Do Journos ever do Research?

#1
On the coverage of the Bus crash in canada, I went into a rage at the telly.

The stupid bloody newsreader was asking the mountie what they were doing in Canada, when he said training; Twatish newsreader asked what they were training for! You stupid bl**dy Ignorant barst*rd do your research before the item.

Reminded me of the time, during a large SAR operation in the Channel, an ITN Newsreader asked an RAF Flight Sergeant at the SAR centre at RAF Kinloss, "To those who are not naval minded, could you elaborate on what the crew will be feeling". WTF? To a Crab?
 
#2
Get back in your box, you silly boy.
 
#4
The majority have no idea at all on what we do.

My brother works for the BBC and has been force fed army jargon and explanations by me for years, therefore has no excuse but still acts the maggot when interviewing.

He explains it away by saying that all he is doing is putting it in context to the general population who know even less.

Still pi$$es me off though.
 
#5
in_the_cheapseats said:
The majority have no idea at all on what we do.

My brother works for the BBC and has been force fed army jargon and explanations by me for years, therefore has no excuse but still acts the maggot when interviewing.

He explains it away by saying that all he is doing is putting it in context to the general population who know even less.

Still pi$$es me off though.
Which one is he - go on Cheaps, tell tell
 
#6
Also find the Daily Mail bloke who's bigging up the Weapons find in Dartford. "Black guns, silvery pistols with wood handles, pump action shotguns" WOOOOOOO...... WMD if ever there were any. tosspot.

The guy they raided was a Section 5 dealer for f#;'/k sake, authorised for full auto, pistols, gas, MBT'S you name it...,
 
#7
It was like during the recent evacuation from Lebabon, when the TV reporter was talking about the frigate coming alongside... except that it was a destroyer (to make it even easier it has a great big "D" painted on the bow FFS!!).

(NB: For those in green, it would be like calling a challenger a warrior...)

These might seem pedantic, but if a journalist reporting on economics could not tell the diference between the dollar and the euro, they would be considerd incompetant. But any idiot can report on military matters.

But in the presses favour, I understand they are not being allowed to Afghanistan, so we can hardly complain if they are not covering it properly.
 
#8
lanky said:
It was like during the recent evacuation from Lebabon, when the TV reporter was talking about the frigate coming alongside... except that it was a destroyer (to make it even easier it has a great big "D" painted on the bow FFS!!).

(NB: For those in green, it would be like calling a challenger a warrior...)

These might seem pedantic, but if a journalist reporting on economics could not tell the diference between the dollar and the euro, they would be considerd incompetant. But any idiot can report on military matters.

But in the presses favour, I understand they are not being allowed to Afghanistan, so we can hardly complain if they are not covering it properly.
Except, on Your last point, there was a reporter in Kabul only last night
 
#9
It's excusable when an inexperienced journo is trying to put together a report, but when someone is touted as 'Channel X's War Correspondant' and they still cock up...well, where's the professionalism.

As Lanky said, mis-naming weapon systems is an issue at times. Not so much when they just get the 'trade name' wrong (that's just cringworthy), but when there is a massive difference in capability implied by the two terms, it is almost journalistic incompetance.
 

Nehustan

On ROPS
On ROPs
#10
Well there are enough ex-miltary wandering about the BBC, so they wouldn't have to go very far to check their facts....
 
#11
dosn't reading or posting on ARRSE count as research?
 
#12
Could we have suggestions for a thread to help the journalists who frequent this site? something along the lines of "analysis of errors made by journalists" and constructive feedback given.

or,

we could put it in the naafi and simply take the piss out of the reptiles when they claim to be experts and then do/say really stupid stuff.

SC
 
#13
Yesterdays Mail on Sunday. Wills wants to go Blues and Royals with his brother whos in Bovingdon- thats in Hertfordshire not Dorset. Then he'll do a Warrior driving and gunnery cse :? WTF, as a cav officer and firing artillery guns at nearby Lulworth cove that well known RAC gunnery school

Journos all got their heads up their rings
 
#14
Just a small correction. Journalists actually are being allowed into Afghanistan - see some of the articles in the Sunday Times over the past months. That said I do agree that there's a general lack of accuracy in the Press. And it may be that their view of the situation is limited by what they can (or are allowed to) see and do on their 'visits'.

