USA Today at it's finest!

[NDPILOT]

I thought this article was interesting. I get the feeling that the guy who authored it knows nothing about aviation.

Here's the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-09-07-ntsb-report_x.htm

Here's some of his very good points:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is recommending tighter inspections of all planes that have flown through severe weather or turbulencecaused by pilot error or mechanical failure.

In an earlier case, a re-inspection by NTSB investigators, prompted by the New York accident, found cracks in the tail section of an American A300 that nearly crashed in 1997 after the pilots also turned the jet sideways.

If i catch one more person flying through turbulence, i swear to god....

 

[Styles]

Is it me or dose anybody else like flying through turbulence?? With out screamish pax of course.
It tends to break the monotony of crusie (and spilling the coffee of the F/O which he just got ) IMHO.

 

[Anti-Matter]

That McPaper is an oily, dumbed-down rag.

Last week I read a letter to the editor about an article in which they were (as usual) complaining about the airline industry.
This neanderthal claimed that the reason the airlines were losing so much money is due to the fact that the EMPLOYEES flying for pleasure are taking revenue seats from paying passengers.

One of the many problems with this paper -- that no one actually ever pays for -- is that they don't screen letters to the editor. Most of the letters to the NY Times, WSJ are well-written and usually from people with clout (lawyers, doctors, CEO's, heads of organizations) and they know whereof they write. This rag publishes letters from nobodys with no clue.

A year or two ago their own op-ed claimed that CVR recordings should be released to the public to improve air safety (regardless of the fact that they are already available to the NTSB -- how is USA Today getting their hands on a CVR going to improve safety?)

I shudder at the thought that it's the most widely-read newspaper. But then again, Fox is the most widely-watched news network now.

 

[Typhoon1244]

I shudder at the thought that it's the most widely-read newspaper. But then again, Fox is the most widely-watched news network now.

And therein lies the problem. My father's been saying it for years: "people are stupid."

 

[46Driver]

Is it me or dose anybody else like flying through turbulence?? With out screamish pax of course.
It tends to break the monotony of crusie (and spilling the coffee of the F/O which he just got ) IMHO.

I think turbulence while flying Hooter's Air would be a sight to behold

 

[ArcticFlier]

Amen 46...............amen.

AF

 

[captainv]

USA Today

As a current airline pilot and former newspaper copy editor, i have sympathy for both sides.

but in general, cut the press some slack. first of all, it's USA Today, not the Times. McPaper does serve its purpose, but its philosophy is: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

In journalism school they teach us to write on an eight-grade level (of course NYT and WSJ as well as many others love to use big, snooty words). any fancier than that and the average reader can't follow. the average reader just isn't that bright. take a look at everyone - EVERYONE - in an airport terminal next time. how many of those people know what a millage rate is? (you homeowners should know) or what gubernatorial means? or anything at all about airplanes? (how many times have you been asked - how do you guys see the runway when you're in the clouds?)

think of it this way, have you ever tried to explain the rudder of flaps to someone who doesn't know much about airplanes? now imagine that person - who still isn't clear on everything - explaining it to readers. lots of potential for error.

reporters don't know much about aviation, right? well, they're not supposed to. the rule of thumb is: know a little about everything, but be an expert in nothing. most have a great understanding of how city/county/state/federal governments work, because that's what they write about most. most aviation stories are crash stories. and, as always, every reporter is only as good as his source.

so here's an idea, write your local reporter every time they mess up. be polite about it, they'll greatly appreciate it most of the time, and odds are they might think of you the next time, so they can get it right...

Just a thought

 

[Timebuilder]

I shudder at the thought that it's the most widely-read newspaper. But then again, Fox is the most widely-watched news network now.

Comparing USA Today to the WSJ is truly a comaprison of disparate fruits. They serve completely different market segments, and the accuracy of "McPaper" has always been questionable.

As far as television news, the left wing slant on CNN was the standard of cable for many years, as it was unchallenged and routinely carried the water of the DNC. After all, we had all become accustomed to the same treatment on the Big Three networks. Fox, on the other hand, was able to discard some of the stoginess of the self absorbed style of CNN, and add a breath of fresh air to news by actually airing more than one opinion on almost every subject, moving their editorial "heart" closer to the "center" than ever before. To liberals, Fox looks like the far right because they had come to define the "left" as being their center. To the right, Fox looks like a move away from insanity to relative objectivity. Consequently, people who are interested in cable news are abandoning CNN like the middle class leaving Philadelphia in the 70's.

This is what happens as people have better choices. They get a little smarter.

 

[WrightAvia]

but in general, cut the press some slack. first of all, it's USA Today, not the Times. McPaper does serve its purpose, but its philosophy is: Keep It Simple, Stupid.

That's the sad part. They have to keep it stupidly simple...so that J.Q. Public can READ the article and UNDERSTAND IT.

We're doomed, I tells ya.

