Steve Fossett faked own death? "News of the World" states CAP says possible

[dogboy]

The News of the World", an English scandal newspaper (known in England as "News of the Screws"), states:

But now the official search spokeswoman, Lieutenant Colonel Cynthia Ryan of the US Civil Air Patrol, has told the News of the World she believes he may NOT have crashed.

She said: "Anything is possible. There are a lot of raised eyebrows— even more so now. I know very few people here, friends in law enforcement, that buy this story like the rest of the world has."

and

Lt Col Ryan—closely involved from the outset—said: "I've been doing this search and rescue for 14 years. Fossett SHOULD have been found.

"It's not like we didn't have our eyes open. We found SIX other planes while we were looking for him. We're pretty good at what we do."

Lt Col Ryan confirmed claims that Fossett was cheating on devoted wife Peggy and suggested he might have faked his death to avoid a multi-million divorce settlement if she had ever found out.

And she hinted that he might have been in money trouble, losing out on investments in troubled financial institutions Morgan Stanley and Bear Stearns.

http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/2707_steve_fossett.shtml

[Eclipse]

This thing makes that other waste of bits look credible...

[mikeylikey]

It was credible until LT Col Ryan said he was cheating on his wife.  How would she know??  Anything is possible, and his faking his own death was just as valid as him crashing. 

For a guy that always filed a flight plan, not to file one the day he crashes is like weird.  With his wife calling off any further searches funded by his estate or approved in good faith is well......weird too. 

We will never know, or maybe we will, no one knows for sure. 

[Major Carrales]

An example, if I have ever seen one, of why OPSEC should be followed.  Likely, these comments were made innocently and as specualtion (something we do here all the time).  That is all it takes for some people to "build" a theory on.  Hey, that's free speech, let them state their theories.

Is it true?  Who here or anywhere can say at this point?

[ThorntonOL]

Like any "pop" newspaper, handle it with fireproof gloves at a considerable distance.
We don't want to get involved any further and lets pray that all this about the member speaking  about these topics is assumed by the writers of the article.
Unless one of us heard her say it.

[Smithsonia]

So Steve Fossett wasn't shot down at area 51 AND is currently stowed in a large refrigerated lava lamp of blue liquid next to the space aliens in the basement at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base? What kind of leg pulling is Lt. Col. Ryan up to... with this staged his own death to run off with a honey thing? I like the former more than the latter because I'm Irish, I'm in the Civil Air Patrol, and I think it has more of an antidisestablishmentarism thing going for it. I know a guy, who knows another guy -- who has a grandmother, well... I say this for good reason, as I'm sure you know, CAP is a secret masonic cult and Mr. Fossett was about to stumble upon the truth about us.
WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

[PHall]

An example, if I have ever seen one, of why OPSEC should be followed.  Likely, these comments were made innocently and as specualtion (something we do here all the time).  That is all it takes for some people to "build" a theory on.  Hey, that's free speech, let them state their theories.

Is it true?  Who here or anywhere can say at this point?

You're assuming that she actually said any of that. The News of the World has paid out a fair amount of money in settlements to various celebrities for printing "quotes" that were pure fabrications.

[Smokey]

If she made those comments, it would be totally inappropriate. We do not speculate in that manner and especially do not make those kinds of statements to the press.

Any PAO who would make staements like taht to the press should be stripped of his/her PAO status.

[mikeylikey]

WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

Sir, you need to turn in your polo shirt and khaki shorts along with your 2B and report for remedial training with the US Ranger Corps..........immediately!   

[Frenchie]

If she made those comments, it would be totally inappropriate. We do not speculate in that manner and especially do not make those kinds of statements to the press.

Any PAO who would make staements like taht to the press should be stripped of his/her PAO status.

Assuming the statements did indeed come from the person in question, I would go one step farther and revoke CAP membership permanently.  Not only do those statements reflect poorly on CAP, they are hurtful to the family involved.  Those statements are completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any member, PAO or not.  If that person wants to express foil-hat personal opinions, that's fine.  Do it outside CAP, not from inside.

[RiverAux]

I seriously doubt that anyone who performed so professionallky during a very high-pressure mission is going to be saying stuff like that, especially to this particular person.

[♠SARKID♠]

The News of the World", an English scandal newspaper (known in England as "News of the Screws"), states:

...

I'll believe that when me boots turn purple and smell like rainbow sherbet!

Seriously, theres more fact in a torn page of The Onion than in a month's worth of NOTW.

[Major Carrales]

An example, if I have ever seen one, of why OPSEC should be followed.  Likely, these comments were made innocently and as specualtion (something we do here all the time).  That is all it takes for some people to "build" a theory on.  Hey, that's free speech, let them state their theories.

Is it true?  Who here or anywhere can say at this point?

You're assuming that she actually said any of that. The News of the World has paid out a fair amount of money in settlements to various celebrities for printing "quotes" that were pure fabrications.

That is most correct.  It is an assumption, I doubt these things were said in any context befitting printing (if at all).  However, the premise remains the same, we must be careful of what we say and of who is listening.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

If you read the story, you'll also see that CAP apparently has Blackhawks with infrared technology. And that CAP is only 40 years old. And that Cynthia Ryan is a light colonel -- unless she was promoted after I talked to her last (and I imagine that's possible -- score that as the only possible fact in that story)! There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!

I smell a libel lawsuit, if NHQ ever reads this site and cares to dig into it.

[Major Carrales]

If you read the story, you'll also see that CAP apparently has Blackhawks with infrared technology. And that CAP is only 40 years old. And that Cynthia Ryan is a light colonel -- unless she was promoted after I talked to her last (and I imagine that's possible -- score that as the only possible fact in that story)! There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!

I smell a libel lawsuit, if NHQ ever reads this site and cares to dig into it.

Really, what can be done about such things?  I would think that Major Ryan has the better case here.  If she never said these things, that is a violation of American Laws...however, this is the UK being discussed here. 

What happens in such cases?  Actually, I think Nick Critelli is a barrister, he might know (if he would ever reply to anything here again).  His insight is greatly missed.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Really, what can be done about such things?  I would think that Major Ryan has the better case here.  If she never said these things, that is a violation of American Laws...however, this is the UK being discussed here. 

What happens in such cases?  Actually, I think Nick Critelli is a barrister, he might know (if he would ever reply to anything here again).  His insight is greatly missed.

Good question. I would imagine American law might be brought to bear, since the Web site has been published in the United States. But then again, I'm a journalist, not an attorney, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

[lordmonar]

It was credible until LT Col Ryan said he was cheating on his wife.

And we know that Col Ryan said this how?

I can't anyone is believing any of this.  If you do....I got a bridge for sale, where you can see big foot every other Tuesday.

[Camas]

It was credible until LT Col Ryan said he was cheating on his wife.

And we know that Col Ryan said this how? I can't anyone is believing any of this.  If you do....I got a bridge for sale, where you can see big foot every other Tuesday.

I don't see Lt Col Ryan making a comment like that. I know her and Lordmanor, she's in your wing so perhaps you know her too. I can only hope we're right.

[dogboy]

I smell a libel lawsuit, if NHQ ever reads this site and cares to dig into it.

Your JAG officer will explain that it's almost impossible to win a defamation lawsuit by a public official against a newspaper in US courts since New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964). 

Also, it's not sufficient that the News of the World misquoted the PAO officer Mason v. New Yorker Magazine (1991).

We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. at 279-280, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 342, unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement. The use of quotations to attribute words not in fact spoken bears in a most important way on that inquiry, but it is not dispositive in every case.

English libel law allows recovery for mere negligence for actual damages by a private individual but requires the same "actual malice" (knowing falsity or reckless disregard for the truth) for a public official to recover. In my opinion, a CAP PAO would be considered a public official is both jurisdictions.

