OK, enough. I've been sitting here quietly, but that's just about enough.
As a life-long journalist, now retired, I have listened to that kind of thing as long as I can remember. In this PR-obsessed, voyeuristically inclined society, real journalism is seen as something rather subversive because it does not ever (and I'm talking about real journalism, not Faux News journalism) attempt to paint a story with anything but the basic "what happened here." Journalism is NOT PR. Apparently, the public thinks it should be PR..but it is a daily attempt to let it all hang out and to hell with the consequences. Reporters don't always succeed..there are a variety of skill levels as in all professions..but their intentions are basically good. Reporters are always running helter-skelter, too, because they are required to produce hard-to-come-by facts on short notice because of deadlines. They have to do it every day and do it quickly while still trying to come up with something that is readable or simple enough to convey facts to a listener who only gets it once. We aviators are at fault in many instances. I have observed too often (from both sides of the fence) the disdainful pilot, fending off reporters seeking facts when they should be attempting to help the reporter get it right. In the everyday newsroom, it's likely the editor has sent the first person he/she could grab to an incident/event -- and that person is not likely to know much about aviation. So far as age is concerned, get over it. I'm 70 and think like 35. Doesn't matter. Age identification is a standard form in journalism. It is a secondary means of identification and serves that purpose on several levels. Ask a cop whether age matters in his/her incident report. It matters. There is now surreptitious purpose in it..it is just what IS. So far as a reporter's opinion is concerned, most try to keep it to themselves in their daily pursuit. Those who don't are commentators. But just remember: a reporter who works a beat is studying that subject day in and day out..and if he/she were allowed to voice an opinion, it would be pretty well informed. Reporters don't come in new-born every day. Like the people who criticize them, they grow in the job and become wiser as they apply themselves. Now, I know many of you won't believe any of this. But the mythology is out of hand, and I'm tired of seeing it. When you see this kind of stuff or hear it, always consider the source: does that person have an axe to grind? Does it serve a purpose for them to tear down the only process (journalism) that stands between the public and governmental processes? Reality is much different from perception. Perception is often guided by outsiders with something to gain. That is PR. If all you want is journalism that simply prints or reads government press releases..well, it worked fine for Pravda for about 80 years. Sorry to be rude, but those are the facts. I know I'll get flamed, but don't expect anything more from me. Jim Slade Jim Slade 1 304 292 2466 1 304 685 9386 (Cell) [EMAIL PROTECTED] ************************************** See what's free at http://www.aol.com.
