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

[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