"Jay Beckman" wrote in message
news:9KPMe.60890$E95.11876@fed1read01...


I don't belive this is entirely fair,

We take the time to get proper training to fly and (smart pilots) continue
their education at every turn via magazines, books, software, the web,
additonal ratings, refresher courses, BFRs...etc. Basic flying may not be
brain surgery, but it takes a little bit of "something" to do it at all
and maybe even more of that "something" to do it well.

Beginning to Intermediate electronic journalists (in the USA) have only
three tests to pass:

- Can you communicate in English?
- Can you do so in as concise a manner as possible?
- Can you look good doing it?


No, there is a fourth:

- Can you, within the first 30 seconds, find something within any story
that can be construed as negligence, and immediately begin speculation as to
who is "at fault"? (preferably a public/government figure, but any
recognizable entity will do.)

We can then spend the rest of the allotted time creating (unwarranted)
outrage. This will divert the public's attention from the point that we
haven't actually discovered any new facts.

But unless you have a reporter who is an instrument-rated pilot, the
expectation that anyone in the newsroom of a local TV station will have
anything more than very bare boned knowledge about modern avionics is
(IMO) an unrealistic expectation.

Local TV stations just can't afford to keep a "Science Editor" or
"Aviation Reporter" on staff.


"Can't" or *Won't*?. Is TV media about accurate reportage to the masses,
or about large dividends to the share-holders?

It's quite possible that the reporter simply regurgitated the basics of
flying an ILS exactly as they were explained to her. Garbage In - Garbage
Out. Or put another way: Dumbed Down In - Dumbed Down Even More Out.

TV media especially, perhaps once was "news", but is now simply
entertainment. For the most part, it is masking axe-to-grind political
commentators, as if they were actually news reporters... They alternate
that with masking fluff-heads to referee other political commentators.

The only place on TV to get "news", is from the text trailers. There, they
only have enough room to put in the facts: as in: "An Air France passenger
jet ran off the runway in Toronto"... That little, stands a reasonable
chance of being at least partially accurate.


Hell, even Miles O'Brien proved that sometimes the frenzy to get it on the
air first can lead even the most aviation-savvy network-level reporter to
make the occassional wild-ass guess as he did with the cause of that Air
France wreck in Toronto and the fate of those aboard.

Does TV news-programming still have the right to be called "press" in the
sense of the US First Amendment or the Canadian Bill-of-Rights? Or is it
just a game of "frenzy to get it on the air first"?

Ha-ha, I win? But the masses lose...