the papers and watch the news with the knowledge the
reporter probably got it wrong.


>
> Yeah, and so is flying.
>

Lousy pilots weed themselves out eventually. Lousy reporters keep on
reporting.


>
> Have any of you written reporters to correct them, or do you just
complain?
>

I write frequently, I sometimes receive a response, I have yet to see a
correction in print. Getting the story is far more important than getting
the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
> > are?
> >
>
> I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
> right.

Form over substance?

Early bird gets the worm?

Firstest with the mostest?

(I wonder what gatt will have to say about my use of clichés.)

If it isn't accurate, it's not NEWS...it's barely EDITORIAL.

(At least they didn't blow up the plane to make a headline, like one network
did with pickup trucks)

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
>
> You know, if you reread the story, you'll see that it appears it wasn't
> the reporter who made the error:
>
> "Flight simulator technician Scott McKenna of Platteville said he saw
> the plane appear to descend for an emergency landing when it slowed down
> too much and the wing dipped. The pilot overcorrected and the engine
> stalled, he said. The plane headed nose down, cartwheeled and landed on
> its belly, McKenna said."
>
> Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
>

So what? It's still the reporter's responsibility to get the story right

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Have any of you written reporters to correct them, or do you just
> complain?
> >
>
> I write frequently, I sometimes receive a response, I have yet to see a
> correction in print. Getting the story is far more important than getting
> the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

And that's why so many say the "news" and "entertainment" are so close as to
be indistinguishable. See Michael Moore for a example.

[Rich Ahrens]

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
> I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
> story right.

Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
for one thing. Not that the trade-off described is consciously made as
often as some would have you believe.

[Rich Ahrens]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in
> message nk.net...
>
>> "gatt" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>
>>> Have any of you written reporters to correct them, or do you just
>>> complain?
>>
>> I write frequently, I sometimes receive a response, I have yet to
>> see a correction in print. Getting the story is far more important
>> than getting the story right. That's the state of journalism
>> today.
>
>
> And that's why so many say the "news" and "entertainment" are so
> close as to be indistinguishable. See Michael Moore for a example.

Or pretty much anything on Fox...

[Teacherjh]

>>
I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
right.
<<

It's what people pay for.

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Jack]

gatt wrote:

> It's interesting hearing comments from people who say that anybody can be a
> journalist, who themselves don't even have a high school-level grasp of
> their own language. There is no apostrophe in "its major fault." "It's"
> is a contraction of "it is."

> So, if the subject were to be targetted
> accurately it should read "Aviation industry screws up again," which makes
> about as much sense.

Would a real-life journalist know the difference between "targeted" and
"targetted", or how to use a spell-checker?

All we ask from our reporters is a high school level of understanding of the
world around them, which is easily achieved before the story exists and has
nothing to do with deadline pressures.



Jack

[Philip Sondericker]

in article t, Steven P.
McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:

> Getting the story is far more important than getting
> the story right. That's the state of journalism today.

I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
pictures, I'll supply the war".

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article t, Steven P.
> McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:
>
> > Getting the story is far more important than getting
> > the story right. That's the state of journalism today.
>
> I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
> told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
> pictures, I'll supply the war".


Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Teacherjh" > wrote in message
...
>
> It's what people pay for.
>

Not me.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Teacherjh" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > It's what people pay for.
> >
>
> Not me.

And others less and less...dramatically.

[Teacherjh]

>>
> It's what people pay for.

Not me.
<<

Like I said, it's what people pay for. :)

Jose


--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:tr5yc.40

> > Turnaround from an
> > actual news event to press, or air time, is measured in minutes.
>
> So, their own self-imposed restriction is a child's excuse for inaccuracy?
>
> And they wonder why their market is crashing.

CNN's market is crashing?

Have you watched the news lately?

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
reporters
> > are?
> >
> I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the story
> right.

Capitalism, and the fact (or theory, at least) that the news source the
reports a story FIRST is the one that people follow the most. But, your
question is valid. The editor exists as the moderator between the
publisher's demand for information NOW and the reporter's human capacity to
report accurate information in increasingly shorter periods of time.

The publisher (and the advertisers) demand the information pronto. The
reporter has to get it all as accurately as possible, and it's the editor's
job to fact-check EVERY story at the last minute. If he/she misses a
deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his job.

-c

[gatt]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545

> > I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
> > story right.
>
> Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
> for one thing.

Yep. Consumer demand.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > It's what people pay for.
> >
> Not me.

On 9/11, when you first heard about what was going on, what did you do? If
you flipped on a news station (TV or radio) and it wasn't telling you what
was happening, you likely flipped the channel. The network that carries
the info first is statistically the one you're most likely to tune into or
read. They have advertisers (disgusting as that sounds wrt 9/11) and they
have ratings. The ones with the highest ratings draw the advertisers.
Statistically speaking, advertising works. In the royal sense, if "you"
flip on the news, "you" do, in fact, pay for it.

For actual accuracy, weekly or even monthly newspapers, programs or news
magazines are going to be more accurate because they are not under such
narrow deadline.
-c

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:h8hyc.9

> > > It's what people pay for.
> > >
> > Not me.
>
> And others less and less...dramatically.

Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
newspapers. Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the news
on the internet more frequently now. http://www.cnn.com,
http://www.abcnews.com. ....they're popular news sites that draw a lot of
money from advertising revenue.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Capitalism, and the fact (or theory, at least) that the news source the
> reports a story FIRST is the one that people follow the most. But, your
> question is valid. The editor exists as the moderator between the
> publisher's demand for information NOW and the reporter's human
> capacity to report accurate information in increasingly shorter periods of
> time.
>
> The publisher (and the advertisers) demand the information pronto. The
> reporter has to get it all as accurately as possible, and it's the
editor's
> job to fact-check EVERY story at the last minute.
>

They're not doing very good jobs.


>
> If he/she misses a
> deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his
job.
>

Getting it wrong consistently and losing readers as a result tends to cost
the publication money as well.

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:Zs5yc.42

> > Which, like I said, also insinuates that flying is dangerous.
> >
> Of those things you listed that they ostensibly teach in journalism
schools,
> evidently logic and critical thinking are not on the list.

Ad hominum noted. I will not engage in that sort of discussion on this
newsgroup. If you don't like the way the media works, start your own
publication. Until then, you might as well be some anti-aviation type
telling pilots how a planes fly. Like them, you simply do not know what
you're talking about.

I have a degree in journalism, I have worked in the journalism industry in
both civilian life and in the military, and I am also a pilot. I -am-
qualified to discuss these issues and I have no reason to accept personal
insults from somebody who has lesser experience.

I have no further interest in your opinion or discussion with you. The next
time you watch, read, or listen to the news, remember this: You did so
voluntarily.

-gattman

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Everybody trash talks journalists for not knowing as much as they do
about
> > whatever field of expertise they are in. See my point? Yet they
still
> > read the papers, still watch the news...
> >
> Yeah, but I read the papers and watch the news with the knowledge the
> reporter probably got it wrong.

So why do you watch, then? Start your own news agency or simply don't
read/watch the news.

> Lousy pilots weed themselves out eventually. Lousy reporters keep on
> reporting.

And yet you keep on reading it.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> On 9/11, when you first heard about what was going on, what did you do?
If
> you flipped on a news station (TV or radio) and it wasn't telling you what
> was happening, you likely flipped the channel.
>

I watched the live video and ignored the opinions of the reporter.