[Cecil DP]

Really, what can be done about such things?  I would think that Major Ryan has the better case here.  If she never said these things, that is a violation of American Laws...however, this is the UK being discussed here. 

What happens in such cases?  Actually, I think Nick Critelli is a barrister, he might know (if he would ever reply to anything here again).  His insight is greatly missed.

Good question. I would imagine American law might be brought to bear, since the Web site has been published in the United States. But then again, I'm a journalist, not an attorney, and I didn't stay in a Holiday Inn last night.

Actually, if she were to sue, she'd be better off in a british court, The libel and slander laws are so much more protective of the individual.

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity. Either way, it still doesn't allow a newspaper to publish falsehoods.

A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things.

On top of that, the story was factually incorrect in many, many ways. Read the article, and you'll see it was almost totally pulled out of someone's ass.

Libel in America is not always decided in court by actual malice. And thanks to our legal system, you can bring a lawsuit at any time, with or without merit, so newsgathering organizations err on the side of caution, almost every time. No one wants to lawyer up, no matter how silly the accusation.

[wuzafuzz]

WOW!  Yesterday I printed that article, shredded it, and sprinkled it on my lawn.  Today the grass is taller and greener!   :angel:

[dogboy]

It seems this story was printed by the respectable newspaper, the Telegraph (London) and was picked up by the News of the World from there.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2462912/Adventurer-Steve-Fossett-may-have-faked-his-own-death.html

The article's author, Chris Irvine, writes for the Telegraph

[mikeylikey]

I sure hope this CAP Officer had nothing to do with this.  Even if it was a snide side remark, we all should be careful with what comes out of our mouths.  It could possibly begin an investigation, and make CAP look bad AGAIN.

I foresee a memo from the National Commander limiting our access to media because of this.  NHQ and its volunteers are so good at knee-jerk type reactions......reference the ATV/ Golf Cart fiasco! 

[flyerthom]

WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

Sir, you need to turn in your polo shirt and khaki shorts along with your 2B and report for remedial training with the US Ranger Corps..........immediately!   

No worries mickeylikey, everyone knows with Area 51 being in NV, it's really a top secret ah special entertainment complex for government officials...


As for those quotes, I know Lt Col Ryan. I'm calling them a steaming pile of male cattle food digestion byproduct. I'm not buying it.

[dogboy]

Obviously, I'm not in a position to determine whether the CAP Officer in question made these statements or not.  However, I'm sorry to disagree with most of your comments.

Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-goverment agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.

A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated.

A "quote" can be altered more than cleaning up grammar and still be protected.

We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used.

We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279-280, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 342, unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement.

Mason v. New Yorker Magazine (1991)

Libel in America is not always decided in court by actual malice. And thanks to our legal system, you can bring a lawsuit at any time, with or without merit, so newsgathering organizations err on the side of caution, almost every time. No one wants to lawyer up, no matter how silly the accusation.

I can only assume the author of this statement doesn't look at the tabloids while in the supermarket checkout line. Of course, anyone can file a lawsuit but nothing could be further from the truth that news publishers are afraid of lawsuits because of the expense or bother. Tabloids know that a simple motion for Summary Judgment will dispose of almost all defamation lawsuits long before they ever get to a jury. Responsible news organizations have ethical standards to uphold.

From the perspective of the plaintiff (the one who claims to be defamed), a defamation lawsuit is almost always a loser. The plaintiff has to pay his own lawyer, win or lose, and awards are usually small. As a general rule, damages can only compensatory - - that is the plaintiff has to show an actual, or at least estimatable, monetary lose. What damages could a CAP PAO Officer claim?

[mikeylikey]

What damages could a CAP PAO Officer claim?

That she will be involuntarily 2b'd or forced to resign based solely on the appearance (and not actual act) of what she supposedly said. 

The appearance of misdoings in CAP is enough to be kicked out.  We can thank a previous National Commander for that. 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

Obviously, I'm not in a position to determine whether the CAP Officer in question made these statements or not.  However, I'm sorry to disagree with most of your comments.

Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-goverment agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.

Nope. A limited public figure still has protections. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said.

A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated.

A "quote" can be altered more than cleaning up grammar and still be protected.

Yes, that's true. Having spent my entire professional life doing credible journalism, I'm going to weigh in with real-world experience. Here's how a quote can be altered ethically:
-- Cleaning up grammar.
-- Condensing a quote by using ellipses or speech tags to "tighten up" or get to the point faster.
-- Indirectly quoting (not direct quotes in quotation marks -- half to 3/4 of most news stories are indirect quotes)

We reject the idea that any alteration beyond correction of grammar or syntax by itself proves falsity in the sense relevant to determining actual malice under the First Amendment. An interviewer who writes from notes often will engage in the task of attempting a reconstruction of the speaker's statement. That author would, we may assume, act with knowledge that at times she has attributed to her subject words other than those actually used.

We conclude that a deliberate alteration of the words uttered by a plaintiff does not equate with knowledge of falsity for purposes of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S., at 279-280, and Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., supra, at 342, unless the alteration results in a material change in the meaning conveyed by the statement.

Sounds like indirect quotes to me. Not fabricated ones. There's a huge difference.

I can only assume the author of this statement doesn't look at the tabloids while in the supermarket checkout line.

Nope, nor would I need to. And the legion of loopholes and disclaimers those people use to print that garbage is not what reputable publishers rely on.

I can't imagine anyone would be crazy enough to sell libel insurance to the Star, Globe or Weekly World News.

No one wants a lawsuit. We'd rather be at work. The only lawsuit most newspapers will pursue is an FOIA action, unless there's some great principle involved, like, oh, say, the Pentagon Papers case.

As far as damages, a CAP public affairs officer could claim defamation of character, for starters. I'm not a lawyer, though. Let the sharks sort all that out. What I DO know is CAP PA and my professional job. I know right and wrong, and can't sit still for something unethical.

[Major Lord]

This reminds me of soemthing they told us in the Police Academy: "Everything you read in the newspaper is 100% correct, except those stories you have personal knowledge of!"

By the way, was the Major who allegedly made the statements the one who we saw on TV with the hoop earrings, wrong patches and wearing a flight suit?

Major Lord

[mikeylikey]

^ I do believe that would be her. 

[dogboy]

Col. Ryan is not a public figure. At most, she'd be considered a "limited" public figure, limited only to the subject matter, maybe, but not as a full public figure, like a politician or celebrity.

No, the PAO officer is a public relations professional, speaking (allegedly) for a quasi-government agency. This is a "public official", the most defamation-proof form of public figure.

In any case, the concept of "limited public figure" EXPANDS the public figure classification and therefore aids the defense. If the plaintiff is a "limited public figure", particularly one who has voluntarily entered the controversy, then the publisher is entitled to the same defense that it would have against a regular public figure.

Nope. A limited public figure still has protections. Doesn't matter. Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said.

<sigh> Truly, I despair at my seeming inability to explain the law to a layperson.

Under US law, it does not matter whether the PAO is a public official, public figure, or a "limited public figure", the legal standard is the same.

To prevail in a defamation suit, this plaintiff must prove "actual malice". Instead of showing objectively that a "reasonable person" knew or should have known the defamatory statement was false, a public figure plaintiff must prove by clear and convincing evidence that the intent of the defendant was malicious, or that they acted with reckless disregard for the truth AND that the statement was false.

As a practical matter, these are impossible hurtles to overcome, unless the plaintiff has a authenticated recording of all conversations she had with the publisher.

Finally, permit me to caution posters on this topic.

"Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said."

"A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things."

"There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!"

Each of these could be defamatory. Since the writer of each of these statements has no way of knowing whether the printed statements were correctly quoted or not (apart from the speaker's reputation), if the quotations are turn out to be correctly made, these writers could be found to have acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

The CAP might also well be liable, especially since some of the statements were signed with the name, rank and position held by the writer. This implies that the writer is speaking for the organization.

