"Jim Burns" wrote in message
...
Ah Jay, you're right, I wasn't being fair... it was all meant tongue in
cheek. I've actually been impressed with some of the TV networks that
hunt down their own reporters who are pilots to get their informed
opinion. Usually these pilots give a fairly intelligent accounting and are
usually quick to point out when they are speculating. 9 times out of 10
I'll try to look up their certificates on the FAA database.

Some markets are blessed with real pilot-reporters who can actually speak
with knowledge. We had a guy in Detroit for many years by the name of Mort
Crimm. He was a pilot and often did pieces about traveling in Michigan and
he would occassionally do a "Stand Up" from the left seat of a light plane.
It was very cool and probably did wonders for aviation in Michigan (if only
subliminally).

What I can't stand is when reporters use technical terms of a subject that
they have no knowledge and then churn them out pretending as if they know
what the H they are talking about WITHOUT so much as a casual attempt of
verifying the correct usage of such terms through another source than that
which had given them the term to begin with.

I just think you focus this complaint in terms of the scope of abilities per
given market size. It will happen much more often at smaller stations in
smaller markets because they just don't have the staffing ability that large
market stations and the networks posses. While "Judy Blondblue" of WCRP-TV
News is reporting on the winning pumpkin at the county fair today, she could
just as easily have to go report on ol' Doc Johnson stuffing his V-tail
Bonanza into a corn field tomorrow. If WCRP-TV is in Los Angeles, Miami or
Boston and they get it wrong, then I agree...let the brick bats fly. But,
if WCRP-TV is in Billings, North Platte or Ishpeming, then you really have
to temper the criticism with the understanding that most of the talking
heads you'll see on these stations are very new, very wet behind the ears,
very over worked, very underpaid and are just trying to put together a demo
reel so they can move to Buffalo, Dayton or Lansing. That is the dynamic of
the business.

We scream bloody murder everytime a reporter says "The engine stalled and
the plane crashed" because we know better. How cool would it be to know that
there is a cadre of legume officianados who are ****ed off because Judy
didn't get the genetics of that winning pumpkin right either? Is there even
a rec.mutant.legume newsgroup? Do they know there is a
rec.aviation.piloting? Do they care?

We have the ability to crucify the messenger (regarding aviation subjects)
because the message is near and dear to our hearts and wallets.

Take me for example. You really would not want to watch a sporting even on
TV with me in the room because I'll sit there and pick apart a sports
broadcast to the Nth degree. 95% of the nits will be of a technical nature
that I know you'd never even begin to notice much less care about. Why?
Because I can. It's my world, it's what I know and I have very strong
feelings about what works and what doesn't when covering, say, a football
game. I did NFL broadcasts for 11 years...I can find lots of nits.

I think the same applies to how the media portrays aviation. Most folks
don't give a flying fig. It's hits close to home with us because we're
pilots and accuracy matters because we know what real accuracy should be.
Mr and Mrs Suburbia, sitting on the couch after dinner, don't.

This "non-verification" is the crime because it fools the uninformed or
unfamiliar public into thinking "Well, she used those big terms...
glideslope and such.... and those initials, ILS... that must be pretty
important... it sure sounds like she knows what she's talking about."

Man you are giving the viewing public a lot of credit. Short of actually
coming out and saying "This Cessna and thousands just like it could have
fallen on your house and killed you today so be sure to spend all day
tomorrow walking around looking up..." most people have reached the M-E-G-O
(My Eyes Glaze Over) stage well before the reporter gets to the terms ILS,
Glideslope, etc. And in my opinion, that's the heart of the problem we as
pilots have with the mass media in this country. Brevity Rules so you get
style over substance. On the BBC, you'd probably get a very detailed and
accruate graphic showing the parts of an ILS and why they matter, a history
of aviation navigation (from bonfires to GPS), the way in which modern
avionics work and at least a thumbnail sketch of how WAAS-enabled GPS will
allow precision approaches to virtually all airports. Here, we get
soundbites and technobabble because that's all that fits in a story that
can't be more than 2:30 in length.

But to that end, do you think people would watch (or trust) a USBS (United
States Broadcasting Service) channel? People want to know that their media
is independant of the government. To most folks, "them news people" brought
down Nixon, got us out of Viet Nam and ended the Cold War. People forget
about the Washington Post reporter who fabricated the heroin-addicted little
girl, or the NY Times reporter who filed reports on stories he didn't
actually go cover.

Moreover, broadcasting in the United State is a "For Profit" enterprise.
And as such is subject to the same economic factors as Good Year,
Westinghouse, GM, Ford, Dairy Queen and Wendy's. "Do It Cheaper" is as
appropriate for ABC/NBC/CBS News as it is for Ingersol-Rand. We see it
every year in the Sports TV world too. They cut staff, they cut the number
of days we get and the facilities with which we get to do our jobs...but woe
on us if we don't get it on the air, quickly, cheaply and cleanly. Doesn't
stop them, however, from paying obscene fees for the rights to cover the
NFL, MLB, NASCAR etc. I'd love to see the business model that proves you
can make millions by spending billions. (But I digress...)