 

[Styles]

That's the sad part. They have to keep it stupidly simple...so that J.Q. Public can READ the article and UNDERSTAND IT.

We're doomed, I tells ya.

Just proves my theory even more about the US population... 90% lack any common sense what so ever.

 

[flywithastick]

And therein lies the problem. My father's been saying it for years: "people are stupid."

So people are stupid because they prefer Fox news over the 3 big TV media outlets? Or is it Fox is offering something people prefer to watch?

Your assuming that a perfect distribution of Americans have switched to Fox (an indisputable fact that Fox is gaining market share). Could it be that those tired of the nauseating slant of ABCCBSNBC has sent a significant percentage of the audience looking for an alternative? This might in fact leave the stupid ones listening to the left slanted, agenda driven ABCNBCCBS.

and I agree that USA Today is poor. Just goes to prove what my dad used to say, "You get what you pay for." Never have had to pay for a copy of USA Today.

 

[RJPilott]

Hey, i dont know about you guys but i watch Fox News for the chicks and CNNHN for Rudi!! Oh my is she hot... http://www.facade.com/celebrity/Rudi_Bakhtiar/

Pay no attention to the rest of the page. It came up in a google search and i thought it was a good photo of her...


wow.. i just learned she was born in 1966. These 20 somethings could take some lessons... wow!


besides that... if i want news.. i'll check NYT...

 

[Typhoon1244]

Anyone who thinks the mainstream (non-Fox) media has a left-wing slant must've missed all the coverage of Monica, Whitewater, "Gore-invented-the-internet," etc, etc. You're right though...if all you watch is Fox, then it certainly seems like everybody else is way to the left. It's a matter of perspective.

 

[Timebuilder]

As a guy who was once heard on NBC radio, I have to tell you that you have reached a false conclusion.

The left leaning media outlets merely have the unsavory tendency of eating their young. All of the stories you mention meant a lot of sensational chances to sell advertising because of increased viewing during sweeps. The fact that they were on board for the Clinton policies meant nothing when it came to making money. In fact, they reported the various charges in one story while praising the Clintons in the very next story, often giving twice the amount of time to the praise.

I know that I was fully aware of the left leaning bias when I was a working member of the media, and I cherished that fact because as a liberal, I felt that I was one of the wise elite that should be a person of influence over the great unwashed masses. This is the kind of thinking that my old colleagues and acquaintences still accept as gospel.

All one must do to determine the bias of the media is to listen to Larry King's interview of Peter Jennings, and hear his thoughts about the mideast and US policy, or watch This Week, and listen to liberals say things that George S. knows are lies, and see how he fails to call their comments into question. On Fox, it's whoa, there, big boy, back up that wagon and pick up that load of BS you just dropped.

 

[Anti-Matter]

Fox News

I just love getting a jumpstart on world affairs every morning with the opinions of a meteorologist, and sportscaster and ... some blond chick.

And in the evening I can fill in the blanks with Geraldo!

From the same network that tried to debunk the Apollo missions ... now that's patriotic!

 

[Timebuilder]

If that's the worst you can say about Fox, I'd say they must be doing pretty well.

Let's go to an in-depth interview between Katie Couric and Hillary Clinton...

riveting.

 

[WrightAvia]

Hey, i dont know about you guys but i watch Fox News for the chicks and CNNHN for Rudi!! Oh my is she hot...

"I'd lick her like a stamp and send her home to mamma!" Andrew Dice Clay

 

[rettofly]

Re: USA Today

[QUOTE

so here's an idea, write your local reporter every time they mess up. be polite about it, they'll greatly appreciate it most of the time, and odds are they might think of you the next time, so they can get it right...

Just a thought [/B][/QUOTE]

I did that several times. The only reply I ever received (from a NY paper) essentially told me that they didn't need editorial advice from an amateur. The story I commented on concerned a midair that happened "because neither airplane was talking to the tower". The accident took place on a severe clear night in the BDR / HVN area. Both towers were closed for the night, and the location was well outside either ATA in any event (oops, now I've dated myself).

 

[labbats]

It seems I am the only one bothered by the fact that EVERY topic posted by the major newspapers and shown on major television news programs that I have insider knowledge of, is thoroughly off-base.

It only seems logical that all of the other things they write about have the same misinformation, and that we are all just too clueless about that particular issue to know it. THAT worries me. That worries me a lot.

 

[rettofly]

It seems I am the only one bothered by the fact that EVERY topic posted by the major newspapers and shown on major television news programs that I have insider knowledge of, is thoroughly off-base.

It only seems logical that all of the other things they write about have the same misinformation, and that we are all just too clueless about that particular issue to know it. THAT worries me. That worries me a lot.

Excellent point! What's more, insider knowledge isn't even needed most of the time to realize the media is off base. Guess we tend to focus on the areas in which we are both knowledgeable and passionately interested.