The media & RAAus

[Guest Brett Campany]

Well after seeing a number of poorly written stories about "light aircraft" and "ultralights" over the last 12 months or so, it's no wonder there is very little respect for the media from fellow RAA pilots.

 

It's disheartening to see stories go out into the public eye that do nothing but give a false report on our beloved passion for aviation.

 

We all know and believe that we are very well trained for what we are involved in.

 

So why does the media beat up on us? Well nothing makes news like bad news and if it's not bad then they make it look worse than what it actually is. Reporting from speculation and opinion will get the readers interested but it only hurts the organisation regardless of how much truth is in the story.

 

So how do we combat this? And I say combat because it's not an easy task getting a journo to actually listen and report on something truthful.

 

After 7 years in the Navy I learnt that the media doesn't want to hear the warm fuzzy stories, they just want to report on what they believe. Bad news = more readers, more readers = higher ratings.

 

I think we really need to get onto the RAAus and get a Public Relations person involved.

 

In tough economic times, we're still growing at a rapid rate, we're also looking at being recognised as a large, well managed organisation that very soon, will be given more opportunities within RAA such as access to CTA and a higher MTOW.

 

Of recent, we've seen some damming reports on light aircraft and ultralights and we responded. From those responses we've had stories corrected and made the editors realise that we won't stand for false reports.

 

I'd like to see this thread used for putting up stories that you believe need to be rectified so that members can respond to the editor and get those corrections made.

 

We've got a lot of members here that on the ball with what's happening and that can give factual responses. Lets use that to maintain the reputation we have and keep the public face of the RAAus organisation and its members.

 

The reason for this thread is because I read this report here

 

Ultralight trend takes off | The Courier-Mail

 

and it really got my back up but we need to educate these reporters without going off the deep end.

 

 

[K-man]

And in the article we read ..

 

Police are investigating the fatalities, and spokesmen for the Australian Transport Safety Bureau and the Civil Aviation Safety Authority declined to comment.

The spokesmen said ultralights, also known as recreational aircraft, were an RAA responsibility.

 

The RAA failed to return The Sunday Mail's phone calls and emails.

Once again, a lot of these accidents were not ultralights, but, why no response from RAA? What a lost opportunity.

 

 

[Tomo]

"Crashes involving ultralights have claimed 10 lives in the past 16 months in Queensland."

 

Ain't that great...:thumb_up: there was like 10 lives lost in car crashes in something like 2 weeks, not long ago...

 

Don't you just love the safety of being in an aircraft...:thumb_up::thumb_up:

 

 

 

[BigPete]

What we need is an annual award thumb_down to the reporter and paper that come up with the most ridiculous story (about RAA). :yuk: One for every state. i_dunno

 

Have a special trophy and even a cheque for further traing in recognizing the truth etc etc.

 

It's best if we can embarrass the guy writng the story - make it personal.

 

regards

 

:big_grin::big_grin:

 

 

[antzx6r]

Once again, a lot of these accidents were not ultralights, but, why no response from RAA? What a lost opportunity.

This is right. ATSB and CASA both at least have a representative who can say "sorry we can't comment on that at this time." RAAus just don't return calls and emails. Maybe it's because they don't want to get caught up in a discussion with a professional at leading the questioning to somewhere distastefull. But they still need to say yes this is what we are about, no we can't comment on that. It may not be pretty, but at least it gives us a more professional 'face'. A trained PR guy is definately what RAAus needs. Surely out of the 8000+ members there must be someone with some experience.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

I'd love to make it personal, I'd love to embarrass them but lets maintain the professionalism of the reputation of RAA members. I'm currently writing an email to Lou Robson and CCing it to two of the main editors as well.

 

Hit them professionally because it's what they do professionally that is damaging the reputation of our passion for aviation.

 

 

[Yenn]

The comment was that RAA failed to return their call.

 

Given that they cannot be trusted to get it right, did they even call RAA and if so how long was it before they said there was a failure to return the call. We know the journo's don't get it right so why believe them without finding out the truth?

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Everytime I've called the RAA, they're on the ball and always answer. My guess is that they never called the RAA.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

They may have called the RAA (royal australian airforce)..

 

Or even the IRA.

 

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

Well I've just tried to send an email to "Lou Robson" and it's no surprise that her email isn't working, I had it bounce back. But it did get through to one of the other editors so lets see what happens.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Ha ha.. That artical was actually from september last year so maybe (with any luck) she's been fired already.

 

:big_grin:

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

after all the flack she got she probably regrets ever publishing the article and her email address. serves her right

 

 

[turboplanner]

Guys, relax a little; it was Shakespeare who said "He doth quote himself too oft". We are no different to film stars, politicians, football clubs, and any other group where an embarrassment occurs. I spent years watering down controversy about Speedway crashes, mostly finding they were at CAMS circuits, or Drag Racing Venues.

