Started by castelino009, June 01, 2011, 04:17:23 AM
Quote from: Kazari on June 01, 2011, 04:37:10 AMAs a former journalist, I would remind you that neither of the sites you posted were reputable journalistic outlets. If this were from the BBC or the Guardian, I'd be more likely to believe it.The first rule of journalism? Even if your mom tells you she loves you, check it out. Sourcing is everything.That said, a lot of journalists are idiots on this sort of thing. I just don't think this is a particularly good example.
Quote from: alexgv1 on June 01, 2011, 10:58:57 AMI can never take journalists from mainstream news sites seriously because from all my experience they never have a clue what they're talking about when it comes to aviation (not that they are very desirable people anyway).I tend to stick to aviation specific sites/journals/apps for my news such Flight Global or the Aero Post.
Quote from: V.Castelino on June 01, 2011, 05:00:28 AMI know what you are trying to say mate, I have seen even BBC and guardian making mistakes . In this particular case I agree but generally speaking most journalist's have no clue but aviation.For best for aviation journalism check this site: http://blog.seattlepi.com/aerospace/also http://www.flightglobal.com/home/default.aspxcheersVJC
Quote from: EYguy on June 02, 2011, 05:07:06 AMBut when they make a mistake then they usually correct themselves...
Quote from: ACDennison on June 02, 2011, 09:51:21 PMThis isn't limited to aviation - military related articles are often as bad if not worse. If I had a quid for every time a newspaperpictured a soldiers armed with a 'machine gun' I'd be rich, ad have a lower blood pressure... I'm getting old in my late 20s! But seriously... how hard is it to know the difference between an assault rifle and an MG?
Quote from: ACDennison on June 02, 2011, 09:51:21 PM\But seriously... how hard is it to know the difference between an assault rifle and an MG?