For truth in aviation refer to "AIN"

[Lrjet55]

It has become increasingly apparent that the publication known as AIN is completetly and totally full of S!@#. For the purposes of this board and future post please refrain from believing any information from this so-called publication and then asking questions regarding the information. This should make all our lives a little less aggravating!

 

[yosemite]

A wise man once told me that to get someone to do something you want them to do, it makes for an easier task if you give them a plausible explanation to back up your request. So my question is... why?

Not that I disbelieve you, I'm just curious why you feel this way and wondering if you'd mind sharing some source info or cite some references as to where the magazine was/is so way off the truth? I read it each month so if it is a bad source of trade information, and you can prove it, I'd like to know.

Thanks.

 

[Lrjet55]

Yosemite

I appreciate your request. My comment was more in reference to post on this board than anything else. Most of us fly for Fractional companies as you may have gathered and you may fly for one your self. In my experience and several others who post on this board AIN seems to come up with some info that those of us who work for these specific companies cannot believe we are hearing. What happens next is someone post a question regarding an AIN article or comment and then it seems like all hell brakes loose.
So my point was that we should just not take the magazine so seriously and definately stop talking about the articles. Is it a bad magazine, no. Do I think they seem to print alot of false, or rather misleading information, yes. I actually read the publication myself.
Anyhow, my point was not to offend anyone but simply to just stop some hysteria before it starts.
P.S. I will look through some of my archives and find you some of the info I am talking about. It may take a couple of days but I will get back to you.

 

[flexlrpilot357]

Fair question...

I think the deal with AIN is that the stories are not well researched. The magazine is more of a place for official press releases and lightly researched stories than true investigative journalism.

It's an industry magazine, it's not the New York Times, AIN editors do not make concerted attempts to find the bottom truth of a story. It's a widely distributed free magazine with lots of advertising in it, I doubt the editors are really worried about 100% journalistic credibility. They're kinda right most of the time, and that's good enough.

Cases in point are the contradicting articles that appeared about Flight Options earlier this year and the information printed about Flexjet.

 

[ArmyPilot]

I agree

Flexlearpilot,

I could not agree more....

 

[Lrjet55]

Mr. Flex has managed to cover the majority of my sentiments. I have to say it is a nice change of pace to have someone question your post without jumping down your throat.

 

[Randy Padfield]

For the record

I appreciate the comments made by Lrjet55 and flexlrpilot357 about AIN, the truth and journalistic credibility, but I would be less than truthful if I said they don't hurt. Let me say this without reservation: it is the goal of all AIN writers and editors to maintain our credibility by publishing the truth--or as close to it as we can get--and we absolutely do NOT kowtow to our advertisers. If in the minds of our readers--i.e. you all--we are not achieving this goal, then it is my job as editor-in-chief to change things so that we do.

Please see my March 2002 Commentary "Keeping the peace between church and state" (page 2), also posted online at www.ainonline.com (follow the Commentary link). One doesn't publish this kind of editorial philosophy unless one really means it.

Do we write only the truth? No, but we don't knowingly write falsehoods. We always try to report accurately what people tell us and what we find out for ourselves. As I'm sure you all know, people are not always honest or perceive a matter the same way. We always try to cover all sides of an issue, but even when given a chance to comment, many people will not.

Do we make mistakes? Yes, but when we become aware of our mistakes, we publish corrections.

Could we research more? Probably. But with deadlines looming and space considerations there's always a point where one has to stop the research and go with what one has in hand. That's not an excuse, just the reality of journalism. If a story requires more, we do an update in a later issue.

Do we use press releases? Yes, but they are only one source of information for us; we have many others. We never use a press release verbatim, print it without follow-up or, God forbid, trade editiorial space for advertising. We throw away many more releases than we ever use.

If you would care to discuss your views with me, I welcome a reply to this post, an e-mail ([email protected]) or a phone call (201-444-5075). If changes need to be made in the way we produce our publications, then we will do it.

Randy Padfield
Editor-in-Chief, Aviation International News

 

[GVFlyer]

Print Veritas

Randy,

We've worked together in the past and I don't think you are doing yourself or your publication justice. You have always maintained a high standard of journalistic ethics and integrity. Now if you want to talk about "Pro Pilot"...

GV

 

[Lrjet55]

I don not personally know flexrpilot357 but I am sure he, as I, would openly welcome the opportunity to discuss any of your past, present or future ideas regarding the fractional industry. I am a large proponent of the corporate/fractional aviation industry and, as do many of my cohorts on this board, support as well spend some time representing and/or defending our companies and the industry. Due to the common perception of corporate pilots and the industry itself I suppose we tend to become a little defensive and somewhat confronting when we feel, right or wrong, that a publication which we all read and rely on for industry information misrepresents us or our companies. I appreciate your sentiments and honesty and this is mine.

 

[flexlrpilot357]

Mr. Padfield,

I understand the challenges that a magazine such as yours faces, and I applaud you for the amount you DO get right. It's the somewhat unreachable goal for AIN and other publications to be the ultimate insider at every corner of the industry, especially given the deadlines, limited resources, and other challenges that all magazines face.

We - the people whose companies you're writing the articles about - are your most critical readers. You have to compete with our inside (read:interested party) perspectives and our inside information - an impossible task in a business where the changes happen day to day, and the truth may not always be easy to find.

You also have to resist the business and would-be labor leaders who would use your publication as a PR mouthpiece - a difficult task when they may be your most readily available source of information.

Thanks for the time you took to respond to our concerns. I'm sure we'd be happy to continue the discussion.