 

The problem is: a major accident occurs, the Editor hands the story to a journalist whose specialty may be writing the cycling stories, or feelgood stories, and he doesn't know who to phone or what the nuances are. So he makes a phone call to the RCAV, NRMA or QANTAS and is given an uninformed opinion on the accident and referred to an inappropriate source, and the story takes off in the wrong direction.

 

If you respond by beating up the journalist, he's going to avoid you in the future like the plague, and get you back in the press, or he's going to make a crusade against your group.

 

A few Christmases ago a Herald Sun journalist. Sally Forgetable was apparently given the task of writing a story about Toorak tractors.

 

It contained just enough hints about poor handling, unsafe construction, bad manners, never used off road etc. to get a journalistic momentum going against 4WD that has become so strong that there are still regular stories about the need to ban them from our roads.

 

We need to work with the journalists, providing helpful information, especially if they show an interest in Recreational Aviation. This particularly applies in Country towns where the local Fairfax or News Group journalist is usually going to be the one kicking the story up to the State Media (the deal is the local journalists write local interest stories and the State guys don't go into their material and vice versa.)

 

It's also very important that industry groups don't make a practice of tipping a bucket on the group resposible for the person involved in an accident, because this only leads to lurid retaliation, which affects all groups.

 

The legal advice usually is to make no comment other than to express sympathy, and advise the incident is to be investigated.

 

I've seen MANY cases where the most blatant rule breaker was taken out by an innocent accident, or where a vehicle was blamed, but a track defect was the cause and so on, so it's reckless to speculate.

 

The nature of journalism is that the deadline for publication is usually just hours or minutes from when the accident is known, so even if you are just in the shower, there are times when you will "fail to respond to a call", so you can't always draw negative conclusions from that - it's often just a journalistic book end.

 

R461, I went fishing over the last week, and I'm just about to send your search and rescue story across to SA because in the marine world, they don't appear to have heard about your aircraft, and they knew something was about to occur soon, but my skipper pointed to his EPIRB and said "I think they are about to change these", as we rolled in the Southern Ocean on five metre swells.

 

So you can see that communications is a loose subject and most of the time the wrong people talk to the wrong people.

 

When the stpries come out, you just have to roll with the punches.

 

 

[lbarnes]

The reply from RAAus is posted on John McKeown's Blog Site: Rag and Tube Aviator: Disgraceful Reporting

 

They (SMH et al) must have very thick hides if this doesn't sting.

 

Luke Barnes

 

 

[turboplanner]

The villains in the Paul Bibby story were the ones who set him up by feeding him their agenda.

 

Otherwise how would a journalist who the previous day may have been writing about a lost child know such detail.

 

That's not to say that Lee's points about getting the facts correct weren't valid, but note the deadline issues I mentioned previously.

 

Newspapers are immovable on deadlines, and in many cases minutes count in getting a response in.

 

If the Journalist misses the deadline, the story doesn't go in, and for most state papers it's not a story the following day, hence the habit of not always getting all facts squared away.

 

Problem is if you go too hard at them, they jack up and wait for you to make a mistake, then give you major coverage helped by quotes from your other enemies.

 

Better to get the Pauls out to an airfield, stick them in an aircraft, and when they step out beaming there'll be no need to say anything.

 

 

[antzx6r]

That is utter BS!

 

You don't print "RAA refused to return our calls and emails" when you sent them after hours the night before the issue. He may as well sent them 10 minutes before. And regardless of the dirty pool he's been playing. What the hell happened to objective reporting??? That's like interviewing hitler and writing a piece about the good in communistic government and ethnic cleansing. Followed up with Churchill refused to answer our calls. Unethical is an under statement.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

That response that Lee wrote is brilliant! If I ever hear from Lou Robson, I'll post that link to her.

 

The update on my email to her, well everyone else except Lou has responded trying to get my email to her. If and when I hear from Lou Robson, I'll post that response to her and let her read the facts as stated by Lee.

 

Does anyone know if Lee get's on here at all?

 

 

[turboplanner]

That is utter BS!You don't print "RAA refused to return our calls and emails" when you sent them after hours the night before the issue. He may as well sent them 10 minutes before. And regardless of the dirty pool he's been playing. What the hell happened to objective reporting??? That's like interviewing hitler and writing a piece about the good in communistic government and ethnic cleansing. Followed up with Churchill refused to answer our calls. Unethical is an under statement.