[gatt]

> And that's why so many say the "news" and "entertainment" are so close as
to
> be indistinguishable. See Michael Moore for a example.

If you cannot distinguish between Michael Moore and the news media you're
probably not qualified to comment on matters of media.

-c

[gatt]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92772$0$78545

> Or pretty much anything on Fox...

"Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:tr5yc.40
>
> > > Turnaround from an
> > > actual news event to press, or air time, is measured in minutes.
> >
> > So, their own self-imposed restriction is a child's excuse for
inaccuracy?
> >
> > And they wonder why their market is crashing.
>
> CNN's market is crashing?
>
> Have you watched the news lately?
>

Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> I have a degree in journalism, I have worked in the journalism industry in
> both civilian life and in the military, and I am also a pilot. I -am-
> qualified to discuss these issues and I have no reason to accept personal
> insults from somebody who has lesser experience.
>

If you have a degree in journalism you are obviously biased.

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:NJcyc.438

> > I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
> > told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
> > pictures, I'll supply the war".
>
> Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

Hearst was a newspaper icon. Bill Gates wasn't the entire software
industry, but he's more qualified to comment on the workings of the software
industry then, say, a pilot.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>
> > > Are their deadlines measured in hours or minutes like pressroom
> reporters
> > > are?
> > >
> > I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
story
> > right.
>
> Capitalism, and the fact (or theory, at least) that the news source the
> reports a story FIRST is the one that people follow the most.

Well, now the truth comes out.

Okay...he's a clue that supports Steven's and my contention: You don't know
dick about capitalism (which has to closely guard it's reputation...also,
what we have under the FCC is certainly not capitalism, but I'm sure you got
the opposite info in journalsim school), but you (and your cohorts) love to
shoot your mouths off.

Thanks for that; you just made our case.

>But, your
> question is valid. The editor exists as the moderator between the
> publisher's demand for information NOW and the reporter's human capacity
to
> report accurate information in increasingly shorter periods of time.
>
> The publisher (and the advertisers) demand the information pronto. The
> reporter has to get it all as accurately as possible, and it's the
editor's
> job to fact-check EVERY story at the last minute. If he/she misses a
> deadline it is likely to cost the publication money and the editor his
job.

Really? Could you name a few instances where an editor got fired for this
(other than for outright fraud...which even THAT doesn't have much impact?


--
"Real science doesn't work on consensus.
It works on contention. When a new fact
is announced, it is attacked voraciously
from all sides and corners. If it holds up,
and proves to be true, it is then, and only
then, accepted as a fact.

With real science, you don't need
consensus. Only facts." - Dave Hitt

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:pI5yc.43

> Okay...here's a clue about the media:

I don't need a clue about the media from a civil engineer any more than you
need a clue about civil engineering from a journalist.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545
>
> > > I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
> > > story right.
> >
> > Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
> > for one thing.
>
> Yep. Consumer demand.

Look up the word "whore".

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> So why do you watch, then?
>

Live video feeds, eyewitness reports, photographs. Things the reporter
can't screw up.


>
> And yet you keep on reading it.
>

Yes, I still subscribe to my local newspaper. I have dropped my
subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. My local
newspaper still has TV and movie listings, grocery coupons, various flyers,
etc., so it is still worth receiving.

[gatt]

"Jack" > wrote in message news:Muayc.7230

> Would a real-life journalist know the difference between "targeted" and
> "targetted", or how to use a spell-checker?

Sorry. I don't use spell checkers for usenet.

> All we ask from our reporters is a high school level of understanding of
the
> world around them, which is easily achieved before the story exists and
has
> nothing to do with deadline pressures.

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

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:h8hyc.9
>
> > > > It's what people pay for.
> > > >
> > > Not me.
> >
> > And others less and less...dramatically.
>
> Any time there's a news event, everybody watches CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or they
> read Time or Newsweek, or watch their local broadcast or cable news
> affiliate, or listen to the news on the radio, or read daily or weekly
> newspapers.

Yeah...during a MAJOR event.

>Even most basic cable customers pay rates and get CNN, et al.

Ever see a cable company that doesn't provide CNN? How, with that built in,
why is their viewship down significantly EVEN DURING THIS WAR YOU TOUT?

>
> There's a war going on. As such, there has been no dramatic reduction in
> news viewership or readership other than the fact that people read the
news
> on the internet more frequently now.

Geeez...you can't even follow the point for a few paragraphs. Here it is
again for your limited attention span (does that come with the job?) - their
viewship is down _dramatically_.

> 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?

CFOS!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.
>

Rubbish.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?
>

Ummm...crashing.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Assuming the attribution is correct, it was the source who got it wrong.
> >
> So what? It's still the reporter's responsibility to get the story right

That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible. The reporter's
responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.

In the case of a crash, it's the NTSB's responsibility to "get the story
right" which means if you wanted to read what -really- happened, you'd not
expect the publication to carry the story until the NTSB had made its
report. The reporter would then be responsible for accurately conveying the
information in the NTSB report.

-c

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?
> >
>
> Ummm...crashing.
>

Maybe their engine stalled?

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible.
>

Actually, it is both accurate and possible.


>
> The reporter's
> responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.
>

Well, that would be fine, if the reporter limited his source to experts.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
k.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible.
> >
>
> Actually, it is both accurate and possible.
>
>
> >
> > The reporter's
> > responsibility is to accurately report what the experts tell them.
> >
>
> Well, that would be fine, if the reporter limited his source to experts.

Real ones...not self-proclaimed experts.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > "Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.
> >
> Rubbish.

They do. All of the networks do to some degree, if nothing more than the
filtration of what content viewers see. "Sins of omission." No network is
free from s(p)in. Spin, by the way, is deliberate inaccuracy.

Fox NEWS tends to be more conservative, which is interesting because the Fox
network carries more liberal fare than the less conservative news networks
owned by more-liberal parent organizations.

It's very fascinating, but here's the deal: Ollie North. Nothing against
him, and I have an autographed photo that says "To Gatt: Semper Fi - Ollie"
He's a former Marine and admits his own bias. Okay? Who else appears
regularly on Fox, or is a Fox employee? I mean besides openly-conservative
radio hosts Sean Hannity AND Bill O'Reilly? Geraldo frickin' Rivera.
Kicked out of Afghanistan for drawing battle plans in the sand. Okay? Who
else? Mark FURHMAN, who blew one of the most viewed trials in world history
a major reason why OJ Simpson is a free man. Fox makes this guy out to be
an expert. He's a f'ck up. So is "Al Capone's Vault" Rivera.

I've heard Fox anchors refer to Iraqi noncombatants (the ones we're there to
"liberate") as "the bad guys."

No...wait a minute. Now I'M the one critical of the media and other people
are telling ME that the media is accurate.

Okeeeee....

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Live video feeds, eyewitness reports, photographs. Things the reporter
> can't screw up.

That's somewhat naive. All the photographer has to do is point the camera
in the wrong direction, or mistate the environment surrounding the events
(say, for example, a firefight in Baghdad) and you have no idea what is
going on. "Your eyes can deceive you." - Obi Wan. :>

> Yes, I still subscribe to my local newspaper. I have dropped my
> subscriptions to Time, Newsweek, and US News & World Report. My local
> newspaper still has TV and movie listings, grocery coupons, various
flyers,
> etc., so it is still worth receiving.

