[PaulB]

Every time an aircraft accident, especially one involving GA, hits the press there are howls of derision about the way the (often emerging) story is reported.

Clearly this reporting lark is a cut-throat business with each reporter having to get the best angle on the story as quickly as possible, so what can be done to help them “get it right”?

It seem to me that they speak to people and research reference sources (like NOTAMs in the case of yesterday’s accident) but they don’t understand what the sources or the people are telling them so can’t assess whether they are even relevant, let alone important. There may be some element of misrepresentation too.

They used to always turn to “an expert” but we criticised that too! So what can we do? Any thoughts? When something like yesterday’s incident happens, it *is* going to get reported, so telling them not to isn’t going to work.

FWIW, I thought the BBC report on the 10:00 News last night was OK.

[Leodisflyer]

.

[Full Metal Jackass]

The question is, do we have to do anything? There will be people out there who read the reporting about an accident involving an aircraft built in the 60s/70s/80s and who will think that this had something to do with the accident. Or pilots who are in their 70s/80s/90s where Joe Public believes the age of the pilot obviously had something to do with the crash. In my mind, they can yell and screech as much as they like because - hopefully - the CAA / lawmakers will be staffed with people who understand why the accident happened and can filter out the sensationalism from the press and the calls for a knee jerk reaction but get to the root of the accident and take measures based on that.

Although having said that, I really would like to see some sort of mandate for (inexpensive) electronic conspicuity such as PAW. Let's not forget, 4 people lost their lives because see and avoid didn't work. We were fortunate we weren't reporting this back in January 2017 when a helicopter and a C152 came close to each other. over Wycombe.

[rikur_]

I also thought BBC 10pm news was ok in both tone and content.

Some rambling reflections from my own experience:

1) for almost any topic that I understand, what I read in mainstream press is usually wrong, or at best as the emphasis on the wrong aspects;
2) whilst larger media outlets will have specialist journalists for things like economics, politics, may be even a 'transport editor' - in the main coverage of events like this is going to fall to a generalist;
3) nowadays, twitter and google are the journos primary research tools - twitter will give you the what's going on now; Google can hunt for the underlying issues;
4) It's quite likely that the Telegraph journo has stumbled into this forum and picked up that that there are issues around airspace and air traffic control not always providing a service to light aircraft - that would be a nice scandal "authorities have known for years the growing risk of light aircraft collisions but have done nothing" ... "air traffic control closed due to staff shortages" ..... sadly readers want to read that (and want to believe it) far more than 'it appears it was simply an accident' (but note, speculation on here almost certainly will be read by at least some of those writing articles)
5) I've been "media trained" and have been put forward to the press as a "subject matter expert" to interview in previous roles. It lead to some quite good articles in niche media, but with mainstream media it often felt rushed, that they needed a quick soundbite rather than wishing to understand, and you spend the whole time treading on egg-shells to make sure than any individual sentence quoted in isolation isn't going to come back to haunt you.

When we had a fatal accident at our club last year, I was contacted by both the Daily Mail and ITV news within a few hours of the accident (I believe they found me through youtube footage of me in the aircraft concerned). With a quick chat with comrades at the flying club, we decided it was best to ignore them..... but potentially I was in the position to be able to comment simply through YouTube association, not necessarily any real expertise. The press coverage at the time ended up being fairly benign. In our case, the press coverage got a bit sillier around the time of the coroner's inquest - with headlines of 'flying coffins' and a story focused on how the airfield was 'unlicensed' and the pilots were not talking to air traffic control. The article completely missed previous USAF concerns about spin recovery of Firefly's, which might have been a lot more relevant to the accident.

Ultimately though - I think there's a underlying issue that more readers prefer a good scandal than hard facts and analysis. I travelled to London last week on a train with three very vocal businessmen. They ranted about various things - "they're not putting new trains on here any more because Branson's house has blown down and he's spending all the money on a new house instead" ... really? Do you really believe that? No - but it makes good conversation and a bit of railway bashing is what your comrades want to hear. Same in the media.

[Cessna57]

Very irresponsible reporting.

My sister won't fly with me because "GA is so dangerous, there are always crashes on the news".

I know someone who gave up training at the insistence of his wife for the same reason.