These statements are probably legally protected:

You're assuming that she actually said any of that. The News of the World has paid out a fair amount of money in settlements to various celebrities for printing "quotes" that were pure fabrications.

Seriously, theres more fact in a torn page of The Onion than in a month's worth of NOTW.

I can't anyone is believing any of this.  If you do....I got a bridge for sale, where you can see big foot every other Tuesday.

I don't see Lt Col Ryan making a comment like that. I know her and Lordmanor, she's in your wing so perhaps you know her too.

Again, I remind readers that the author of the article in question is employed by the Telegraph (London) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, a reputable and conservative newspaper. Apparently, the News of the World picked up the story from the Telegraph and did not originate it.

[IceNine]

If this does turn out to be true I would have no choice but to applaud the guy.

I can't count the number of times I've wanted to disappear

I bet Mr. Fossett, Mr. Presley, Mr. Hoffa, and 2 Pac are all sipping Mai Tai's on some awesome Bermuda based island right now right now

[BuckeyeDEJ]

"Fact is, the darned story is all fouled up. It's not Ryan's fault. It is factually wrong, top to bottom. Sourcing the story to Ryan is putting words in her mouth I can't imagine she would have said."

"A "deliberate alteration" of a quote would apply to cleaning up grammar in a quote, but would NOT apply to the sort of falsehood NOTW made up as a Ryan quote. NOTW didn't misquote. It clearly fabricated. There is no way Ryan would have said those things."

"There's no way in hell she said any of that stuff, let alone to a British tab!"

Each of these could be defamatory. Since the writer of each of these statements has no way of knowing whether the printed statements were correctly quoted or not (apart from the speaker's reputation), if the quotations are turn out to be correctly made, these writers could be found to have acted with reckless disregard for the truth.

We do know that as a CAP PA, she would have been in hot water from the getgo (from NHQ PA as well as the IC) had she actually said those things. Nothing a CAP PA says to the media hasn't been approved by the IC. If she went renegade and talked out of turn -- and we don't know that she did, and I'm giving her the benefit of the doubt -- she'd already be in deep.

Oh, yeah, I think I said all those things you quoted. Leave it to an attorney to point that out (rolling eyes, laughing)....

The CAP might also well be liable, especially since some of the statements were signed with the name, rank and position held by the writer. This implies that the writer is speaking for the organization.

They aren't signed by her ("signed" infers her authentication) -- they're attributed to her by a reporter, and reporters don't give prior review. Do we really know that she said those things? No. So am I questioning the integrity of a reporter? Yes. He didn't do his homework. (For instance, CAP doesn't have HH-60s with infrared.) I'm not defaming the reporter, just criticizing his work for being sloppy at best. I question the veracity of the entire article based on multiple facts, not just the quotes.

It's time for a fat correction. At least, that's what a reputable American paper would do.

Again, I remind readers that the author of the article in question is employed by the Telegraph (London) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/, a reputable and conservative newspaper. Apparently, the News of the World picked up the story from the Telegraph and did not originate it.

Even trusted news sources have foul-ups.
-- The New York Times had a reporter a few years ago whose entire body of work was under investigation. The reporter was discredited and left the paper.
-- The Plain Dealer of Cleveland had one about 30 years ago -- after his departure from the PD, the guy went on to be a successful screenwriter in Hollywood.
-- A Boston Globe columnist was disgraced for plagiarism a few years ago.
-- There was an investigation into reporting at a major national newspaper a few years ago for the same sort of shenanigans as at the NYT.
-- And there are others.

Yeah, we bashed a London tab for incredibility. Lesson for them: Don't crib someone else's story without at least verifying the information. Lesson for us: Regardless of whether these things were really said -- and I stand by my belief that she didn't say any of that stuff -- IOs and PAs (and I'm one) must be careful what they say to the media (also me).

DISCLAIMER: Since this is a discussion forum for opinion, as well as a platform for sharing knowledge, what I say is entirely my opinion.

[Hawk200]

Personally, I have to wonder about the rest of the story when they state that Civil Air Patrol Black Hawks were scanning the desert. It's one of those little things in the story that tosses credibility completely out of the window. Don't suppose someone can show me one of these CAP Black Hawks? I'd really love to see one.

[lordmonar]

If nothing else....this is a good lesson for our relations with the press/OPSEC class.

I know Col Ryan...and as far as PAO duties go...she is a professional in every way.   

[dogboy]

Personally, I have to wonder about the rest of the story when they state that Civil Air Patrol Black Hawks were scanning the desert. It's one of those little things in the story that tosses credibility completely out of the window. Don't suppose someone can show me one of these CAP Black Hawks? I'd really love to see one.

I think it is an understandable error. The CAP was coordinating the search and Blackhawks (from Nevada Army National Guard) were searching. CAP and National Guard wear virtually the same uniforms. The distinction between the National Guard and the Civil air Patrol is not one that most Americans understand, so it's not surprising that an English reporter would confuse them.

Recall that a voluntary, unpaid civilian auxiliary to one of our armed forces is a uniquely American phenomena found not found elsewhere in the world.

[wingnut55]

I was on the Fossett Mission and people are deceived by the accounts.

California Wing CAP ran the mission for CAP in California, forbidden by Nevada Wing CAP to use their radio repeaters or "Stray into Nevada" while in a Grid. This later changed when nothing was found.

Nevada Wing CAP ran the mission for Nevada CAP.

Nevada Air Guard, California Air Guard did their own thing including fly in Grids with CAP aircraft, we found out on the Fly that a C-130 was in our Grid.

The Hiltons ran their own search, 10 or 15 helicopters, god knows how many small aircraft, all in our grids.

THE California CAP ICs did an outstanding job, I was proud of the guys who flew 7 hours a day for 6 days, at 1000 feet or less, tough work.

Is he out there? you bet! I have had several missions where the plane was never found, he is rolled up in a ball under a tree, remember he was flying at 130 mph at a few hundred feet AGL at one point in the flight. Not much room for error flying like that. yes we heard some rumors, and all of these have been discussed here, credible? maybe?

I hope the man is in Margueritaville?  but so is Elvis, JFK, Amelia, and other ghosts.

[flyguy06]

Why are ya'll even wasting time on this issue? Its obviously a ruse. I seriously doubt any of this is true. If it were,it would have come out in American media first. I also seriously doubt that the PAO lady , LT Col Ryan or MAJ or whatever made such statements. She was very professional on TV and it Doesnt seem in her character. AGain, why would a British newspaper pick up the story and no American paper? Doesnt make sense.

So, why are  we even talking about this?

[mikeylikey]

If nothing else....this is a good lesson for our relations with the press/OPSEC class.

I know Col Ryan...and as far as PAO duties go...she is a professional in every way.   

That means absolutely nothing here.  People can be the most awesome trusting and professional individual they can be, and still make a mistake. 

Not saying she did any of what is discussed in the article, but were you standing next to her at every interview.....even after the end of the mission?  Do you personally know she is not capable of making these comments?  Everyone is capable of goofing up. 

[lordmonar]

I guess I should say....that in my working with Col Ryan....I find the report that she said these things to a report hard to believe. 

[ELTHunter]

I was watching Fox News at lunch.  They had a teaser that said something to the effect that the Civil Air Patrol now says Fosset could have faked his own death.

[CAP Producer]

Here is a Release from NHQ.

Link: http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?fuseaction=display&nodeID=6192&newsID=4486&year=2008&month=7

CAP position on Steve Fossett search clarified

July 28, 2008

NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS -- On Oct. 3, 2007, Civil Air Patrol suspended the search for aviator Steve Fossett following one of the largest and most intensive searches for a missing aircraft in modern history.