That is proactive and reasonable.

-c

[Shiver Me Timbers]

> Tom Sixkiller > wrote:

> not self-proclaimed experts.

Like YOU!!!!!

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's somewhat naive.
>

No, it isn't.


>
> All the photographer has to do is point the camera
> in the wrong direction,
>

Then he won't have the intended photograph.


>
> or mistate the environment surrounding the events
> (say, for example, a firefight in Baghdad) and you have no idea what is
> going on.
>

I trust the photographer to know his location.

[leslie]

gatt ) wrote:
:
: "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92772$0$78545
:
: > Or pretty much anything on Fox...
:
: "Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.
:
:

The media can legally lie...

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie

"Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
author: FYI

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization.

Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
By Mike Gaddy
Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time

On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.

On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
irate advertisers.

Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
airwaves.

In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
by the verdict."


Fox, like Nike and other corporations, claims it has the right to lie
under its First Amendment protection, granted by a headnote of the 1886
U.S. Supreme Court.

The following article provides the background for the granting of personhood
to corporations:

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"

AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations.

--Jerry Leslie
Note: is invalid for email

[Teacherjh]

>>
Getting it wrong consistently and losing readers as a result tends to cost
the publication money as well.
<<

Yep. That's why the tabloids have gone belly-up.

Jose

--
(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Bill Denton]

I get so tired of this bull**** and distorted story constantly coming up.

For starters, the Court didn't say that the station had a "right to lie",
they held that there was nothing in the FCC Regulations that required them
to tell the truth. But the "right to lie" angle is much sexier.

Next, the report eventually broadcast was not false. The report Ms. Akre
prepared utilized various questionable, activist type sources. Fox left out
some of the activists and obtained additional information from industry
sources. Quite probably, neither report was totally a lie, they simply used
differing sources to develop their conclusions. And frankly, given what I've
seen of "activists" lately, I would tend to believe an industry source over
and activist any day.

This was nothing more than an "unlawful termination" case but it seems to
have become a cause celebre for every nutcase on the block. Before you buy
into this crap, please take a look at the original court documents on this
case; believe me, you will get a totally different picture...



"leslie" > wrote in message
...
> gatt ) wrote:
> :
> : "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92772$0$78545
> :
> : > Or pretty much anything on Fox...
> :
> : "Faux". Engages in deliberate inaccuracy.
> :
> :
>
> The media can legally lie...
>
> http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2003/08/269899.shtml
> portland imc - 2003.08.16 - Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
>
> "Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie
> author: FYI
>
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization.
>
> Appellate Court Rules Media Can Legally Lie.
> By Mike Gaddy
> Published 02. 28. 03 at 19:31 Sierra Time
>
> On February 14, a Florida Appeals court ruled there is absolutely
> nothing illegal about lying, concealing or distorting information by a
> major press organization. The court reversed the $425,000 jury verdict
> in favor of journalist Jane Akre who charged she was pressured by Fox
> Television management and lawyers to air what she knew and documented
> to be false information. The ruling basically declares it is
> technically not against any law, rule, or regulation to deliberately
> lie or distort the news on a television broadcast.
>
> On August 18, 2000, a six-person jury was unanimous in its conclusion
> that Akre was indeed fired for threatening to report the station's
> pressure to broadcast what jurors decided was "a false, distorted, or
> slanted" story about the widespread use of growth hormone in dairy
> cows. The court did not dispute the heart of Akre's claim, that Fox
> pressured her to broadcast a false story to protect the broadcaster
> from having to defend the truth in court, as well as suffer the ire of
> irate advertisers.
>
> Fox argued from the first, and failed on three separate occasions, in
> front of three different judges, to have the case tossed out on the
> grounds there is no hard, fast, and written rule against deliberate
> distortion of the news. The attorneys for Fox, owned by media baron
> Rupert Murdock, argued the First Amendment gives broadcasters the
> right to lie or deliberately distort news reports on the public
> airwaves.
>
> In its six-page written decision, the Court of Appeals held that the
> Federal Communications Commission position against news distortion is
> only a "policy," not a promulgated law, rule, or regulation.
> Fox aired a report after the ruling saying it was "totally vindicated"
> by the verdict."
>
>
> Fox, like Nike and other corporations, claims it has the right to lie
> under its First Amendment protection, granted by a headnote of the 1886
> U.S. Supreme Court.
>
> The following article provides the background for the granting of
personhood
> to corporations:
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/0101-07.htm
> Now Corporations Claim The "Right To Lie"
>
> AFAIK, only the U.S. has granted personhood status to corporations.
>
> --Jerry Leslie
> Note: is invalid for email

[Jack]

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.



Jack

[Gary Drescher]

"Sam" > wrote in message
om...
> Here's the link:
> http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/3394994/detail.html
>
> Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??

Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses everyday
words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
understood, why don't we just speak English?

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:8Qqyc.11503$eu.989@attbi_s02...
>
> Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses everyday
> words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
> other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
> understood, why don't we just speak English?
>

My English dictionary includes the definition "a condition in which an
aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in loss
of lift and a tendency to drop" for "stall".

[Gary Drescher]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
nk.net...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> news:8Qqyc.11503$eu.989@attbi_s02...
> >
> > Because we pilots insist on speaking a secret language that uses
everyday
> > words like "stall" to mean something completely different from what the
> > other 99.8% of the population means by the word. If we want to be
> > understood, why don't we just speak English?
>
> My English dictionary includes the definition "a condition in which an
> aircraft or airfoil experiences an interruption of airflow resulting in
loss
> of lift and a tendency to drop" for "stall".

True, it's a recognized technical meaning. But it's still obscure and
confusing--especially since nothing in the dictionary lets anyone know that
the more common meaning (for an engine to stop inadvertently) is never used
by pilots with regard to an airplane's engine.

--Gary

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
news:wbryc.11638$eu.9579@attbi_s02...
>
> True, it's a recognized technical meaning. But it's still obscure and
> confusing--especially since nothing in the dictionary lets anyone know
that
> the more common meaning (for an engine to stop inadvertently) is never
used
> by pilots with regard to an airplane's engine.
>

It's in a standard dictionary, and no more technical than the definition
immediately preceding it, "the sudden, unintended loss of power or
effectiveness in an engine." Perhaps the problem is the rather limited
vocabulary of most journalists?

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 6/10/04 11:57 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article t, Steven P.
>> McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:
>>
>>> Getting the story is far more important than getting
>>> the story right. That's the state of journalism today.
>>
>> I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph Hearst
>> told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
>> pictures, I'll supply the war".
>
>
> Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?

I'm not sure how in the world you came to that conclusion, because
absolutely nothing in my statement indicates that I believe that to be the
case.

The state of journalism in this country may be poor, but it's certainly not
helped by the state of reading comprehension.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
> wrote on 6/10/04 11:57 PM:
>
> >
> > "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> in article t, Steven
P.
> >> McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:
> >>
> >>> Getting the story is far more important than getting
> >>> the story right. That's the state of journalism today.
> >>
> >> I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph
Hearst
> >> told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
> >> pictures, I'll supply the war".
> >
> >
> > Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?
>
> I'm not sure how in the world you came to that conclusion, because
> absolutely nothing in my statement indicates that I believe that to be the
> case.
>
> The state of journalism in this country may be poor, but it's certainly
not
> helped by the state of reading comprehension.

