CBC and bad aviation "stories"

[robertsailor1]

CBC left wing? Of course they are but most media is...they go to the same school. I wouldn't worry about it these days as news is now entertainment and the hard reporting is "almost" a thing of the past. As another poster mentioned they report all stories with the same accuracy as they report on aviation (not very) The average Canadian is fed dumbed down news just like the dumbed down reality shows that are such a hit these days.

[Beefitarian]

EDITED - Off topic

[Rockie]

EDITED - Off topic

[Widow]

The CBC is no better or worse than any other mainstream news organization when it comes to accuracy in aviation reporting. However they have made an effort to shine a light on the problems of fatigue and SMS. I haven't seen any of the others doing that.

I couldn't have said it better myself.

[robertsailor1]

EDITED - Off topic

[Rockie]

EDITED - Off topic

[BTyyj]

EDITED - Off topic

[Siddley Hawker]

EDITED - Off topic

[Rockie]

Just delete the whole thread and get it over with.

[flyalmaguin]

an expert in that field
is probably laughing his @ss off at the inaccuracies in it.

How true this is.... We see this all the time in the emergency services (911/police /fire/ambulance) field. I don't know how many times I've seen/heard/read articles about 911 that are so off base that make me want to pull my hair out. Most of the time I just laugh along and shake my head

However, what appears on the surface to people outside our circle of knowledge as being "disaster", "tragic" and "scandalous" that in reality are actually "routine", is not completely the fault of the reporter. They too are outside our circle of knowledge. We also have the advantage in the emergency services business of knowing details that for many reasons including privacy and investigative integrity must remain confidential. That's just the way the system works, even if that means stories are only half complete.

[Gannet167]

I don't expect CBC to report on aviation stories at a level of detail or terminology that professional pilots would be seeing in the language of, say, an accident report or Aircraft Flight Manual. However, I do expect them to get the facts right and report in laymans terms. Perhaps describing things as you would try to explain how an airplane works to some non-fliers if you were at an airshow. Not necessarily dumbing it down, but simplifying it so the important concepts are described.

CBC does not do this well. They often sensationalize the story. They hyperbolize it in an effort to make it more sexy. I have known a number of guys involved as crew in stories CBC has reported on and when they explain to me what's actually happened, and it's compared to how CBC reports it - the vast divide between them is amazing. It sometimes borders on outright spin doctoring and lies. I would expect to read the CBC story to get a basic gist of the story. Then I could read an official report or talk to the crew to get the gritty details. Instead of this, the story is twisted and inflated to make it more interesting.

I recall a story about someone landing at the "twenty fifth runway" in Ottawa. Try and explain that there are not 25 individual runways, but in fact there is one that is named runway twenty five. Oh, btw, it happens to correspond to its magnetic direction. Or a story about a mid air collision that resulted in violent and dramatic, death defying emergency maneuvers that conjure up images of Iceman and Goose. In reality, someone got a TCAS RA, saw the other traffic visual, and started a 200'/min climb so gentle that no one even spilled their tea in the back, nor had any idea that the plane even climbed.

I've written CBC numerous emails complaining of the basic lack of accuracy. In many instances, they miss things that a 12 year old Air Cadet with access to Google would be able to figure out. That's all fine, but what about areas that they report on where I have no knowledge of. I know a little about aviation - so I can cut through the bullsh!t. But when I read a story on a different topic that I don't know about, I no longer feel like I can trust the honest and unbiased, objective and professional journalism of the CBC. They've sold off their credibility in an effort to make stories more groovy.

This sums it up nicely: http://youtu.be/U9MGOckIzlU

[Canoehead]

Sometimes an e-mail to the reporter outlining the inaccuracies is a good idea. At least it lets them know that they are being scrutinized. I did that to a FP reporter after reading misleading info during the days after the FAB crash this year. I got a reply, and a thank-you for that, mentioning that he would be more careful in future aviation reporting.

Like someone above pointed out, if the media's "aviation reporting" is wrong or inaccurate, what is their "medical reporting" like?

Part of the problem is that in today's digital media age, time is of the essence in getting the story online. Reporters don't have the time to consult with the real experts to fine tune their stories. They rely too much on Wikipedia and places like AVCanada, and it makes them look foolish 9 times out of 10.

[FL500]

I don't expect CBC to report on aviation stories at a level of detail or terminology that professional pilots would be seeing in the language of, say, an accident report or Aircraft Flight Manual. However, I do expect them to get the facts right and report in laymans terms. Perhaps describing things as you would try to explain how an airplane works to some non-fliers if you were at an airshow. Not necessarily dumbing it down, but simplifying it so the important concepts are described.

CBC does not do this well. They often sensationalize the story. They hyperbolize it in an effort to make it more sexy. I have known a number of guys involved as crew in stories CBC has reported on and when they explain to me what's actually happened, and it's compared to how CBC reports it - the vast divide between them is amazing. It sometimes borders on outright spin doctoring and lies. I would expect to read the CBC story to get a basic gist of the story. Then I could read an official report or talk to the crew to get the gritty details. Instead of this, the story is twisted and inflated to make it more interesting.

I recall a story about someone landing at the "twenty fifth runway" in Ottawa. Try and explain that there are not 25 individual runways, but in fact there is one that is named runway twenty five. Oh, btw, it happens to correspond to its magnetic direction. Or a story about a mid air collision that resulted in violent and dramatic, death defying emergency maneuvers that conjure up images of Iceman and Goose. In reality, someone got a TCAS RA, saw the other traffic visual, and started a 200'/min climb so gentle that no one even spilled their tea in the back, nor had any idea that the plane even climbed.

I've written CBC numerous emails complaining of the basic lack of accuracy. In many instances, they miss things that a 12 year old Air Cadet with access to Google would be able to figure out. That's all fine, but what about areas that they report on where I have no knowledge of. I know a little about aviation - so I can cut through the bullsh!t. But when I read a story on a different topic that I don't know about, I no longer feel like I can trust the honest and unbiased, objective and professional journalism of the CBC. They've sold off their credibility in an effort to make stories more groovy.

This sums it up nicely: http://youtu.be/U9MGOckIzlU

ROTFLMAO too funny