Despite CAP's well-coordinated efforts, Fossett and his aircraft remain undetected. Throughout the search for Fossett, Lt. Col. Cindy Ryan, then Nevada Wing public information officer, served as primary media spokesperson. The search was conducted primarily from Minden-Tahoe Airport in Nevada. With suspension of the search, media inquiries are now handled by CAP National Headquarters Public Affairs at Maxwell Air Force Base, Ala.

Recent comments attributed to Ryan regarding the search for Fossett contain errors of fact, appear to be taken out of context and were not released with the knowledge or approval of CAP. Civil Air Patrol's role in the search for Fossett, as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, was limited to search and rescue in coordination with other emergency service providers. Issues pertaining to Fossett's personal life and/or rumors surrounding his disappearance are entirely unrelated to CAP's search efforts and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for CAP to comment about them. 

Over the last decade, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center and CAP have been involved in thousands of searches for missing aircraft, and only 18 of those missions are unsolved. CAP members perform 90 percent of continental U.S. inland search and rescue missions as tasked by the AFRCC and were credited by AFRCC with saving 103 lives in 2007.

The search for Fossett ended after a 20,000-square-mile search that included members of CAP's Nevada, California, Utah, Idaho, Oregon, Colorado, New Mexico and Texas wings. Initially, more than 60 CAP Nevada Wing members and six aircraft were involved in the search effort. Sophisticated "grid" searches of thousands of square miles of rugged, high-desert terrain were conducted by CAP volunteers who devoted in excess of 17,000 man-hours both on the ground and in the air. CAP flew 629 flights totaling 1,774 flying hours.

From the start of the operation, these areas were searched repeatedly at different times of day and light angles in order for crews to better see into deep mountain ravines. Ground search teams on foot, horseback and all-terrain vehicles simultaneously combed the same target areas. 

In addition, nearly a dozen radar analysts reviewed the Fossett radar data, including experts from the Federal Aviation Administration, the Air Force, Navy, National Transportation Safety Board and CAP, using multiple approaches and software tools, all looking for Fossett's radar track.

CAP, the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, Nevada National Guard, Nevada's Department of Emergency Management, California's Office of Emergency Services and many other agencies worked under a unified command structure in order to share resources and coordinate efforts.  Also, the Hilton Flying M Ranch's assets worked closely with CAP and these agencies to ensure their efforts were not duplicated and safety was maintained at all times.

"The search for Steve Fossett is a testament to the unforgiving terrain comprising the search area," said Lt. Col. E.J. Smith, Nevada Wing vice commander. "The combination of high altitude, thick forest and mountainous terrain proved to be unconquerable during this particular search operation."

[mikeylikey]

Sounds like the PAO made some off the wall comments that were picked up without her knowledge. 

[RiverAux]

They've made it to the US: http://www.krdo.com/Global/story.asp?S=8748519

[mikeylikey]

After reading the CAP NHQ response twice, it would appear that the Lt Col did make the remarks and NHQ is trying to confront it before it gets bigger.  I would imagine they were remarks made that she believed would not be part of any article.  It is a shame, but will most likely end her CAP career.

This is a perfect example of reasons to think about what you are going to say before the words come out of your face.  Even if she made the remarks in passing to friends who later passed them on to reporters.....it is still bad form on her part.  The whole "remarks made out of context" would make one consider that in fact she said them without intending for them to be picked up by reporters.

We can expect some more knee-jerk reaction in the next week from NHQ I would imagine!  Perhaps all PAO releases will no have to go through NHQ and the legal counsel office.  I bet we see another reg rewrite within the coming month! 

[Major Lord]

"Recent comments attributed to Ryan regarding the search for Fossett contain errors of fact, appear to be taken out of context and were not released with the knowledge or approval of CAP. Civil Air Patrol's role in the search for Fossett, as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, was limited to search and rescue in coordination with other emergency service providers. Issues pertaining to Fossett's personal life and/or rumors surrounding his disappearance are entirely unrelated to CAP's search efforts and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for CAP to comment about them. "

I noticed that they did not deny she made the comments.....

Major Lord

[mikeylikey]

I noticed that they did not deny she made the comments.....

Major Lord

As did I.  It is a career ending mistake, even if she is totally innocent, the example will have to be made now.  CAP is very good at making examples out of people.   

[Major Carrales]

I noticed that they did not deny she made the comments.....

Major Lord

The importance of OPSEC.

Makes me wonder how many of our specuations here migth one day end up in some tabloid.  Kind of makes you think...don't it?  Think before you post. 

[RiverAux]

Keep in mind that there are at least two sets of comments being discussed here:

'I've been doing this search and rescue for 14 years. Fossett should have been found. It's not like we didn't have our eyes open. We found six other planes while we were looking for him. We're pretty good at what we do.'"

I think I remember seeing comments like that in other legit press coverage (perhaps that big magazine article on the Fosset search a few months ago?).  Nothing wrong with that comment at all. 

It is the non-quoted comments about him faking his own death or his family problems that are troublesome.  If she actually said anything along those lines, that would be a problem no matter the context. 

[BillB]

I question the fact that the questionable quote on Fossett faking his death magically appear nine months after the search effort was terminated. If such a statement was made, it would have been a major news item LAST October. I doubt any news agency would do a follow up this late (I know I wouldn't since the news value was about a zero, and I have 40 years in journalism)
A follow-up 30 or 60 days after the event would have the IC being the one interviewed, not the PAO, just to get a different view pointof the search effort. Other than what the PAO had previously released.

[mikeylikey]

^ Just a few weeks ago the major news outlets all reported that the widow would stop funding searches, and does not want anyone to continue searching.  There were also the reports on private searches continuing. 

There are always followups to major news stories, days, weeks, months and years later.  This event is no different. 

She could have been called late one night and lured into a speculative conversation that she believed had no relevance. 

[BuckeyeDEJ]

"Recent comments attributed to Ryan regarding the search for Fossett contain errors of fact, appear to be taken out of context and were not released with the knowledge or approval of CAP. Civil Air Patrol's role in the search for Fossett, as tasked by the Air Force Rescue Coordination Center, was limited to search and rescue in coordination with other emergency service providers. Issues pertaining to Fossett's personal life and/or rumors surrounding his disappearance are entirely unrelated to CAP's search efforts and, therefore, it would be inappropriate for CAP to comment about them. "

I noticed that they did not deny she made the comments.....

Major Lord

But they didn't admit it, either. I'm sure there's an ongoing inquiry into the comments. I still can't imagine she said that, even in an unguarded moment, to a reporter.

[mikeylikey]

^ I have got to say it does not look good.  She will be the example to all of us in CAP.  She presented herself very well on television.  This situation is a shame. 

[IceNine]

did anyone see the press conference with Gen. Courter?

or has there been any reports after the fact?

I am on the right timeline right, this was supposed to happen tonight

[Mustang]

Rumors are surfacing that Fossett may have faked his own death, and some sources are pointing to the search's CAP PAO:

This from The Register of London: "Despite a massive search for Fossett and his Bellanca Citabria Super Decathalon, no trace of either has ever been found. Lieutenant Colonel Cynthia Ryan of the US Civil Air Patrol, who was involved in the operation from the start, said: 'I've been doing this search and rescue for 14 years. Fossett should have been found. It's not like we didn't have our eyes open. We found six other planes while we were looking for him. We're pretty good at what we do.'"

"Ryan believes Fossett "may have faked his own death due to personal problems or fears about his business dealings", the Telegraph explains.

NHQ has responded, and PAO Ryan as apparently been scolded: 

Col. Ryan, reached in Nevada, said, "As much as I'd like to, I've been instructed not to talk to the media."

Oops.

http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/07/did-steve-fosse.html

[IceNine]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5624.0

Oh really

[NEBoom]

ABC News has also picked it up, though only on one of their blogs (so far).
http://blogs.abcnews.com/scienceandsociety/2008/07/did-steve-fosse.html

[Mustang]

Meh. I never foray into the Lobby...

