Media screws up again...

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

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?

Rich Ahrens wrote in message . visi.com...
Sam wrote:

Here's the link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...94/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.

"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

"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

"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.

"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.

"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

"Sam" wrote in message
om...
Here's the link:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...94/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

"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".