Maybe if you understood that your alluding conduct of an entire industry to
a single individual?

Maybe if people had better WRITING comprehension, much less critical
thinking ability...

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 6/12/04 11:25 AM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>> in article , Tom Sixkiller at
>> wrote on 6/10/04 11:57 PM:
>>
>>>
>>> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> in article t, Steven
> P.
>>>> McNicoll at wrote on 6/10/04 7:31 PM:
>>>>
>>>>> Getting the story is far more important than getting
>>>>> the story right. That's the state of journalism today.
>>>>
>>>> I really doubt that it's ever been different. As William Randolph
> Hearst
>>>> told one of his photographers over a hundred years ago, "You supply the
>>>> pictures, I'll supply the war".
>>>
>>>
>>> Hearst was the entire newspaper industry?
>>
>> I'm not sure how in the world you came to that conclusion, because
>> absolutely nothing in my statement indicates that I believe that to be the
>> case.
>>
>> The state of journalism in this country may be poor, but it's certainly
> not
>> helped by the state of reading comprehension.
>
> Maybe if you understood that your alluding conduct of an entire industry to
> a single individual?

I was doing nothing of the sort, of course.

> Maybe if people had better WRITING comprehension

Why don't you fix your punctuation before you go off on this particular
tangent, 'kay?

>, much less critical
> thinking ability...

No wonder you hate the media...they're simply too complicated for you.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
...
> > Maybe if you understood that your alluding conduct of an entire industry
to
> > a single individual?
>
> I was doing nothing of the sort, of course.

Yes, you were, of course.

>
> > Maybe if people had better WRITING comprehension
>
> Why don't you fix your punctuation before you go off on this particular
> tangent, 'kay?

Why don't you asnwer the question and staop making excuses, brat.

>
> >, much less critical
> > thinking ability...
>
> No wonder you hate the media...they're simply too complicated for you.

Sure, punk...you and your 6th grade (public school) mentality.

[Philip Sondericker]

in article , Tom Sixkiller at
wrote on 6/12/04 8:35 PM:

>
> "Philip Sondericker" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> Maybe if you understood that your alluding conduct of an entire industry
> to
>>> a single individual?
>>
>> I was doing nothing of the sort, of course.
>
> Yes, you were, of course.

Nonsense. In response to Mr. McNicoll's assertion that "Getting the story is
far more important than getting the story right", I cited the Hearst example
in order to illustrate that such a state of affairs was nothing new.

>>> Maybe if people had better WRITING comprehension
>>
>> Why don't you fix your punctuation before you go off on this particular
>> tangent, 'kay?
>
> Why don't you asnwer the question and staop making excuses, brat.

There was a question?

>>> , much less critical
>>> thinking ability...
>>
>> No wonder you hate the media...they're simply too complicated for you.
>
> Sure, punk...you and your 6th grade (public school) mentality.

I'm sorry you're confused, Tom. All of this is really quite simple and easy
to follow, believe me. You just have to try harder.

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:fjoyc.44

> Geeez...you can't even follow the point for a few paragraphs. Here it is
> again for your limited attention span (does that come with the job?) -
their
> viewship is down _dramatically_.

Second ad hom attack. I have no interest in your uneducated opinion or
personal attacks and, given your penchant for talking about things for which
you have no education or professional background, I would not dare fly with
you either.

Your opinion means nothing to me.

*plonk*

-c

[gatt]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message news:ydoyc.41

> Okay...he's a clue that supports Steven's and my contention: You don't
know
> dick about capitalism (which has to closely guard it's reputation...also,
> what we have under the FCC is certainly not capitalism, but I'm sure you
got
> the opposite info in journalsim school), but you (and your cohorts) love
to
> shoot your mouths off.

More ad hominem attacks. Classy. Ya can't talk about a subject with
somebody who has a degree and management experience in the subject, so you
belitte my education and experience. I guess you know everything about
everything. Classic usenet trash.

*plonk*

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> If you have a degree in journalism you are obviously biased.

LOL!

That's classic.

=c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> More ad hominem attacks. Classy. Ya can't talk about a subject with
> somebody who has a degree and management experience in the subject,
> so you belitte my education and experience. I guess you know everything
> about everything. Classic usenet trash.
>

Poor journalists are not born, they're created in journalism schools.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > That's somewhat naive.
> >
> No, it isn't.

Okay. I'm sure you know all about it. I studied under a two-time Pulizer
winner, earned a degree in journalism, won national awards for my stories
and edited and managed a magazine.

I'm sure your credentials are staggering. There are also people who ride
on airliners who think they can fly better than the pilot every time they
hit turbulence. Keep jamming on that Flight Attendant Call button and
pestering the crew and maybe the turbulence will stop.

-c

[gatt]

"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, then, or did their teaching fail
you? How do you "know" how the media works?

=-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > That is inaccurate, not to mention impossible.
> >
> Actually, it is both accurate and possible.

I'm sure you know all about it because you read newspapers and watch TV news
and stuff, and it makes you an expert.

By that logic, being a passenger on airlines makes passengers know more
about the aviation industry than pilots.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Okay. I'm sure you know all about it.
>

You're right.


>
> I studied under a two-time Pulizer
> winner, earned a degree in journalism, won national awards for my stories
> and edited and managed a magazine.
>

Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> It's in a standard dictionary, and no more technical than the definition
> immediately preceding it, "the sudden, unintended loss of power or
> effectiveness in an engine." Perhaps the problem is the rather limited
> vocabulary of most journalists?

Most pilots suck too. I mean, explain turbulence. I done flew lots of
times on them big 707s and whatnot. It's all, you know, bounce bounce
bounce. I mean, Jethro, I ain't no pilot or nothin' but, dang, how come
them airplanes is always a-crashin' and whatnot?

Why, *I* could fly the dern plane better than that. I just don't want to is
all.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Ummm...and their market share has been doing...what lately?
> >
> Ummm...crashing.

We live in a society in which more young adults voted for the next American
Idol than the last president. And, gee...why might the news media market
share crashing?

'Cause everybody who watches the news already knows everything, probably.

=c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> I'm sure you know all about it because you read newspapers and
> watch TV news and stuff, and it makes you an expert.
>

No, I know all about it because I seek out more reliable sources of
information.


>
> By that logic, being a passenger on airlines makes passengers know more
> about the aviation industry than pilots.
>

Bad analogy.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Most pilots suck too.
>

Perhaps, but most pilots don't fly for a living. Professional pilots as a
group are far better at their craft than professional journalists are at
theirs.

[Bill Denton]

I can't tell who said what in this thread, but my comments are directed at
whoever wrote: "They taught me to write about what I know".

May I suggest that you probably have a very good case for a tuition refund?
"Write about what you know" is the mantra of creative writing courses, not
J-school.

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.

Your beeper goes off at 3:00 AM, drive 50 miles into the middle of nowhere,
and there's your story. You don't have the slightest idea what you are
looking at, and there are no experts around to explain it. And what does a
real journalist do? He/she looks at the camera and says:

"I am standing in front of a vast crater, approximately one mile across. I
cannot determine how deep it is, some type of smoke is wafting up from the
bottom. The crater is surrounded by large, unidentifiable, torn and broken
pieces of metal, each about four to five feet long and two or three feet
thick."