It's endemic, it's our press and our population. The same population that buy the Daily Mail, the same press that print it.

It's not the fact it's printed that's the worry, it's the fact people buy it.

The press don't care what they print, nor do the population. Sad int it ?

[johnm]

Twas ever thus, the mob and scurrilous news sheets go back to the 18th century and beyond. Evolution is a slow process so the majority of the population will be dumb gossips for a good few generations yet

[malcolmfrost]

LBC reporting that the AAIB will be "sifting through the wreckage to find clues as to the reason"
I can tell them, low sun, best weekend flying day for weeks, busy airspace....

[James Chan]

I thought the BBC reported reasonably well yesterday.

Although it’s perhaps also true on the same day many others were also injured or died travelling on other modes of transport or involved in other accidents and didn’t receive the same press coverage.

My instructor’s instructor died in a mid air collision several years ago. It was clear that the see and avoid principle in uncontrolled airspace had its limitations.

It’s quite normall I think, whenever there is a collision, for people to look at what role both the pilots and the controllers played in the moments leading up to the event.

[RichardPearse]

1) for almost any topic that I understand, what I read in mainstream press is usually wrong, or at best as the emphasis on the wrong aspects;
2) whilst larger media outlets will have specialist journalists for things like economics, politics, may be even a 'transport editor' - in the main coverage of events like this is going to fall to a generalist

Absolutely my experience too. And not just related to aviation but also other areas for which I have a better-than-average understanding such as technology. And even then the mainstream specialist technology correspondents are often dire. Looking at you, BBC. The specialist outlets are almost always much better for any given story.

I'm not sure this is a solvable problem, to be honest. We're not the target audience for such stories (after all, if you'd rather get your GA news from the Telegraph why are you here? ) and I suspect the journos know what their readers want. There might be the odd tactical victory such as getting a registration obscured or a fact changed, but I wouldn't put money on an improvement in the overall quality of coverage.

[gaznav]

I always think of Anchorman these days - the 24hr news channel has encouraged the spouting of incorrect and poorly researched facts. If the BBC had really done some proper research on this accident they could have mentioned:

1. The fact that a mid-air has occurred here before: https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422ef7fed915d1371000269/dft_avsafety_pdf_502371.pdf

2. The fact that the CAA and NATS are working on electronic conspicuity that be used by all.

3. The fact that Mid Air Collisions (MACs) are incredibly rare and probably a professional opinion from the UK Airprox Board (https://www.airproxboard.org.uk/home/) would help support this.

Being a Masters-level graduate if I presented research without proper reference then I would not be a graduate! Referencing research, even in journalism, is so very important to avoid “fake news” even if it is at the expense of Ron Burgundy (see Anchorman 2 below) not getting the news scoop!

[Miscellaneous]

Every time an aircraft accident, especially one involving GA, hits the press there are howls of derision about the way the (often emerging) story is reported.

Quite true, I find the said howls of derision equally predictable, completely unnecessary and more repugnant than the reporting.

My sister won't fly with me because "GA is so dangerous, there are always crashes on the news".

That's what she tells you.

[riverrock]

Whenever I hear a sound bite from the expert, which is incoherent rubbish, I'm always torn between boxing the expert and blaming the person who edited their comment. The radio 2 sound bite I heard said something about controlled airspace and level busts. I bet they were just talking generalities, not about this incident, but this was what was broadcast.

[Boxkite]

.................
I can tell them, low sun, ..........

I can't see that that's any better than the press, seems like speculation to me.
It was midday and both aircraft had been travelling in a basically northerly direction.
Anyway, this thread is not about the cause.

[Miscellaneous]

As infuriating and unprofessional as the standard of reporting is, what effect is it actually having?

I can't help but wonder if having a vested interest in flying creates a heightened sensitivity to the reporting that washes over the general public?

[Bert Presley]

A part of the problem with layman-style reporting is aviation's long-ingrained habit of defining things by words that describe what things are not, rather than what they are.

For example: 'Uncontrolled Airspace'. The implication of joy-riding pilots zooming around the sky is inescapable to the layman. It would make a big difference to the layman's perception if this airspace was called 'Open' or 'Free'.

Likewise: 'Uncontrolled Airfield', 'No Flight Plan' and so on.