Who are we to criticise, when I was talking about the Paul Bibby story Light Plane deaths up by more than 50% (Dec 30, 2008), which the RAA DID respond to, and antzx6r responds quoting the story by Lou Robson, Ultralight trend takes off.

 

Different newspapers, different journalists, different stories, different issues......

 

If this is what he is referring to, "The RAA failed to return The Sunday Mail's phone calls and emails." was the quote, not "refused", and we don't know whether the request was within hours or after hours.

 

You may feel self righteous and offended by these stories, but believe me, dredging them up and launching attacks will bring journalistic retaliation and they always get to have the last say.

 

 

[Guest Brett Campany]

We're not launching attacks, I want peoples responses to these stories to be positive towards RAA and just explain and show journo's where they are getting it wrong. As members of the public we do have that right to respond to stories that we know and believe are untrue and it's our responsibility, I believe, to correct people who blatantly get it wrong. Sending them an email or any form of response isn't provoking a war of words, just suggestions to them that they do some research first.

 

 

[antzx6r]

Fine, this is a quote from the reply Lee sent to Mr Bibby regarding His story.

 

The manner in which you sent this email at 8pm the night before(as the article went to print) is also not acceptable and the fact that no contact or indeed a genuine attempt was made with our organisation prior to the articles printing also demonstrates a disregard for the SMH code of ethics.

Paint it the way you please. That's dirty pool.

And regarding getting the last say, I will be carefull not to quote anyone and this is from memory so forgive the vague nature of this post, but I believe Miss Corby just came out of a court case not long ago accusing one of the news stations(I can't remember if it was 7, 9 or 10) of slanderous claims. She won.

 

Give the media an inch and they take a mile. And they think they can get away with it too. Sloppy journalism has no excuse and can lead to litagation(big word:blush:) It's in publishers interest to send these guys back to school before a repeat of the Corby case springs up. MHO

 

 

[antzx6r]

By the way turbo, you are quite right, I did confuse the stories and responses. I read one and then the other and matched the two without varifying. My Bad.

 

...But I am not the media. I could actually flat out lie and it would have no baring on anything.(except missleading my friends) Big difference.

 

 

[Student Pilot]

Do you give them some credit for getting it somewhere near right?

 

http://taree.yourguide.com.au/multimedia/images/full/433749.jpg[/imgalign]A PILOT and his passenger have miraculously escaped serious injury after their aircraft crashed at Old Bar airstrip yesterday morning.Two Sydney holidaymakers dragged the men from their J-160 Jabiru ultralight aircraft at about 10am, after it slipped on the runway during a landing.

 

Witnesses said the aircraft then turned sharply as it headed towards the southern end of the runway and flipped onto its roof.

 

Two Sydney tourists, Katie Grecko, 27, and Paul Brightwell, 40, were at Lani's Caravan Park on Mud Bishop's Road when they witnessed the accident.

 

"The plane was coming in for landing, but it was running out of room real fast," said Paul.

 

"It came flying in, turned to avoid the fence at the end of the runway and tipped on its roof. We bolted over as soon as we saw it happen."

 

Katie said the rescue was an act of impulse. She and Paul jumped the fence to the airfield, ran across the paddock and dragged the two men from the wreckage.

 

"It was only after we had dragged them out of the plane that I started to think about the danger of the situation," said Katie.

 

"I just kept thinking how far we needed to get them away from the plane in case it blew up. It was all adrenaline and impulse. They're lucky they walked away relatively unscathed."

 

Katie's mother, Una Grecko, also witnessed the crash and immediately phoned police.

 

Old Bar Rural Fire Service, Taree Volunteer Rescue, police and ambulance crews arrived on the scene to secure the wreckage and assess the condition of the pilot and his passenger.

 

The Times attempted to talk to the pilot of the aircraft but he refused to comment.

The photographer was taling a risk getting that close with a chance of it "Blowing up", wonder why the pilot didn't want to talk to them?

 

 

[antzx6r]

1. How do you do that? Thank you for accurately describing this as a J160 ultralight? If you called it a CASA registered light plane I would have taken a piece out of you, let me tell ya!

 

:hittinghead:

 

2. Why would you do that? It's their job. Do you or anyone else who has been to Hornsby Westfield shopping centre thank me for doing such a good job of drafting the lanscape plans for construction? It's just not needed. Nor would I expect it. I was just happy that my employers thought so. I'm sure that this journo's employers thought that this story was well done also. (No complaints means a good story)

 

 

[Yenn]

Obviously not all journalists get it wrong, which is good to see. Maybe there was someone there who could explain the situation, or maybe the journo was competent.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Sydney Morning Herald journalist Paul Bibby gets a mention at Crikey

 

Crikey - Journos circle online forums for the dead - Journos circle online forums for the dead