I understand that COPA has embraced Jim Campbell as a member/contributor.
Given his publication’s (http://www.aero-news.net) penchant for the sensational, I wasn’t surprised by the following linked headline from May 5:
In reply to:
NTSB Report: Cirrus Pilot Was ‘Showing Off’
My read of the preliminary report leaves that conclusion very much in doubt, unless ANN knows more than they’re saying.
Your observation has already been discussed at some length on the member’s forum.
In reply to:
I understand that COPA has embraced Jim Campbell as a member/contributor.
I don’t really know what you meant by that. Jim gets the same treatment as everyone
else who paid their $50 and posts on the member forum.
In reply to:
I understand that COPA has embraced Jim Campbell as a member/contributor.
Given his publication’s (http://www.aero-news.net) penchant for the sensational, I wasn’t surprised by the following linked headline from May 5: My read of the preliminary report leaves that conclusion very much in doubt, unless ANN knows more than they’re saying.
Joe, I’m not sure what you mean by “Embraced.” I believe Jim Campbell is a member like any other. He has paid his dues and gets treated as such.
He clearly represents the aviation media and as part of that group tends to be a GA supporter, as AOPA Pilot, Flying, and numerous flying mags are. Since I personally agree with that perspective, it certainly does not bother me. [;)] )
I actually mentioned, in the click here, that his headline was more opinion than factual, but after I reread the NTSB prelim report, I had to acknowledge that J.C. was only quoting the witnesses description. Clearly, the headlline may have been more accurate if it read, "Witness says, “Pilot was Showing Off’”, but often headlines are truncated due to space limitations. Since I was wrong, I apologized publicly to J.C. in that forum.
I figured I wasn’t the only one who noticed.
In reply to:
After one very brief encounter with Mr. Campbell, I’ve decided it wise to keep my distance.
I have no idea what you may be referring to here. I have met Mr. Campbell and found him to be a very engaging, intelligent and informed individual. He has a wealth of knowledge regarding all things aviation and has in the past done an admirable job of using that knowledge in his reporting. I am very aware of his past regarding all kinds of unsubstantiated claims that donÂ’t even merit mentioning here. These where issues that came from individuals that Jim rightfully exposed as being less than honest in their business practices. He has never backed down from his commitment to shedding the light of truth regarding these crooks even with all the crap he has had to take personally.
As for the headline, I think we should be more upset with the NTSB than with Jim. For the NTSB to quote someone with that allegation is very unusual at best, more like inflammatory, IÂ’d say.
I don’t see where an apology was necessary, but I don’t have access to the members area any more so there may have been more to it than I’m aware of.
I still think the headline is misleading, and that a good editor would have at least added a question mark. (Unless, of course, the aim was to get attention, tabloid style.)
In reply to:
I don’t see where an apology was necessary, but I don’t have access to the members area any more so there may have been more to it than I’m aware of.
It was nothing more than I said in my previous post in this thread, but I would be hypocritical if I didn’t hold myself to at least as high a standard as I profess to hold the media.
Number one… I didn’t write the piece… but I stand by the person who did.
Two… there WAS a question mark, in the subtitle… where some additional explanation or clarification belongs.
Number three: We were QUOTING a portion of the report… hence the “QUOTES”
I fail to see the sensationalism in that, I really do.
I do, however, see an exe grinding… but as I’ve been the object of a LOT of that kind of thing because of the nature of my job, I can’t say I’m surprised. Journalism is a damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don’t enterprise… meaning that the only thing that you can count on is that for every ten readers, you’re likely to get at least a dozen opinions of your efforts (and that’s on a SLOW day)…
At least I sign mine with my own name and offer facts, rather than hype, to support them.
Jim
Fair enough. Maybe we just crossed paths on a bad day for both of us. That said, though, I base my opinion of him solely on our interaction, and not on his reputation which, except for ANN’s Crusade against Sun and Fun, I knew nothing about.
In reply to:
It was nothing more than I said in my previous post in this thread, but I would be hypocritical if I didn’t hold myself to at least as high a standard as I profess to hold the media.
Not one to shy from an argument [;)] I submit that a journalist should be held to a higher standard than a poster in a forum. Journalists reach a wider audience (usually) and their professional standards deny them the luxury of spouting off (like me and others!), being intentionally misleading (thatÂ’s what separates the tabloids from the legitimate press), or embarking on Crusades. (There is, IMO, an irreconcilable journalistic dilemma when a reporter crosses that line. For example, writing about the evils of wearing fur is appropriate for a journalist; disrupting a fashion show one is invited to cover is not.)