That's how the pros do it. You don't need to know anything about it to
report it, as long as you stick to what you observe with your senses. If you
know something about the story, put that information in, but only what you
actually know. And keep your BS detector on high; possessing a uniform
doesn't make someone an expert, neither does possessing a degree.



"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "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, then, or did their teaching
fail
> you? How do you "know" how the media works?
>
> =-c
>
>

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"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.
>
> Your beeper goes off at 3:00 AM, drive 50 miles into the middle of
nowhere,
> and there's your story. You don't have the slightest idea what you are
> looking at, and there are no experts around to explain it. And what does a
> real journalist do? He/she looks at the camera and says:
>
> "I am standing in front of a vast crater, approximately one mile across. I
> cannot determine how deep it is, some type of smoke is wafting up from the
> bottom. The crater is surrounded by large, unidentifiable, torn and broken
> pieces of metal, each about four to five feet long and two or three feet
> thick."
>
> That's how the pros do it. You don't need to know anything about it to
> report it, as long as you stick to what you observe with your senses. If
you
> know something about the story, put that information in, but only what you
> actually know. And keep your BS detector on high; possessing a uniform
> doesn't make someone an expert, neither does possessing a degree.
>

Exactly. A good journalist stands in place of your eyes and ears and
describes the scene or event, unemotionally, because you can't be there.
But good journalism doesn't sell newspapers or win awards.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Okay. I'm sure you know all about it.
> >
> You're right.

LOL! So, where did you get all this knowledge? I mean, if my Pulitzer
Prize winning advisor and national writing awards don't qualify me to
comment about the media as much as you, I want my journalism education to be
as good as yours.

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

> Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.

Won any yourself?

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > More ad hominem attacks. Classy. Ya can't talk about a subject with
> > somebody who has a degree and management experience in the subject,
> > so you belitte my education and experience. I guess you know everything
> > about everything. Classic usenet trash.

> Poor journalists are not born, they're created in journalism schools.

Strawman, but, entertain me. Which journalism schools? Can ya name any or
are you still talking out of your ass? Name a journalism school. Where'd
you learn about journalism? The internet?

Are you one of those guys that knows more than your doctor, flies better
than your airline pilot and knows you could fix your car better than your
mechanic, too?

-c

[gatt]

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message news:40ce12e4$0$3044

> "I am standing in front of a vast crater, approximately one mile across. I
> cannot determine how deep it is, some type of smoke is wafting up from the
> bottom. The crater is surrounded by large, unidentifiable, torn and broken
> pieces of metal, each about four to five feet long and two or three feet
> thick."

That is solid reporting. Now, if locals tell you they saw lights in the sky
and little green men running around, as they're prone to do in these kinds
of stories, it gets a little more complicated.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> LOL! So, where did you get all this knowledge?
>

Here and there.


>
> I mean, if my Pulitzer
> Prize winning advisor and national writing awards don't qualify me to
> comment about the media as much as you, I want my journalism education
> to be as good as yours.
>

A worthy goal.


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

Some, sports and sci/fi mostly. I find TV to be a rather poor source of
information.


>
> Won any yourself?
>

Oh, no. I lack the liberal bias required of award-winning journalism.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Exactly. A good journalist stands in place of your eyes and ears and
> describes the scene or event, unemotionally, because you can't be there.

....and has to deal with clueless flaks who know jack squat about what
journalists have to do in order to get that information, and even if they do
report well, be assured there are plenty of know-it-alls out there to
correct them and trash talk them anyway.

>But good journalism doesn't sell newspapers or win awards.

Sure thing, Professor.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" >

> "gatt" > wrote in message

> > I'm sure you know all about it because you read newspapers and
> > watch TV news and stuff, and it makes you an expert.
> >
> No, I know all about it because I seek out more reliable sources of
> information.

You know "all about it." *cackle* Remember, Professor, that unless the
information comes from God Himself, it came to you through sources
collectively known as "the media."

> > By that logic, being a passenger on airlines makes passengers know more
> > about the aviation industry than pilots.
> >
> Bad analogy.

Oh, sure. Sure it is.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> Perhaps, but most pilots don't fly for a living. Professional pilots as a
> group are far better at their craft than professional journalists are at
> theirs.

Cite a source. (Preferably one that could pass the entrance interview for
either industry.)

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Strawman, but, entertain me. Which journalism schools? Can ya
> name any or are you still talking out of your ass? Name a journalism
> school.
>

Ehh? Are you saying journalists don't go to journalism school? Or are you
saying there are no poor journalists?


>
> Where'd you learn about journalism? The internet?
>

Primarily by examining the work of journalists. Where'd you learn about it?


>
> Are you one of those guys that knows more than your doctor, flies better
> than your airline pilot and knows you could fix your car better than your
> mechanic, too?
>

No, but I am one of those guys that understands what constitutes good
journalism.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...and has to deal with clueless flaks who know jack squat about what
> journalists have to do in order to get that information, and even if they
do
> report well, be assured there are plenty of know-it-alls out there to
> correct them and trash talk them anyway.
>

You just don't get it.

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
>
> > > Okay. I'm sure you know all about it.
> > >
> > You're right.
>
> LOL! So, where did you get all this knowledge? I mean, if my Pulitzer
> Prize winning advisor and national writing awards don't qualify me to
> comment about the media as much as you, I want my journalism education to
be
> as good as yours.
>
> Enlighten us. Where did you get your media expertise? Let me guess. You
> watch TV.
>
> > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
>
> Won any yourself?

Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
Doesn't do much for the credability of the award.


>
> -c
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill Denton" > wrote in message
news:40ce12e4$0$3044
>
> > "I am standing in front of a vast crater, approximately one mile across.
I
> > cannot determine how deep it is, some type of smoke is wafting up from
the
> > bottom. The crater is surrounded by large, unidentifiable, torn and
broken
> > pieces of metal, each about four to five feet long and two or three feet
> > thick."
>
> That is solid reporting.

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

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > LOL! So, where did you get all this knowledge?
> >
> Here and there.

Nice dodge. I'm sure that qualifies you as an expert witness. In other
words, you read it on the internet. What have you published?

> > I mean, if my Pulitzer
> > Prize winning advisor and national writing awards don't qualify me to
> > comment about the media as much as you, I want my journalism education
> > to be as good as yours.
> >
> A worthy goal.

In other words, you can't address the argument so you're going to be
flippant. If I want to talk to somebody who is flippant, arrogant, clueless
and convinced he knows about everything, I'll go find a teenager at the
mall.

Guys like you aren't the people that folks with actual credentials and
accomplishments behind what we say take seriously, so consider this
discussion ended.

-c

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53

> > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> >
> > Won any yourself?
>
> Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?

Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.

> 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?
-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > Strawman, but, entertain me. Which journalism schools? Can ya
> > name any or are you still talking out of your ass? Name a journalism
> > school.
> >
> Ehh? Are you saying journalists don't go to journalism school? Or are
you
> saying there are no poor journalists?

Ah. Not even a good attempt at a dodge. I asked you to name a journalism
school and you failed. Either you're attention deficit, or dodging. Either
way, you don't know what you're talking about and don't have anything to
back up your opinion. I do.

In common terminology, you're talking out of your ass. I'm not.

