Pathetic media reporting
 

This doesn't fit perfectly into the safety forum, but I also didn't see a better place. Moderators: feel free to move it as you see fit.

We've all suffered through totally ignorant aviation news reports before. There is a lady in Wichita that has done something positive about it.

Here's a short excerpt from the blogger's example of typical pathetic reporting:
"(ANYWHERE, USA, Friday, July 5, 2013) A fixed-wing rotorcraft made an emergency takeoff upon landing two miles short of the departure end of the arrival runway at Poedunk Municipal Airport today. We've learned the crash involved a Skyokee-22, a six-passenger biplane with retractable wings. "

Airplanista Aviation Blog: No Room for Error: Why The Wichita Eagle's Molly McMillin Gets it Right

We spot these kinds of errors immediately, and so do others in many areas of expertise, the plain fact is that media is often negligent, often wrong and often has no interest in the truth or the story.

Their job is to create filler, content and sell ads. Their last concern is the quality of that content, if the truth conflicts with their opinion you will be rapidly steered away from the story.

Just Make Money
 

Bliddel; don't forget that the purpose of ANY "news" media outlet in today's environment is to sell ads. It's NOT to be accurate or factual, it's to sell ads and make money for the company.

The days of accurate news report went out with Walter Cronkite.

G'Day Mate:)

Heck yes! I only brought it up because the lady is a genuinely refreshing change, and really does report things accurately most of the time, and feels bad when she occasionally goofs. That she accurately reports aviation news seemed, well, newsworthy.

I'll never forget the time there was an Amtrak derailment in my hometown (with many injuries), while I was out of town on a long driving trip. The news that day (depending on the source) said the wreck occurred East, West, and South of town, when it actually occurred two blocks from the center of downtown. I learned right then and there that the news is whatever they want it to be, and not what really happened.

The last time I heard of an emergency takeoff was reading Flight of the Phoenix.

And to be the "first" to report. Facts are to be added later, if at all.

To add to this.....The desire to be the "first" to break a story has overshadowed the routine importance of fact checking the credibility and accuracy of a news story. Sensationalizing and reporting, just for the sake of reporting, is the name of the game. I think we give way too much freedom and flexibility to media outlets when they continuous get a pass by writing a page three retraction one week later or going on air to apologize for being given bad information.

Just look at the Asiana fake pilot names broadcast....I mean how dense can you be to not pick up on that. The media has become an industry of dolts who feed off their own reporting inaccuracies.

Just once I'd like to see an anchor do this -

Great movie if no one has yet seen it.
.

Although the sentiments here are noble, they reflect a basic misunderstanding of the media. Yes, of course the purpose of any media outlet is to make money. It's a business first and foremost, even though it has a public service mission.

Newspapers do some things very well, like covering local politics, crime, courts and sports. Aviation? Not so much. Stories on big airline crashes would be covered by the big papers or the Associated Press, so our guys would only be sent out to cover a local crash, typically a general aviation crash. The cops reporter would cover a plane crash, as he would often cover a bad car wreck as part of his duties. These guys were experts with police matters: charges, bail, arraignments and such. Do they know a King Air from a Pilatus? A Warrior from a Skyhawk? VFR from IFR? Of course not, why would they? 99% of all the inaccurate info on comes from the cops who provide the initial information or from eye witnesses who are trying to explain what they think they saw.

Would it be great if the media got the story right the first time, every time? Sure! How would they go about doing it? Let's say there was a fatal accident at a marina. Imagine you're the reporter. Stories like this happen once in a blue moon. You get the call and arrive on site. You weren't there when the crash happened, obviously, so your only sources of information are the police, who also responded after the fact, and (for example) an old couple who were walking their dog when they heard the noise of the crash. I don't know anything more about boats than the average person. Neither do the cops. Neither do the witnesses. How would you know if you were given bad info? If the cop told you what kind of boat it was, how would you know if he was right? What level of knowledge would you expect a local reporter to have about maritime rules and procedures? You're on deadline, and you don't time to independent verify everything you've been told. So, you write your story and attribute the facts to your sources.

Considering the demands of the job, and the ridiculously low pay, they do a pretty good job on the things cover routinely. With everything else, they do what they can.

This article from the Houston Chronicle.
The jist - the media takes a POSITIVE report and turns it into a NEGATIVE report. Even worse than just hyping a story or grandizing/sensationalizing it - but actually reversing the actuality of the news.

King: Media take nose dive on aviation safety reports - Houston Chronicle