[flyguy06]

http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=5624.0

Oh really

Icenine. I am SURE that she was instructed not to talkto the media AFTER her previous comments cameout. Look at the date of he original article. It was yesterday, so somethigs have obviously changed.

[Smithsonia]

Let me see if I can explain the media in a metaphorical way:
Media heat has it's own separate and parallel truth. Like a pack of dogs, each individual reporter is sniffing the scent of the story-fox, when a reported whiff comes along, that "reporter-dog will bey out-loud and the pack heads in a new direction. Individual reports and reporters need not be telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, at any given moment, they may or may not know where the story-fox is, they simply are stating their belief that the "story-fox" is moving in a certain direction. In this way the new story-dog leads the pack until it looses the scent. At that point either another dog in the pack takes over the lead or the story-fox goes into hiding for a while, or forever. I imagine that the "story-fox" is leading this pack no where. I presume that the story-dog has taken a whiff that is leading the pack in an unproductive circle. Soon the pack will sniff only amongst itself and retrace its former path. Eventually the pack will give up due to disinterest. But for the time being the pack's blood is up and they are looking and sniffing and barking.

Please keep this little metaphor in mind when among the pack. I've been a member of the pack for 40 years. I know the pack intimately. The pack makes sense from the inside, but from the outside it can sound  just like a bunch of noise running from place to place.

[davedove]

So Steve Fossett wasn't shot down at area 51 AND is currently stowed in a large refrigerated lava lamp of blue liquid next to the space aliens in the basement at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base? What kind of leg pulling is Lt. Col. Ryan up to... with this staged his own death to run off with a honey thing? I like the former more than the latter because I'm Irish, I'm in the Civil Air Patrol, and I think it has more of an antidisestablishmentarism thing going for it. I know a guy, who knows another guy -- who has a grandmother, well... I say this for good reason, as I'm sure you know, CAP is a secret masonic cult and Mr. Fossett was about to stumble upon the truth about us.
WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

I bet Mr. Fossett, Mr. Presley, Mr. Hoffa, and 2 Pac are all sipping Mai Tai's on some awesome Bermuda based island right now right now

I'm sorry.  You both know too much for your own good and will have to be neutralized.

[Smithsonia]

Neutralization of me is fine as long a you do it before I have to take ECI-13. After that you're just wasting ammo.
With regards;
ED OBRIEN

[flyerthom]

So Steve Fossett wasn't shot down at area 51 AND is currently stowed in a large refrigerated lava lamp of blue liquid next to the space aliens in the basement at Wright-Patterson Air Force Base? What kind of leg pulling is Lt. Col. Ryan up to... with this staged his own death to run off with a honey thing? I like the former more than the latter because I'm Irish, I'm in the Civil Air Patrol, and I think it has more of an antidisestablishmentarism thing going for it. I know a guy, who knows another guy -- who has a grandmother, well... I say this for good reason, as I'm sure you know, CAP is a secret masonic cult and Mr. Fossett was about to stumble upon the truth about us.
WHOOPS. I may have broken a sacred CAP vow! Sorry, don't tell anyone of my indiscretion.

I bet Mr. Fossett, Mr. Presley, Mr. Hoffa, and 2 Pac are all sipping Mai Tai's on some awesome Bermuda based island right now right now

I'm sorry.  You both know too much for your own good and will have to be neutralized.

I thought they were still in area 51 along with Frankie, JFK and Marilyn 

[Psicorp]

Today Rush Limbaugh quoted her alleged quotation.  Not that Rush is anything like NOTF when it comes to news.   Wait...did I just admit to listening to Rush?  I'm going back to work now.

[flyerthom]

Today Rush Limbaugh quoted her alleged quotation.  Not that Rush is anything like NOTF when it comes to news.   Wait...did I just admit to listening to Rush?  I'm going back to work now.

Bad psicorp, no senior doughnut!

[JohnKachenmeister]

I was hard on Ryan about her uniform appearance during the operation, but I want to ask you all not to be hard on her about these alleged comments.

First, reporters are not cops.  They don't have to identify themselves.  Even if they do, there is nothing you can do if they misquote you or take your comments out of context.  I worked Army public affairs for a long time, and I grew to hate the little (offspring of unmarried parents).  They are sneaky and have ZERO ethics.

So, I can picture this happening:

The Conversation:

Reporter:  "So, is it at least POSSIBLE that Fossett faked hs own death?"

Ryan:  "Well, I guess anything is possible."

Reporter:  "Is there any evidence that he did NOT fake his own death?"

Ryan:  "There is no evidence of anything."

Tommorrow's Headline:

CAP CLAIMS FOSSETT MAY HAVE FAKED HIS OWN DEATH
Lt. Col. Ryan says there is no evidence to the contrary.


If it wasn't for the First Amendment, there would be a bounty on journalists.

[cnitas]

I am going to repeat what John just said.

I was interviewed during the Clinton-Lewinski scandal on the night that we started bombing Iraq, by a mainstream news network.  People were all abuzz with 'wag the dog' talk.

Actual event:
There were several questions about Lewinski, and perhaps 1 on the bombing.
Reporter's question:  What do you think of the Lewinski Scandal?
Answer:  I think the whole thing is sad.

When it aired on the news:
The story was about the bombing and none on the scandal.
Question: What do you think of the US bombing Iraq.
Answer:  I think the whole thing is sad.

After that little event, I will not do interviews with the media, and I do not trust them.  I could believe she was setup in a heartbeat.

[RiverAux]

This station http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/26008189.html had this today:

Amy S. Courter CAP Interim National Commander held a special news conference today just outside of Detroit to comment on Ryan's statements.

"She really gave some personal accounts and not those of the civil air patrol."

To me this says that she did make some comments about faking his death.  Say goodby to national PAO of the year.....

[ColonelJack]

I just want to go on the record here regarding comments regarding reporters and the media in general.

Are there bad apples out there, people with an agenda, who skew stories?  You bet your sweet life there are.

Do they represent all of the media?  No freaking way.

I am a television news anchorman and have been a broadcast journalist for thirty-two years.  I take extreme offense at some of the things I've read here about reporters.  I am one and I strive hard to keep any personal bias or personal agendas out of my reporting.  I tell the facts, and I don't allow anyone working for me to do anything but tell the facts.  I leave it to my viewers to determine the "angle" of a story -- because when I report news, there isn't an angle.  I tell what happened, and leave the rest to my viewers.

Needless to say, with a view of news like that, I won't be working for Fox any time soon -- or for CNN, for that matter.

Please don't paint all journalists with that brush.  In many cases -- most cases, really -- it doesn't apply.

I am not qualified to comment on this particular story, as I do not know Lt. Col. Ryan and did not cover the Fossett story except from our station's national news desk.  Here, too, I just told what was happening. 

Jack

[Chappie]

We can speculate all we want as to what was or wasn't said....unfortunately, Lt Col Cynthia Ryan is not able to defend herself in this forum or explain her side of the story.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/26008189.html (Reporter - Terri Russell):
"Ryan told me this morning that she was not allowed to comment on the Fossett case or the articles. She did say those who interviewed her left out important information and cobbled things together."   

[flyguy06]

Everywhere i go from the military to my friends tothis board. Everyone loves to bash the media. Are they an easy target or what?

[PHall]

Everywhere i go from the military to my friends tothis board. Everyone loves to bash the media. Are they an easy target or what?

Yes.

[alice]

We can speculate all we want as to what was or wasn't said....unfortunately, Lt Col Cynthia Ryan is not able to defend herself in this forum or explain her side of the story.

http://www.kolotv.com/home/headlines/26008189.html

Very interesting that link.

I have to agree with the many posters who support the media v. those who think all should be avoided at all times.  I've been doing CAP PAO and MIO duties for more than 20 years, most often from CAWG.  Dealt with lots of media, including national ones.  I've seen lots of wierd misquotes by reporters messing up not-so-serious facts in the grand scheme of life, but never have had to deal with a tabloid reporter sniffing around months and months after a search.  Frankly, CAP and all other search forces NEED the media and virtually all the media willingly work with us, not against us.