-c

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
>
> > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > >
> > > Won any yourself?
> >
> > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
>
> Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
>
> > 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?
> -c

I have not noticed that the media has an aversion to feeding on itself, in
fact I suspect they rather enjoy sticking it to the competition. It's good
for ratings you know. As I remember it was a reporter for the New York
Times or some such big name paper that got caught and was de-Pulitzered.

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> You just don't get it.

You simply have not displayed a single qualification to say, with any
authority, what I do or do not get. Your opinion here is worth nothing.

-c

[gatt]

"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?

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's an opinion from somebody on the internet. Do you have supporting
> data?
>

Get serious.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Guys like you aren't the people that folks with actual credentials and
> accomplishments behind what we say take seriously, so consider this
> discussion ended.
>

You're part of the problem with journalism today.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> You simply have not displayed a single qualification to say, with any
> authority, what I do or do not get. Your opinion here is worth nothing.
>

I didn't attend a journalism school. You did. That makes me more qualified
than you.

[Rich Ahrens]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545
>>
>>
>>>>I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
>>>>story right.
>>>
>>>Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
>>>for one thing.
>>
>>Yep. Consumer demand.
>
>
> Look up the word "whore".

Look up the word "capitalist."

[Rich Ahrens]

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?

[Dave Stadt]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
>
> > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > >
> > > Won any yourself?
> >
> > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
>
> Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
>
> > 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?
> -c

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

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> You know "all about it." *cackle* Remember, Professor, that unless the
> information comes from God Himself, it came to you through sources
> collectively known as "the media."
>

And some sources have proven to be more reliable than others.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> Cite a source. (Preferably one that could pass the entrance interview for
> either industry.)
>

It's a my own observation. My source is me.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Strawman, but, entertain me. Which journalism schools? Can ya
> > name any or are you still talking out of your ass? Name a journalism
> > school.
> >
>
> Ehh? Are you saying journalists don't go to journalism school? Or are
you
> saying there are no poor journalists?
>
>
> >
> > Where'd you learn about journalism? The internet?
> >
>
> Primarily by examining the work of journalists. Where'd you learn about
it?
>
>
> >
> > Are you one of those guys that knows more than your doctor, flies better
> > than your airline pilot and knows you could fix your car better than
your
> > mechanic, too?
> >
>
> No, but I am one of those guys that understands what constitutes good
> journalism.

I think "gatt" is doing a good job of proving your point, Steve.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > ...and has to deal with clueless flaks who know jack squat about what
> > journalists have to do in order to get that information, and even if
they
> do
> > report well, be assured there are plenty of know-it-alls out there to
> > correct them and trash talk them anyway.
> >
>
> You just don't get it.
>
'Course not...he's only a journalist.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
ink.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > You simply have not displayed a single qualification to say, with any
> > authority, what I do or do not get. Your opinion here is worth nothing.
> >
>
> I didn't attend a journalism school. You did. That makes me more
qualified
> than you.

Tom Sowell makes a similar point about teachers and the schools of education
:~)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
> >
> > > > Okay. I'm sure you know all about it.
> > > >
> > > You're right.
> >
> > LOL! So, where did you get all this knowledge? I mean, if my Pulitzer
> > Prize winning advisor and national writing awards don't qualify me to
> > comment about the media as much as you, I want my journalism education
to
> be
> > as good as yours.
> >
> > Enlighten us. Where did you get your media expertise? Let me guess.
You
> > watch TV.
> >
> > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> >
> > Won any yourself?
>
> Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
> Doesn't do much for the credability of the award.
>
Tawana (sp...I could look it up, but I'm in a hurry to post this) Brawley,
1980.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
> >
> > > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > > >
> > > > Won any yourself?
> > >
> > > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
> >
> > Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
> >
> > > 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?
> > -c
>
> I have not noticed that the media has an aversion to feeding on itself, in
> fact I suspect they rather enjoy sticking it to the competition. It's
good
> for ratings you know. As I remember it was a reporter for the New York
> Times or some such big name paper that got caught and was de-Pulitzered.
>
Washington Times, Tawana Brawley, 1980

If you can find it: "Newspapers Without News" - Jerry Schwartz, Atlanta
Constitution, 1981, was a great multi-part series.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
gy.com...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > 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?

What a scum bag.

> > -c
>
> Janet Cooke, Washington Post, 1981. She made up a story about an 8 year
old
> heroin addict. The story was a total fabrication.
>
That's the one. There's been others as well that didn't get awards, but
then, the topic was media inaccuracy, not their lies and hypocrisy. The pulp
to write the stories of outright lies, distortions and misrepresentations
could denude a forest.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "gatt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > That's an opinion from somebody on the internet. Do you have supporting
> > data?
> >
>
> Get serious.
>

It sounds more like he getting desperate.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
isi.com...
> Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>
> > "gatt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >
> >>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545
> >>
> >>
> >>>>I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
> >>>>story right.
> >>>
> >>>Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
> >>>for one thing.
> >>
> >>Yep. Consumer demand.
> >
> >
> > Look up the word "whore".
>
> Look up the word "capitalist."

That's a "capitalist" that'll be out of business quite soon...just like any
other hokey merchant....as the mainstream media is rapidly learning.

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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?

[Bill Denton]

This subject seems to be getting all twisted up...

Tawana Brawley was a black teenager who clamed she had been beaten and raped
by New York City police officers, a story she later recanted. In the interim
Al Sharpton tried to make a big deal about it. The only role the media
played in this one is covering the story.

Someone previously posted about the reporter who "invented" a child heroin
addict. IIRC this reporter was in Washington, DC.

The name everyone is looking for is Jason Blair, a black reporter for the
New York Times. He both invented stories and plagiarized other's works.
Somehow affirmative action enabled him to escape detection.

Other people also lost their jobs in the Blair matter.

IIRC, as a result of the company-wide investigation initiated by the Blair
situation, others lost their jobs.

Also, IIRC, the New York Times returned Pulitzer Prizes it had received in
previous years when investigation revealed they may not have been deserved.

And recently, USA Today dismissed several people for misconduct related to
the content of the paper.

Hope that clears some of this up...




"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "gatt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
> > >
> > > > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > > > >
> > > > > Won any yourself?
> > > >
> > > > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up
story?
> > >
> > > Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
> > >
> > > > 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?
> > > -c
> >
> > I have not noticed that the media has an aversion to feeding on itself,
in
> > fact I suspect they rather enjoy sticking it to the competition. It's
> good
> > for ratings you know. As I remember it was a reporter for the New York
> > Times or some such big name paper that got caught and was de-Pulitzered.
> >
> Washington Times, Tawana Brawley, 1980
>
> If you can find it: "Newspapers Without News" - Jerry Schwartz, Atlanta
> Constitution, 1981, was a great multi-part series.
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

Bill Denton wrote:
>
> IIRC, as a result of the company-wide investigation initiated by the Blair
> situation, others lost their jobs.

The chief editor was sacked; maybe others. His side of the story was in the Atlantic
a couple months back.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[Gary Drescher]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
> > Tom Sixkiller wrote:
> > >
> > > Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?
> >
> > Because Fox is better at whoring?
>
> Like your Mom?

By capitalizing "mom", you transformed the word into a proper noun, which
makes it refer to the person whom you yourself address by that name. Perhaps
that is not what you were attempting to express.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> I think "gatt" is doing a good job of proving your point, Steve.
>

Without realizing it, of course.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
...
>
> Tawana (sp...I could look it up, but I'm in a hurry to post this) Brawley,
> 1980.
>

As I recall, that wasn't a totally made up story, it was a totally made up
event. Perpetrated primarily by Democratic presidential candidate Al
Sharpton.