I just think that, especially in type media where time may not be such a
factor, a reporter has the responsibility to insure that the terminology is
correct so that their readers or viewers are informed and educated rather
than simply entertained. Think about everything this person could have
learned by looking up an ILS in the AIM before she wrote her story.

Well, the title is "Airman's Information Manual" not "Reporter's Aviation
Information Manual." I mean, do you keep a copy of Gray's Anatomy lying
around in case you pull a muscle or sneeze? Or a copy of Don Graff's Data
Sheets so you know exactly how big a regulation volley ball court is
supposed to be before you put the net up in the backyard? Not trying to be
a smartass here (well maybe a little g) but you are placing way to high a
level of expectation on your average local reporter. Should they have a
relieable contact regarding aviation issues? Should they have a secondary
contact to coroborate what the first contact says? Basic J-School 101 says
yes. But, flying is probably like open-heart surgery to a lot of people.
It can do good things but bad things can and do happen. You only need to
talk to one surgeon to get the risks of surgery so I only need one contact
to explain this flying-related thing. Perhaps we suffer because (and not
despite) our position as pilots? I've yet to see a single post here where
anyone has said "I don't understand XXX well enough to explain it to a
reporter better than how they explained it." Somebody explained it to the
reporter...let's go find who that was and ride him or her out of flying on a
rail.

Hmmm, now that you mention it, maybe AOPA should send free AIM/FARs to news
operations around the country. Easy to distribute on DVD or CD-ROM. Maybe
even include pre-produced copy or video segments explaining some of the
basic concepts like Lift/Weight/Thrust/Drag, Stalls, Glide Ratio,
Propulsion, ILSs, GPS, Missed Approaches, ATC, Airspace Classes, etc. (Note
to self: Contact Phil on Monday...)

It would have taken all of 5 minutes. She could have even mentioned
something about what a pilot is supposed to do if one part of the ILS
System is not functional or becomes erratic, rather than leaving the
reader or viewer to believe that doom is eminent in such situations.

Unfortunately, the universal truth is that Doom sells. The technical term
in the business is: "If it Bleeds, it Leads." (I didn't make it up and it's
been used far longer than I've been in TV.)

You're right that a reporter doesn't and shouldn't be required to have more
than the basic knowledge of aviation, or of any other subject for that
matter. I don't expect them to be experts. I just wish they didn't act
like they were.

Of course you don't, but the other 99% of the population does. They need to
know that the press is today still guarding Truth, Justice and the American
Way as it was with Murrow, Cronkite, Swayze, Broun, Woodward/Bernstein, et
al. They want and HAVE to know that Judy Blondblue is a straight shooter
and if she says ol' Doc Johnson's Bonanza engine stalled and that's why he's
dead, than damn it, it's true. And by extrapolation, all Bonanza's, hell,
all them little airplanes are dangerous and should be banned.

It's that same ability to extrapolate or connect that bothers *me* most
about local news. Local news operations (even the smallest ones) are
afforded immense credibility boosts by those promotional spots showing Brian
Williams or Dan Rather sitting on the corner of the WCRP-TV news desk next
to Judy Blondeblue and John Stonejaw convincing Ma and Pa Kettle that that
Brian or Dan work hand in hand with Judy and John to bring you the world's
events as they unfold. "The power of KCRP Action News and ABC
News...Together, we bring you the world." Barf... If it weren't for the
daily newsfeeds the networks send down the line and the syndicated pieces
that get sold to local stations, 7 out of 10 local news operations would dry
up and blow away.

Even the phrases "Eyewitness News" or "Action News" are copywritten and sold
to stations in package form by companies who profit from making over local
news operations. They go shoot the panoramic photo of downtown (Day, Dusk
and Night) for the backdrop, study the local market demographics, suggest
who stays and who should be fired, pick the color schemes for the sets, the
clothes for the anchor people, the wx man, the sports guy or gal and the
reporters. They design the on air graphics and come up with the ever
popular "Super Duper Doppler Storm Tracker 1900" for Channel 19 or "Storm
Watcher Outer 23000 - South Dakota's only live doppler radar" for good old
Channel 23 (forget the fact that maybe SD has only one WX radar site in the
entire state.)

Bottom line: Is it perfect? No. Is it entertainment? Some of it is, to be
sure. But you can glean nuggets out of the noise from time to time. Not
all reporters are idiots nor are all pilots perfect. I can't help chuckling
when I think that the most trusted man in America for many, many years
wasn't a politician, wasn't a rock star, wasn't an athelete, it was Walter
Cronkite ... a reporter. Go Figure.

Sorry for rambling but I get as riled up about accuracy ON the media as most
get about accuracy IN the media.

Jay Beckman - PP/ASEL
Arizona Cloudbusters
Chandler, AZ