Reality is, CAP members under clear CAP regulations are never supposed to say anything publically about missing or downed aircraft causation, not even our own crashes.  That is strictly for NTSB or for our own accidents, our safety and stan/eval folks for most of our history.  But what does "public" really mean in these situations?

I hope one day, if only at CAP PAO/MIO meetings, LtCol Ryan can tell her side of this story.  Did she know she was talking with a tabloid reporter?  Or was she chewing the fat at an airport cafe with "private" people or friends as we all have done.  CAP rarely does such high profile searches, these sorts of opportunities for "lessons learned" would be a shame to loose.

CAP members are used to wearing many hats.  As USAFAux, state employees on some missions, corporate, and as private citizens.   (I'll never forget that letter from a former CAP CC asking us all to lobby Congress in 1999 as private citizens immediately....)

Perhaps the greatest lesson learned from all of this is that during the Fossett search our LtCol Ryan became a public person for CAP and the Fossett search, perhaps never allowed to chew the fat about that search as private citizens can do even at home.

Alice

[Johnny Yuma]

A simple question: Were these "comments" attributed to her made during or after the mission and were they made in her capacity as the Mission PIO?

As far as I'm concerned, if the mission's closed and the comments were made off the job, then they're nothing more than the opinion of any other average citizen.

With that said, as a private citizen, membership card and uniforms in the next room, in my opinion he could have just as much been abducted by purple crack smoking Leprechauns and used as a human sacrifice in honor of Snoop Dogg. There's about as much evidence that happened as what they're alleging.

You can quote me on that, too.

[JohnKachenmeister]

I just want to go on the record here regarding comments regarding reporters and the media in general.

Are there bad apples out there, people with an agenda, who skew stories?  You bet your sweet life there are.

Do they represent all of the media?  No freaking way.

I am a television news anchorman and have been a broadcast journalist for thirty-two years.  I take extreme offense at some of the things I've read here about reporters.  I am one and I strive hard to keep any personal bias or personal agendas out of my reporting.  I tell the facts, and I don't allow anyone working for me to do anything but tell the facts.  I leave it to my viewers to determine the "angle" of a story -- because when I report news, there isn't an angle.  I tell what happened, and leave the rest to my viewers.

Needless to say, with a view of news like that, I won't be working for Fox any time soon -- or for CNN, for that matter.

Please don't paint all journalists with that brush.  In many cases -- most cases, really -- it doesn't apply.

I am not qualified to comment on this particular story, as I do not know Lt. Col. Ryan and did not cover the Fossett story except from our station's national news desk.  Here, too, I just told what was happening. 

Jack

Sorry to offend you, Jack, but I have seen a lot of reporters and reporterettes, and I'd have to say that 80-90 percent are sleazy, lazy, and not too bright.  I won't bore you with war stories, but I expect that a journalist would report FACTS.  A journalist cannot tell the story until he or she knows the story themselves.  Most of the time I see them grab a single nugget of information and make up the rest of the story.

Also, they like to try to hang around the cops at an incident, to hear that nugget of information by evesdropping on a conversation between an officer and his sergeant.  (Note to any journalists... there is a reason we have not released certain information to you at the scene.  We haven't confirmed it yet.)

I can't tell you how many times a stupid question, reflecting total ignorance about the military, would be asked of me when I was briefing journalists in Honduras, to which I would answer:  "That requires some background that will take a while to explain.  Please see me right after the briefing, and I'll answer that in detail."  Only to be described in the story as "Evasive" and "Refusing to answer questions."

[Cecil DP]

Without knocking the men and women in the news or related professions. There are obviously people who will slant or make up a story for their own good-The NY Times, Boston Globe and several other news organizations have been caught doing just that over the last 5 years. They're probably  less than 5% of the organization. I have been interviewed by reporters and when aired the answer was quite different than what was provided to the news crew.
My own persoanl view is that if the newspapers TV, and radio stations were giving the whole story there would be only one of each in every town.

[ColonelJack]

Sorry to offend you, Jack, but I have seen a lot of reporters and reporterettes, and I'd have to say that 80-90 percent are sleazy, lazy, and not too bright.  I won't bore you with war stories, but I expect that a journalist would report FACTS.  A journalist cannot tell the story until he or she knows the story themselves.  Most of the time I see them grab a single nugget of information and make up the rest of the story.

And I'm sorry, Kach, if I came off as too smug or self-righteous.  (I re-read what I wrote and once again realized the value of taking at least several deep breaths before putting fingers to keyboard!)  One can only speak from one's own experiences, of course.  The reporters (and reporterettes -- love that word) you mention wouldn't last long working for me.  I expect my staff to report facts as well, and to keep their opinions out of what they file.  I also expect them to report all the facts, not just the ones that support somebody's position -- even my employer's.  (He appreciates that, by the way.) 

You're right about a journalist not being able to tell the story until he/she knows the story.  On the other hand, there is the issue of time to consider -- we have to get the story on, as quickly as possible.  Yes, there are ratings, etc., to be concerned about, and any journalist who tells you otherwise is lying to you.  In our local market my station's the only one, so I have an extra responsibility to make sure that the story that goes on is reported accurately -- fast, yes, but accurately.  If I wait too long trying to gather facts before I go on with the story, it's not news any more. 

Also, they like to try to hang around the cops at an incident, to hear that nugget of information by evesdropping on a conversation between an officer and his sergeant.  (Note to any journalists... there is a reason we have not released certain information to you at the scene.  We haven't confirmed it yet.)

And the responsible journalist -- who, we know, is under deadline pressure to get the story in print or on the air by a certain time -- should just say what they know as fact and relate that more information will be released as soon as possible.  That's the right way to do it ... but I too have seen my fellows in the field who grabbed what they thought they heard and ran with it, only to be proven wrong moments later.

I can't tell you how many times a stupid question, reflecting total ignorance about the military, would be asked of me when I was briefing journalists in Honduras, to which I would answer:  "That requires some background that will take a while to explain.  Please see me right after the briefing, and I'll answer that in detail."  Only to be described in the story as "Evasive" and "Refusing to answer questions."

I'd never even try to defend a clown like the reporters who did that.  If they were really journalists, they'd have stayed around, gotten the background that you offered, and then wrote their story accordingly.  (Of course, that assumes they didn't have two minutes until deadline -- but even then, referring to you as "Evasive" was not correct.)

Thanks, Kach. 

Jack

[Smithsonia]

Lt. Col. Bagley;

After my 40 years as a journalist, writer, newsman, photog, documentarian, etc. I still have trouble answering the questions that haunt you too. (this comes from reading between your lines just above)

1. Why does our news deadline excuse our lying, half truth telling, sloppiness, indolence, and otherwise poor reporting?

I know it is the nature of the beast and regular publication requires regular news... but why is that commercial necessity excuse us when we miss the truth? John and Patsy Ramsey would like to know too.

2. If we say because it is "the peoples right to know" -- may I point out that nobody I know enjoys being told a lie.

3. If we say it is because of limitation of space (in a newspaper) or time (on the air) that we can't tell the whole truth... why is that an excuse too? It's an excuse for the publication and network perhaps, but why is it an excuse for we the journalists.

4. AND, why are our failures on the 10th page under corrections and never in a headline as bold nor scathing as our original mistake? Our self interest seems more important than our fidelity to truth here too.

I've had these arguments with many dear friends in the "business" and over many years. Answer if you like but do ponder no matter what.

[flyguy06]

Today Rush Limbaugh quoted her alleged quotation.  Not that Rush is anything like NOTF when it comes to news.   Wait...did I just admit to listening to Rush?  I'm going back to work now.