But let's be completely realistic, journalists are employed to write stories which help to sell the paper - and that is all. 'Never let the truth get in the way of a good story, dear boy'.
 
#15
A lot of journos get their info from the MoD press office - who should know what they're talking about (right?!) - so a lot of these mistakes are genuine, journos will have tried to get the real skinny, but they're being led astray by crap PRO's in Whitehall.
 
#16
I remember yonks ago when they were introducing the Bob Marley and some journo was expounding the advantages. He said, among other things, something like: "...and the new ammunition is also much lighter than the old .303 type". Thus missing out entirely the era of the SLR in between. It wouldn't have surprised me if he'd actually written: "...and now the soldiers have a much greater range than with their longbows".

Journos!!!

MsG
 
#17
lanky said:
It was like during the recent evacuation from Lebabon, when the TV reporter was talking about the frigate coming alongside... except that it was a destroyer (to make it even easier it has a great big "D" painted on the bow FFS!!).

(NB: For those in green, it would be like calling a challenger a warrior...)

These might seem pedantic, but if a journalist reporting on economics could not tell the diference between the dollar and the euro, they would be considerd incompetant. But any idiot can report on military matters.

But in the presses favour, I understand they are not being allowed to Afghanistan, so we can hardly complain if they are not covering it properly.
In fairness to the press, modern warship type nameing conventions are a bit arbitrary and really the General public is not going to be interested in whether a vessel is a frigate or a destroyer and really it should not be regarded as a major slipup to substitute frigate for destroyer except were it has a relevance to the story. EG when journos do reports on the sinking of the HMS Hood and they call the Hood a "Battleship" that's a major journalistic SNAFU in that as a Battlecruiser she was not capable of engaging in a standing fight with a battleship and that's very pertinent to her loss.

Saludos Amigos
Zapata
 

Percy_Pigeon

War Hero
Book Reviewer
#18
Bloodnok said:
A lot of journos get their info from the MoD press office - who should know what they're talking about (right?!) - so a lot of these mistakes are genuine, journos will have tried to get the real skinny, but they're being led astray by crap PRO's in Whitehall.
I agree it is not necessarily the journo’s fault many times press officer fail to tell it, how it should be told.

In my job we provide frequent input to freedom of information requests press questions PQ’s ect.

It’s amazing how they can change a few words and totally lose the plot. These are clever articulate and generally switched on in their AOE, but they are being asked to provide info from outside their comfort zone it loses impact and accuracy.
 
#19
Great column in the latest Private Eye about this very subject, focussing on the BBC's coverage of the RAF Nimrod crash in Afghanistan. At the time all that was known was that 14 Servicemen had lost their lives. There was much rank and irresponsible speculation on the part of the journos covering the 'story', with a Herc and a Chinook both being identified as the unfortunate aircraft involved; cue much frantic telephone calling from the Pads' Estates in Lyneham and Odiham. However the 'best' comment of the night has to have come from a 'defence expert' on Sky, who stated that "of course it is possible that it could be a Lynx Helicopter".

If said 'expert' really thinks you could get 14 bods into a Lynx and then fly it in hot arid conditions at high altitude, then I suggest he try it some time. Preferably with 13 others of Fleet Street's Finest in it with him.

Although sad to say, I don't think they'd get very far.
 
#20
Maybe there should be a list of "ARRSE Approved Journos" (or some similar name - you get the idea) - a list of the few journalists who actually possess a reasonable understanding of military operations in general and the British Armed Forces in particular?

To get things rolling, here's my nomination:

Damien Lewis. Wrote "Operation Certain Death" and "Bloody Heroes".

Any other ideas/opinions/nominations?
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top