Marty Said:
In reply to:
It was nothing more than I said in my previous post in this thread, but I would be hypocritical if I didn’t hold myself to at least as high a standard as I profess to hold the media.
Joe Mazza Responded:
In reply to:
Not one to shy from an argument I submit that a journalist should be held to a higher standard than a poster in a forum. Journalists reach a wider audience (usually) and their professional standards deny them the luxury of spouting off (like me and others!), being intentionally misleading (thatÂ’s what separates the tabloids from the legitimate press), or embarking on Crusades. (There is, IMO, an irreconcilable journalistic dilemma when a reporter crosses that line. For example, writing about the evils of wearing fur is appropriate for a journalist; disrupting a fashion show one is invited to cover is not.)
Joe: You are, of course quite correct, but I believe it was the unimpeachable philosopher M. Jackson who said, “start with the man in the mirror,” and another writer who seems to have a somewhat more dubious reputation who wrote, “To thyne own self be true.” So, while in theory journalists should hold themselves, and be held, to a higher standard of accuracy, fact checking and unbiasedness, IMO, to try to hold them to that standard without expecting similar from oneself, is as I mentioned, hypocritical.
I thought I stepped over the line in my questioning of ANN’s article, so I apologized. I appreciate your support of my original transgression, but allow me to wallow in my own dispair.[;)]
At least two people were misled because the impression ANN left was that the NTSB had concluded that the pilot was showing off. Why? There was only one set of quotes when, by your logic, there should have been two. Why? Because the portion of the report ANN was quoting was itself in quotes. (See below, emphasis mine.)
In reply to:
A private pilot stated he was on a cross-country flight from Dover A.F.B. to Eglin A.F.B. and he had stopped at Greenwood, South Carolina for fuel. He observed the accident airplane taxi out and depart from runway 27. The takeoff roll was long and the airplane lifted off the ground in “ground effect.” He believed the pilot was “showing off,” and thought the airplane was going to collide with the trees off the departure end of the runway. The nose of the airplane was observed to “pitch straight up and the airplane stalled”. The left wing dropped and the airplane spiraled down to the left in a nose down attitude until it disappeared from view. He heard an impact sound and then observed black smoke come up above the trees.
By omitting the second set in the teaser headline the clear impression was that ANN was quoting the NTSB, not a witness, and thus that the NTSB had concluded that the pilot was showing off.
I admit this is splitting hairs, but so is your argument. It’s a journalist’s responsibility to make things clear, not to leave false impressions then make tortured excuses for them.
Mr. Mazza…
The story IS clear… if you READ the whole thing… but it’s hard to do that while wielding that axe of yours, eh?
You can only put so much in a headline… and for every one of them, there are ALWAYS a number of ways to interpret it …especially when you’re trying to twist things to suit a viewpoint.
In reply to:
The story IS clear… if you READ the whole thing…
I did not take issue with the story, but rather with the misleading teaser headline. I submit that anyone browsing the ANN teasers would have the impression from the headline alone that the NTSB had concluded the pilot was showing off.*
In my opinion, that’s either sloppy editing or deliberate sensationalism. I’ll give ANN the benefit of the doubt and presume the former.
I think a fair response would have been, “Hey, I can see where that headline was misleading, but we meant no harm,” instead of mounting a Philadelphia lawyer’s defense of it.
*Apparently I’m not the only one to be confused by the dissonance between the headline and the story, and where ANN stood on it all, since I’m told there had already been a discussion of it in the member area by the time I posted.
Jim,
I’ve appreciated your reporting in the past and we have corresponded a few times by email. I have always found you up front. I do think this is a case where you need to step back and see another point of view whether you completely agree or not. An Atlanta station once ran the teaser for their evening news “Was the burning of an Atlanta church racially motivated?” When the story aired they pointed out that an investigation proved it wasn’t. However, the teaser irritated me. It added a racial tone to a story that had earlier been on just about the fire at the church. Why didn’t they run the teaser “Fire at black church shown to be caused by electrical fire. Details at 11.” It is reporting like this that makes people sensitive. I see your side but I see the other one too. I think you should be more sensitive to it.