And we all know that Rush Limbaugh is fair and impartial. He is not real Journalism. he is a talking head. He disccuses issues not reparts news. You cant compare Rush to Tom Brokaw. Two different kinds of journalism.

Its obvious due to the demographic of people who post on this message nboard which way they lean toward. Thats ok, just recognize that the majority of folks that post here have a certain point of view on things.] such as the media and other issues.

[cnitas]

I don't think anyone was trying to say that Rush was a credible news source, only that he was discussing the story on his program.

Rush, like it or not, has a huge dedicated listening audience, and any negative CAP coverage on his show is very bad for us indeed.

[Psicorp]

Today Rush Limbaugh quoted her alleged quotation.  Not that Rush is anything like NOTF when it comes to news.   Wait...did I just admit to listening to Rush?  I'm going back to work now.

And we all know that Rush Limbaugh is fair and impartial. He is not real Journalism. he is a talking head. He disccuses issues not reparts news. You cant compare Rush to Tom Brokaw. Two different kinds of journalism.

Its obvious due to the demographic of people who post on this message nboard which way they lean toward. Thats ok, just recognize that the majority of folks that post here have a certain point of view on things.] such as the media and other issues.

At first I thought you were defending NOTF 

Sure they're different, but they both have a history of jumping on a story and reporting as facts things that haven't been verfied.   Journalists want to keep their jobs, so they'll often report incomplete information for the purpose of being the first one to "break the story".  It's one of the reasons I prefer getting my news from the BBC, they don't seem to have a political axe to grind.   Back to your regularly scheduled progamming...   

[ColonelJack]

Lt. Col. Bagley;

After my 40 years as a journalist, writer, newsman, photog, documentarian, etc. I still have trouble answering the questions that haunt you too. (this comes from reading between your lines just above)

1. Why does our news deadline excuse our lying, half truth telling, sloppiness, indolence, and otherwise poor reporting?

I know it is the nature of the beast and regular publication requires regular news... but why is that commercial necessity excuse us when we miss the truth? John and Patsy Ramsey would like to know too.

Ed, I would never -- EVER -- use deadlines as an excuse for sloppiness or worse.  In my news department, the SOP is simple:  Get as much of the story as you can, get the facts right, get it on.  We can always do a follow-up when we have more information, and if it's a story of interest, people will still be there.  I cringe too every time I think of what the poor Ramseys went through at the hands of so-called journalists.  I wonder if some of those people who wrote those awful articles and filed those video reports sleep well at night, thinking about what they did.  They, too, wouldn't have worked long for me.

2. If we say because it is "the peoples right to know" -- may I point out that nobody I know enjoys being told a lie.

The people have a right to know the truth.  Nothing more, nothing less.  You are apparently as responsible a journalist as I am -- more so, even.

3. If we say it is because of limitation of space (in a newspaper) or time (on the air) that we can't tell the whole truth... why is that an excuse too? It's an excuse for the publication and network perhaps, but why is it an excuse for we the journalists.

It's not an excuse for not telling the whole truth.  If limitations on space and time -- and even on deadlines -- are an excuse for anything, it would be for going on with what we know, as limited as it may be at the time.  A reporter should never indulge in speculation on a news story, at any time.  Once a reporter crosses the line from reporting the facts to speculating what they might mean or how they might unfold, he or she is stepping into editorial territory, and should be labeled as such.

4. AND, why are our failures on the 10th page under corrections and never in a headline as bold nor scathing as our original mistake? Our self interest seems more important than our fidelity to truth here too.

This rankles me more than just about anything.  If we report something under a banner headline on the front page and it turns out we were wrong, it should be corrected under a banner headline on the front page.  In my experience, I've found that our readers and viewers would like us a lot more if we would just admit our mistakes instead of burying them on page ten or at the end of the newscast.  When I've messed up -- and I have, believe me -- I've made it a point to correct the mistake in the same segment of the program the error took place.  I wish my fellows would do the same.

I've had these arguments with many dear friends in the "business" and over many years. Answer if you like but do ponder no matter what.

I ponder these regularly.  Thanks for the dialogue, Ed.  Much appreciated!

Jack


[/quote]

[NIN]

See, I'm not exactly sure that this "story" (I use quotes, I think its a "dead issue" [pardon the pun] and that SOME media were having a "slow news day" to gin up this story) is 100% bad for CAP.

Remember the old saw "There is not such thing as bad press?"  CAP suffers from an absolute dearth of press. At all. All the time.  We're darn near like a press black hole sometimes.

So when something like this hits, even though its pretty "negative" from where we sit,  it can be used as an opportunity to get the message out, inform people about the organization, etc.   How many people have probably said "What the hell is a Civil Air Patrol, anyway?" in the last week? Great opportunity to introduce the organization to a much, much broader audience under the guise of "correcting the record," if you will.

Occasionally there will be true "bad press" toward the organization. Accidents that cause a death, people breaking the law (*cough* David Graham *cough*) etc, are true incidences where the organization gets a black eye. 

This thing?  Yeah, not so much.  Use it to shine a little light on what we do, correct the information that's out there that seems to be either a misquote, poor journalism or outright "Hey, we need a nice story here, quick" and move on.

Not precisely related, but in my other hobby, skydiving, we note that after an accident that makes it into the paper or the local news, first-time jumper traffic to the DZ often increases...   Weird.

[RiverAux]

I do think the fact that this story has barely been picked up on by US media speaks to the credibility of the original article. 

[JohnKachenmeister]

I am concerned about the media showing bias in reporting, and a reporter allowing his personal opinion to influence a story.  Some reporters seem to be confused as to whether they are writing a story or an editorial.  But they are, I know, in the minority.

My larger concern is in their zeal to get a story fast, and/or out of sheer laziness, they get the story wrong.  Like I tell people when I teach handgun marksmanship... "Fast misses don't count."

I mentioned the practice of evesdropping on a conversation, then reporting the officer's theory of an incident and investigative plan as a fact.  Another technique is to go to an officer, security guard, or ambulance driver and ask an innocuous question... "Is there any evidence of terrorism in this explosion?"  The officer (who might be directing traffic) or the ambulance driver (waiting to pick up a casualty) answers courteously and factually by saying, "I don't know."  The lead of his story then becomes:

Police Baffled About Cause of Explosion.
Sources close to investigation refuse to rule out terror attack.

Also... If a reporter went to cover the town's first organ transplant, he would do his homework enough that he could determine the difference in roles between a doctor and a nurse, and maybe why the organ in question is important to the human body.  I have run into dozens of reporters who did not know the difference between an officer or an NCO, or a tank and a truck.  Yet there they are, in well-modulated vocal tones and a properly-serious facial expression giving the story into their ENG without themselves having the first clue about what is actually happening.

I'm serious about that tank-vs.-truck comment.  I had one reporterette from a major market (Minneapolis-St.Paul) identify a group of fire trucks in Honduras as "Tanks, hidden from view under a tent canopy."  

[Smithsonia]

Kach and Lt. Col. Jack (CapTalkers);
I trust that I can make this point by framing the arguments and misconceptions.
1. Media (at least journalists and reportage) have less bias than you think. (point for Jack's side)
2. Reporters are dumber than most of us think. (point to Kach)
3. Reporters aren't stupid for lack of brain matter (point for Jack)
4. They are mostly inexperienced and don't know as much about specific topics they as they should. I've also found most don't write well and don't read much either. Too many say they enjoy books on tape, or "I interviewed that author, so yes I know the book." Both won't get you where you gotta go. (point for Kach)
5. The media isn't the work of any one persona, place, or thing, it's an accumulation from various sources that we composite in our own brains. Our brains are the media, at least in the compositional form. (I THINK THAT IS ONE POINT FOR BOTH JACK AND KACH)
6. Normally what you/we perceive as bias comes from the composite that is in our own brains. If you think the media is too liberal -- watch more conservative media, or vice-a-versa. (recommendation with my own editorial content -- no points for anyone except me)
7. Media perception has always been this way. That's why the village idiot told the truth and not the King in Shakespeare -- the King is the subject of the play and the village idiot represented the common sense, and I stress the word COMMON as in collective sense of the audience.
8. The media is not the King. The commonly referred to media is not the real Media... we are (in our brains) the media. If you become frightened, disgusted, repulsed, or depressed watching the news. Then don't watch. It won't kill you. Trust me I stopped watching TV for 2 years and was happier for it -- even though I was working in commercial TV media at the time. (Again points for me, at least in my own brain)

I think the score is pretty much even at this point and the match continues. (although I think a "drift alert" from the moderator is coming too.)

