The Press vs Av Herald

knucklehead6

First we have Simon's report... Calm, balanced as always

http://avherald.com/h?article=4764adb5&opt=0

Then we have the Journal. A paragon of journalistic integrity that we should all aspire to.....

http://www.thejournal.ie/ryanair-flight-hits-turblulence-1534682-Jun2014/

FWVT

....which is why you NEVER look to the press for anything factual. Ok for the horoscopes and rubbish like that.

So pitched 60 °? I don't think so lads.

mr.anonymous

For anything related to "MH370" I just went to AvHerald. The mainstream media did nothing but speculate and sensationalise, constantly showing clips of grieving families.

I noticed a similar trend with the AFR447 accident. They couldn't talk about it without showing the 3 Irish doctors who were on board.

Any accident report clearly states that (as per Annex 13) it is not its purpose to apportion "blame or liability". This seems to be a priority for the media, which to some extent takes away from the public perception of the technical investigation.

The whole idea is Prevention and that's why the media doesn't have the opportunity to report on an aircraft accident too often.

Ken Shamrock

Avherald is my go to source for anything major or even in minor, it's always detailed,quick and accurate. Even if Simon receives 2nd hand info he simplifies it and leaves out the crap.

martinsvi

you have to learn the difference between an incident report and a news story, between a statement from officials and witness reports. They are two fundamentally different things, I honestly don't see the point of this topic. Some people obviously experienced fear of their life time, if you think their accounts do not matter, you are basically questioning the whole purpose of free press

knucklehead6

martinsvi wrote: »

you have to learn the difference between an incident report and a news story, between a statement from officials and witness reports. They are two fundamentally different things, I honestly don't see the point of this topic. Some people obviously experienced fear of their life time, if you think their accounts do not matter, you are basically questioning the whole purpose of free press

Personally I'd prefer the press to report accurately than this sensationalist rubbish. 60degree bank? And the pilot allegedly "didn't know it was that rough"??

That's my problem, that's what this topic is about. Sensationalist crap that puts fear into people as opposed to actually REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED!!

ProfessorPlum

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Personally I'd prefer the press to report accurately than this sensationalist rubbish. 60degree bank? And the pilot allegedly "didn't know it was that rough"??

That's my problem, that's what this topic is about. Sensationalist crap that puts fear into people as opposed to actually REPORTING WHAT HAPPENED!!

In fairness, the journal is reporting what happened - according to witness on board. It's a valid method. I'm sure the investigation into the incident will also examine witness statements.
Anyone will tell you, even (especially) experienced pilots, that it's impossible to estimate factors such as degree of pitch up/down unless you're looking at instruments - thinking that you can has cost many a pilot and passenger their lives, so I believe that the passenger's account was, in his mind, accurate and I wouldn't fault the press for reporting it.
As for the pilots, you can be absolutely sure they 'didn't know it was that rough' or they would have avoided the area.

However, as Martinsvi says, if you want to avoid the news story, stick to the incident reports.

Five Lamps

knucklehead6 wrote: »

First we have Simon's report... Calm, balanced as always

http://avherald.com/h?article=4764adb5&opt=0

Then we have the Journal. A paragon of journalistic integrity that we should all aspire to.....

http://www.thejournal.ie/ryanair-flight-hits-turblulence-1534682-Jun2014/

Calm and balanced because it's sterile and reads like news management. Reading between the lines it was a serious enough incident with both passenger and cabin crew injuries reported. The Journal reporting is hardly over the top. The average passenger would have been afraid and even more so if the presence of medical staff was requested over the PA. What is described is what the average person would image what severe turbulence must be like.

faceman

Most people are terrified of turbulence primarily because they don't understand it. People will always assume the turbulence is worse than it is and that often gets compounded by pilots or crew not making a friendly announcement to say the turbulence is normal and all is well.

I was on one flight where the turbulence was IMO at the time terrifying and prolonged. The captain made an announcement about it afterward whichx have huge reassurance to many of the passengers.

Don't estimate how broad and debilitating a fear of flying can be for a passenger. I should know!

arubex

The two media are at extremes of the spectrum. Obviously papers want to sell copies based on excitement and drama, the human aspects of the common people involved, so they put those sources first and play it up.

On the other hand, AvHerald is closely aligned with the industry and opaquely chooses its sources; passengers have no input. It is also subject to editorialisation to its own agenda instead of just reporting facts. Every report, by default, has to mention the word 'safely' in the outcome unless utterly cataclysmic. Five Lamps uses a good term in 'news management'.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As ever, don't rely on a single source.

FWVT

arubex wrote: »

The two media are at extremes of the spectrum. Obviously papers want to sell copies based on excitement and drama, the human aspects of the common people involved, so they put those sources first and play it up.

On the other hand, AvHerald is closely aligned with the industry and opaquely chooses its sources; passengers have no input. It is also subject to editorialisation to its own agenda instead of just reporting facts. Every report, by default, has to mention the word 'safely' in the outcome unless utterly cataclysmic. Five Lamps uses a good term in 'news management'.

The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. As ever, don't rely on a single source.

Passengers DO have input. In many cases Simon posts direct quotes from passengers that contact him.

Five Lamps

But is the Journal report sensational?

I have fortunately never experienced severe air turbulence - couple of flights that were a bumpy ride but nothing more. If the event sufficient enough to injure passengers the Journal report doesn't sound far fetched at all.

folbotcar

One thing you can do with journal.ie is comment on the topic, pointing out the sensational way it was written.

However it was a serious enough incident in that people got hurt, people who ignore the advice to wear their seatbelt at all times. At least next time everyone on board will take that advice seriously. The cabin crew have no choice of course.

As usual the witness statement isn't exactly a model of accuracy. If the aircraft had;

pitched aggressively roughly over a 60 degree angle throwing debris all over the plane.

there'd be no survivors. He or she was also worried that the pilot was hurt. You don't have to be an aviation expert to realise there are two pilots and in any case both pilots would quite sensibly have their seatbelts on.

It always amazes me how little the average citizen knows of a service they often use frequently. Even well educated people. Maybe they should teach it in school!

Sterling Archer

Since when is thejournal.ie considered Press, always considered them Bloggers, and treat there stories as such.