[gatt]

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.

But...we know better, right?

-c

"Bill Denton" > wrote in message
...
> This subject seems to be getting all twisted up...
>
> Tawana Brawley was a black teenager who clamed she had been beaten and
raped
> by New York City police officers, a story she later recanted. In the
interim
> Al Sharpton tried to make a big deal about it. The only role the media
> played in this one is covering the story.
>
> Someone previously posted about the reporter who "invented" a child heroin
> addict. IIRC this reporter was in Washington, DC.
>
> The name everyone is looking for is Jason Blair, a black reporter for the
> New York Times. He both invented stories and plagiarized other's works.
> Somehow affirmative action enabled him to escape detection.
>
> Other people also lost their jobs in the Blair matter.
>
> IIRC, as a result of the company-wide investigation initiated by the Blair
> situation, others lost their jobs.
>
> Also, IIRC, the New York Times returned Pulitzer Prizes it had received in
> previous years when investigation revealed they may not have been
deserved.
>
> And recently, USA Today dismissed several people for misconduct related to
> the content of the paper.
>
> Hope that clears some of this up...
>
>
>
>
> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > >
> > > "gatt" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > >
> > > > "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
> > > >
> > > > > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Won any yourself?
> > > > >
> > > > > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up
> story?
> > > >
> > > > Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
> > > >
> > > > > 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?
> > > > -c
> > >
> > > I have not noticed that the media has an aversion to feeding on
itself,
> in
> > > fact I suspect they rather enjoy sticking it to the competition. It's
> > good
> > > for ratings you know. As I remember it was a reporter for the New
York
> > > Times or some such big name paper that got caught and was
de-Pulitzered.
> > >
> > Washington Times, Tawana Brawley, 1980
> >
> > If you can find it: "Newspapers Without News" - Jerry Schwartz, Atlanta
> > Constitution, 1981, was a great multi-part series.
> >
> >
>
>

[G.R. Patterson III]

gatt wrote:
>
> 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.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

[gatt]

"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

[gatt]

"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40ce6ae0$0$32614

> > Then why is Fox stomping their asses, huh?
>
> Because Fox is better at whoring?

I particularly appreciated the sentimental soundtrack and loop slow-motion
video clips of the 9/11 crashes they played ad nauseum. As a rule, if they
have to use a soundtrack to emotionalize a straight news story, it's both
poor journalism AND biased.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> "Tom Sixkiller" > wrote in message

> > I think "gatt" is doing a good job of proving your point, Steve.
> >
> Without realizing it, of course.

LOL! The two little media-expert elves (trolls? fairies?) unite! Now
they're twice as clueless.

I bet neither of them has ever so much as -attempted- to write or publish an
actual news article. Maybe if they go hang out at the international airport
they'll be air transport experts, too.

-c

[gatt]

"Steven P. McNicoll" > wrote in message

> > You simply have not displayed a single qualification to say, with any
> > authority, what I do or do not get. Your opinion here is worth nothing.
> >
> I didn't attend a journalism school. You did. That makes me more
qualified
> than you.

That's awesome. "I'm uneducated so I know more than you do." Wow...just
think of how much smarter you'd be if you never learned to read at all.

I bet you'd fly better if you'd never taken lessons. That's assuming, of
course, that you actually fly at all. Welcome to my killfile.

-c

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> LOL! The two little media-expert elves (trolls? fairies?) unite! Now
> they're twice as clueless.
>
> I bet neither of them has ever so much as -attempted- to write or publish
an
> actual news article. Maybe if they go hang out at the international
airport
> they'll be air transport experts, too.
>

I have an idea. Why don't you provide a sample of your journalistic efforts
so we can judge the quality of your work? Let us see if you're a competent
journalist or not.

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>
> That's awesome. "I'm uneducated so I know more than you do." Wow...just
> think of how much smarter you'd be if you never learned to read at all.
>

You consider someone that hasn't attended journalism school to be
uneducated? How arrogant! You've just illustrated the primary problem with
journalism today.

[gatt]

"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

[John Galban]

"gatt" > wrote in message >...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:CRpzc.53
>
> > > > Biased journalists regularly receive journalism awards.
> > >
> > > Won any yourself?
> >
> > Didn't somebody not too long ago win one for a totally made up story?
>
> Cite, please. Let me guess: You heard it on the news.
>
> > 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?

Well he did provide a correct reference to Janet Cooke. If she
hadn't publicly admitted it, yes, I would be skeptical.

Even well known journalists from major outlets are not above faking
it when they don't have the facts. More recent examples are Jack
Keller (5 time Pulitzer nominee) USA Today, Rick Bragg (Pulitzer
winner) NYT and Stephen Glass TNR. There are more, but I think you
get the point.

Gatt, after the hatchet job piece that CBS did on GA security, I
don't think you'll get many in here to believe that journalistic
ethics are what they are purported to be.

I was personally the subject of a local hatchet job after a plane
crash. It was reported by a local TV station that I had been
violating restricted airspace and had probably run out of fuel. None
of it was true, but it was picked up and repeated by other reporters.
When I contacted the original reporter to correct him, he told me that
his source was a (non-pilot) government employee who did not witness
the crash, but was working near the crash site. Very impressive
reporting. When I asked about a retraction or correction, the reporter
laughed and said it was "yesterday's news" and nobody cared anymore.

Ironically, a few years later, another local outlet stopped me at
the airport and asked if I would speculate about the cause of a recent
crash. I told them I had no factual information about the crash.
They said that was OK, would I do it anyway? I laughed and walked
away. That night, I was amused to see the FBO's (non-pilot) lineboy
on TV, spewing drivel about the cause of the crash.

I long ago lost faith in what the talking/writing heads had to tell
me. Getting the fastest or most tittilating story has become more
important than reporting the facts. Of course, with your background,
you should know that.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Rich Ahrens]

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

> "Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message
> isi.com...
>
>>Tom Sixkiller wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"gatt" > wrote in message
...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"Rich Ahrens" > wrote in message news:40c92722$0$78545
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>I've often wondered why getting the story first trumped getting the
>>>>>>story right.
>>>>>
>>>>>Because they're rewarded by the readers/viewers for getting it first,
>>>>>for one thing.
>>>>
>>>>Yep. Consumer demand.
>>>
>>>
>>>Look up the word "whore".
>>
>>Look up the word "capitalist."
>
>
> That's a "capitalist" that'll be out of business quite soon...just like any
> other hokey merchant....as the mainstream media is rapidly learning.

Oh sure. Meeting consumer demand is a sure way to go out of business...

[Rich Ahrens]

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.

[Jack]

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

[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

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[Judah]

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
>
>

[Dave Stadt]

"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.

[Jack]

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

[Paul Sengupta]

"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

[Paul Sengupta]

"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

[Tom Sixkiller]

"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.

[[email protected]]

On 8 Jun 2004 10:06:45 -0700, (John Clear) wrote:

>>Stall = Engine stall?? Why do they always seem to screw this up??
>
>Because the aviation use of 'stall' is totally foreign to them, and
>they know what an engine stall is, and assume that is what happened.
>
>I think whoever suggested replacing aerodynamic stall with the term
>'wing fart' (Jim Weir maybe?) has the right idea. The only way to
>get the general public to not think stall = engine stall is to use
>a term that has no meaning to the general public.