[BuckeyeDEJ]

After my 40 years as a journalist, writer, newsman, photog, documentarian, etc. I still have trouble answering the questions that haunt you too. (this comes from reading between your lines just above)...

I know you asked Col. Bagley, but he's a TV guy. They're almost a different animal from ink-stained wretches like me.

1. Deadlines do NOT excuse getting half the story, or getting it wrong. I've worked at some of the biggest (and some of the smallest, too) newspapers in the country. The big boys don't always get it right, though I should add the small guys focus on the wrong things sometimes. If you didn't get it on deadline, either you didn't try hard enough, or your editors didn't throw enough resources at the story (or you didn't communicate to your editor that you needed help). Or (shock of shocks) the story hasn't fully developed, and you have to report it incrementally. The latter isn't really that big a deal -- you just report that not everything's in place.

2. If you don't have the story, you don't have the story. You can't pull it out of nowhere. The First Amendment is a check and balance against government (and the Second Amendment is a reset button, for the record). That said, "the public's right to know" is not an excuse in and of itself. It's a nice principle, though.

3. "We don't have enough space" is no excuse for the whole story. That's why we edit -- to be concise. If you can't write the brunt of the story in the lede, whether it's a straight-ahead lede or a stood-off nut graf, you suck as a writer and should find a different line of work. (Not that many of us aren't, anyway, with more than 6,000 layoffs in newsrooms around the country so far this year.)

4. Corrections are placed in a consistent place so readers know to look there for errata. Different newspapers do it differently. Some correct on the same page where the error was originally printed. Some put them in a front-page rail, while others use a common spot on page 2. There's no conspiracy to hide our mistakes -- there's just no consistent way to do it across American newspapers, and there's just no good way to smooth out a mistake for some people.

Hope that helps, from a little different perspective.

[Smithsonia]

Thanks Col. Jack and Maj. Jessemer. This was just the conversation I was hoping to provoke.

So to the Media bashers, I trust this gives you more heart than heartburn. There are diligent professionals working in the media. You've seen the responses of 3-40 year practitioners:

We question what we do. Try hard. Work hard. We don't duck tough questions. We believe in what we do.

There are lots of accountants, doctors, investment brokers, civic leaders, and policemen who are in jail for what they do/did in their professional lives. We journalists, by right of the First Amendment (Congress shall make no law abridging the Freedom of the Press) seldom go to jail for what we do. Basically, I have a "get out of jail free card." BUT, I think that compact with my society makes me more responsible to my fellow citizens, not less. So like any good citizen, we stand on the better side. We are you. BUT, we are assigned (by the constitution) purposes and duties that don't always match your expectations. Would you truly want it different? We speak, as best we can, to and for the minds of many. Some of the minds to which we speak, are different than yours. We've probably offended everybody in our careers. Would you want that different too?

Arthur Schlessinger said this about Journalism and History:
"It should forever remind us of the limitations of our passing perspectives.
It should strengthen us to resist the pressure to convert momentary interest
into moral absolutes. It should lead us to a profound and chastening sense
of our frailty as human beings -- to a recognition of the fact, so often and
so sadly demonstrated, that the future will outwit all our certitudes and
that the possibilities of history are far richer and more various than the
human intellect is likely to conceive."

[Johnny Yuma]

I'm going to ask again:

Did these "News of the World" journalists interview her AFTER the mission was closed or did they just take some of her quotes from the mission news conferences and cobble up a conspiracy?

[mikeylikey]

^ None of the stories said when they took the quotes, and CAP nor anyone else said when she made the comments. 

[dogboy]

I'm going to ask again:

Did these "News of the World" journalists ...

As I explained previously, the journalist who broke the story is on the staff of The Telegraph (London) http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ , a respectable newspaper. NOTW picked the story up from there.

[iskyfly]

Ryan should be booted out of CAP. She is a disgrace to anybody in uniform. Come to think of it, CAP shouldn't even be associated with the military. Just a bunch of overgrown boy-scouts with meaningless prefixes before their names to make them feel important / in a position of authority. What a disgrace.

http://www.airdisaster.info/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1095

[JohnKachenmeister]

A hit and run poster?

"iskyfly" registered at 9:35 and made his one post at 9:52.

He had to, since "The Springer Show" comes on at 10:00, and he didn't want to miss the "My Husband is Cheating With My Lesbian Lover" episode.

[Civilian_Pilot]

If she made those comments, it would be totally inappropriate. We do not speculate in that manner and especially do not make those kinds of statements to the press.

Any PAO who would make statements like that to the press should be stripped of his/her PAO status.

Assuming the statements did indeed come from the person in question, I would go one step farther and revoke CAP membership permanently.  Not only do those statements reflect poorly on CAP, they are hurtful to the family involved.  Those statements are completely unacceptable and should not be tolerated from any member, PAO or not.  If that person wants to express foliate personal opinions, that's fine.  Do it outside CAP, not from inside.

Interesting observation.

Take a look here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3016.40

The above was locked on CAP Talk.

It is really telling about the attitudes within the CAP, and attitudes of CAP members to the general public on a public messageboard.

I would like to express a few points:

--If the CAP does not have a "code of ethics" it needs to get one and start enforce it top to bottom.  

--Public perception of the organization begins and ends with every member.  The lowest rank person can destroy an image built on years in seconds; as can the leadership.

--If you take the time to read the topic I linked above then read this discussion in entirety you see the same infantile attitudes torwards anyone not involved CAP.  This is a real mistake.  Every member should have the same respect for someone out of CAP as they expect for being in CAP.

--The real public perception problem with CAP and the Steve Fossett search isn't the lastest gaff.  It started the day CAP got involved.  There was a tremendous amount of grandstanding, in particular the turning away of FLIR equipped volunteer helicopters.  Again--the treatment this asset was given is inexcusable.  I read on this very message board where the person responsible for the episode stated point blank stated that "anyone who had a problem with it was uninvited to the next search and rescue I'm involved in".  Honestly, I am still in shock after reading that.  The statements by Cynthia Ryan are only a continuation of this same attitude.  I could go on but in the link here: http://captalk.net/index.php?topic=3016.40 I have more than expressed my feeling on the subject before it became to hot a topic for general consumption and was locked.

--Search & Rescue is exactly that.  All information should be gathered into a central command post and once there sorted through to rescue the individual.  This includes rumour, speculation, historical data and observation.  Once gathered, filtered, verified,  the only thing that should come out from the search is fact about the search and rescue.  By entering the arena of spreading rumour and innuendo about affairs, financial stability, aircraft selection, ELT watches, etc. one individual has pulled the scab off what many in the CAP organization are doing in public anyway.  If you don't believe take some time and read these very message boards.

Don't point the finger at Cynthia Ryan over something that is endemic within the entire organization.

[Smithsonia]

For some unknown reason I am currently locked out of the Steve Fossett conversation. May I suggest that it appears the conversation has moved hostile in order to provoke another Lt. Col Ryan incident. Of course I know nothing about the agendas of the various responders... but be professional and
knowledgeable before you add to the fuel on this thread. Don't be provoked into making dumb statements.

Right now it's getting goofy over there.

With regards; ED OBRIEN