FLYER Forums

I recall getting a LARS service from Brize when a Gnat from Kemble came on frequency, probably '90s. Very young-sounding (female, I think) ATCO: 'say again type'; 'Gnat'; 'is that a microlight ?'

To answer the OP's title question: because, in the tabloid and often wider world of 'journalism', there is no supervisory check. professional disadvantage, nor peer opprobrium in 'getting it wrong'. Many 'reporters', even regulars on the national papers and especially on the 'regionals', are free-lance, who are paid only if their stories and accompanying pictures are used; this is more likely if they get their offerings in first rather than well-researched and illustrated. Their subs, editors and proprietors don't care if they're wrong, even if they are hurtffully unfair to individual, or even absolutely (but unsuably) mendacious. Industry awards (voted by peers) have been given for 'expose' stories which have later been shown to be wholly wrong

[ Incidentally, it is one reason why BBC 'newsroom' stories on broacdast or web are often 'late', because they still have the discipline of **** and corroboration-seeking; unfortunately, as Hutton exposed, the editors, researchers and presenters of some of the autonomous BBC 'flagship' news programmes have not always been so fussy ]

ATC are just as bad. Brize told me yesterday to look out for a C17. Didn’t he not know mine was 135 more?

romille wrote:More lazy article creation!

https://news.sky.com/story/amp/pilot-wh ... s-11603497

The aircraft pictured is an Airbus A319, it even states that on the side of the fuselage, but the article is about a Embraer 145, which looks nothing like the Airbus.

Maybe journalist think all aircraft look the same or perhaps they just do not give a damn.

Most journos work on the principle 'why let accuracy get in the way and spoil a good story'.
If the journo didn't have a piccy of a '145, then any twinjet would do even if its engines were in the wrong place as the general public aren't likely to know the difference.

Sir Morley Steven wrote:ATC are just as bad. Brize told me yesterday to look out for a C17. Didn’t he not know mine was 135 more?

Back in the 70s there was apparently a (very!) short-lived US airline advert (maybe Pan Am) with the tagline:

"Our 747s are so good, we're tempted to call them 748s."

chevvron wrote:If the journo didn't have a piccy of a '145, then any twinjet would do

In my experience, sourcing the image could well have been the responsibility of the sub-editor, not the journo.

Rob P

Somewhere I have a clipping from some local Bridlington paper where the (obviously fed up) sub editor gave up worrying about a particular aircraft and saw his/her opportunity to be sacked rather than resign. I will try and locate it over the weekend.

I'm sure we've all seen flms where 3 aircraft types are used to depict the same flight, showing one aircraft type taking off, another type in the cruise and a 3rd different type landing.
Just stock shots used when editing with no regard for using shots of the same type of aircraft in each phase.

chevvron wrote:I'm sure we've all seen flms where 3 aircraft types are used to depict the same flight, showing one aircraft type taking off, another type in the cruise and a 3rd different type landing.
Just stock shots used when editing with no regard for using shots of the same type of aircraft in each phase.

Discovery channel do that all the time: Not even particular about number of engines etc.

Peter

chevvron wrote:Most journos work on the principle 'why let accuracy get in the way and spoil a good story'.

To be fair, something similar could be said about a few posters, even when they're talking about things they should know about.

Ian

chevvron wrote:Most journos work on the principle 'why let accuracy get in the way and spoil a good story'.

Another way of putting it:

They don't do fact checking, because if they did, eg actually bothering to phone the person the story was about, they would from time to time discover that actually they didn't have a story at all. And would then have to do some actual work to find another one.

Hey, I did do a jolly good wind-up on a journo once. You know how there's no such concept as "just chatting" to a journo (eg if you happen to be sitting next to one waiting for an event to start or whatever)? That when you might think you're "just chatting" they're actually working normally and your misconception isn't going to stop them printing anything interesting you say?

Well, Once Upon A Time I was going along with the "just chatting" routine, but not actually giving anything away, when the journo himself said something interesting. Which I promptly published on Twitter, turning the tables on the usual way these things work.

He never spoke to me again, of course, so maybe I hadn't been that clever after all.

chevvron wrote:I'm sure we've all seen flms where 3 aircraft types are used to depict the same flight, showing one aircraft type taking off, another type in the cruise and a 3rd different type landing.
Just stock shots used when editing with no regard for using shots of the same type of aircraft in each phase.

I couldn’t help noticing that when Kevin Spacey recently turned up for his court hearing in a private jet, the pictures of the aircraft on the apron he had allegedly arrived in was a Gulfstream, but his filmed departure was in a Lear Jet.

^^^^^^^ Spotter!

Gah!

Somewhere on the web is an interview with a pilot following his forced landing.

He fed the reporter a right load of guff getting words such as 'flux capacitor' in his replies. Can anyone find it?

(Don't think the actual statement was filmed)