This subject comes up in this group periodically. Several years ago
an airplane made an off field landing in upstate NY across lake
Champlain from Vermont. As he approached the field, his passenger
panicked and pulled the yoke back causing the airplane to stall and
pancake in too hard. No one was seriously injured but the airplane
wiped out it's landing gear.

The newswoman reading her copy said: "The passenger pulled the yoke
back causing the engine to stall."

It's perfectly normal for non aviators to interpret the word "stall"
that way because the only connection they have to the word is
literally an automobile engine stall. They *KNOW* what happens when
they stall their car and have no idea that stalling in an airplane is
anything different.

At one point, I proposed a survey in which we submitted a different
word to use for the aerodynamic stall. One of those suggestions was
"wing fart". Another was LOL for "Loss of Lift". My wife really
liked LOL and went around from then on chortling "LOL", watch out for
"LOL".

It was easy for her to understand what that meant. But like any non
aviator, even married to someone who is as fanatic about flight as I
am, she did not understand what a stall meant in aerodynamic terms.

So now I refer to a stall as LOL, while around her.

And yes, I did call the news station and spoke with someone there
about their use of the term. I asked the man who picked up the phone
if he realised that it meant something other than the engine quitting
and he said no, he did not. He told me he appreciated the information
and that he'd pass it on. Don't know if he did though.

Corky Scott

[[email protected]]

On Wed, 9 Jun 2004 14:45:07 -0700, "Tom Sixkiller" >
wrote:

>I work in Civil Engineering and when one of our people don't the answer,
>they ask around to find someone who does. It's not hard, really.

The problem here Tom is that they don't know they are making a
mistake. To them, "stall" means the engine quit. And since having
the engine quit means the airplane comes down, not infrequently being
damaged when it meets earth, it makes perfect sense to them.

Corky Scott

[gatt]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in message news:bzPzc.1747

> 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.

If a pilot wrecks his plane while under the influence of alcohol, he abused
alcohol and his flying status. That does not, however, speak for all pilots
(or all alcohol consumers.)

> Once the "media" turned into entertainment it was guaranteed to happen.

Once general aviation turned into a hobby, it was guaranteed to happen. ;>

-c

[gatt]

"John Galban" > wrote in message

> Gatt, after the hatchet job piece that CBS did on GA security, I
> don't think you'll get many in here to believe that journalistic
> ethics are what they are purported to be.

Well, they certainly advertise a greater level of service than they provide.

> I was personally the subject of a local hatchet job after a plane
> crash. It was reported by a local TV station that I had been
> violating restricted airspace and had probably run out of fuel. None
> of it was true, but it was picked up and repeated by other reporters.
> When I contacted the original reporter to correct him, he told me that
> his source was a (non-pilot) government employee who did not witness
> the crash, but was working near the crash site. Very impressive
> reporting. When I asked about a retraction or correction, the reporter
> laughed and said it was "yesterday's news" and nobody cared anymore.

That's unfortunate. For some people getting published is intoxicating and it
leads to the abuse of their position. It happens. What you can do is write
the publisher, write the editor-in-chief and, especially, write a letter to
the editor for publication so that you can tell your side of the story.
A -good- editor will carry the article if it's succinct and reasonably
well-written. Most editors will run them if they're at least interesting.
You get bonus points if your letter to the editor is more interesting than
the original story.

> I long ago lost faith in what the talking/writing heads had to tell
> me.

Part of the problem has to do with the lack of science education in the
media. I mentioned in another thread that the department head where I went
to school absolutely demanded science minors because of what he considered a
substantial weakness in the media and journalism industry. You're not wrong
at all in your opinions.

> Getting the fastest or most tittilating story has become more important
than reporting the >facts. Of course, with your background, you should know
that.

Historically speaking it's more accurate now than ever. How scary is that?
You should read the New York Times or the Tribune from the 1860s or, even
better, one of the southern papers. The idea of journalism ethics first took
root worldwide in the 20th century and is still evolving. I'd say it's in
its late adolescent phase but the problem is the sort of McJournalism people
expect today. Consumers don't WANT to wait for the accurate story. They
want it to be accurate all right, but they want it right NOW or they're
going to channel surf or put down the paper until they get it. And now,
they'll just surf the internet. We all know how reliable that is.

-c

[gatt]

"Jack" > wrote in message news:YzLzc.24672

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

It's a fiercely competitive industry, too. I suspect that's probably part of
it. If I, as a freelance writer, went downtown and interviewed somebody for
a very relevant local story, and got all the facts right and all the quotes
correct, I'd still have a tough time publishing the story.

If I was the first reporter on scene at a disaster, though, that's money in
the bank.

-c

[gatt]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message

> I think probably most people watch the television news or read
> newspapers. It's quite funny looking at the US media from outside.

Want to see something -really- funny? Check out http://www.aljazeera.com
(it's in english.) Yesterday, they had a financial investment banner ad
featuring Osama Bin Laden's face.

> Unfortunately not funny enough as the news seems to be going that
> way here in the UK too.

UK journalism is even more prone to tabloid than American. Check out Page 3
of The Sun (I sure as hell did when I was there for Robot Wars! :> )

If there was a downturn, it was the success of USAMcToday: News with
pretty colors and no difficult words.

=-c

[gatt]

"Paul Sengupta" > wrote in message
news:capge5$

> 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.

Ha. Hahaha. Hah. We've got those too and they're arguably the worst of the
problem because getting on television is their profession. Look at Fox:

Military correspondent: Ollie North
Trial/legal expert: Mark Furhman. (the racist who is why OJ Simpson is
free)
Field correspondent: Geraldo Rivera

To my knowledge there are no aviation correspondents in the major news
sources in America. Maybe they oughtta drop Bob Hoover a line.

-c

[gatt]

"Jack" > wrote in message news:dvLzc.24671$

> 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.

Then, in that case Jack, I believe you have a somewhat solid basis for your
opinions.

-c

[John Galban]

"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.

If you're interested in the subject, here's a site with some of the
more prominent cases :

http://www.cheatingculture.com/morecheatingjour.htm

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[gatt]

Fair comments, Judah.

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> 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]

"John Galban" > wrote in message

> If you're interested in the subject, here's a site with some of the
> more prominent cases :
>
> http://www.cheatingculture.com/morecheatingjour.htm

A friend of mine from college, who is now a professor at a Washington
university, says that academic dishonesty has become rampant and largely
unenforced. Basically, students get away with it more. This most likely
follows a real-world trend; people simply aren't as honest anymore because
things like honor have been diminished. Now, people perceive they're more
likely to be judged by the car they drive then by their personal integrity.

The terrible thing is that there are legitimate, idealistic young writers
out there begging for work in the industry while established names are being
rewarded for publishing falsehood and nonsense.

-c

[Paul Sengupta]

"gatt" > wrote in message
...
> UK journalism is even more prone to tabloid than American. Check out Page
3
> of The Sun (I sure as hell did when I was there for Robot Wars! :> )

:-)

Fortunately, we do have some "real" newspapers! If you think The Sun
is bad (and it is...a proper news story will be a small box somewhere on
one of the internal pages) try The Sport (or is it called The Daily Sport
these days...it started as just the Sunday Sport).

Paul