>I had the 'fox outside today working on the flaperons
>and a car stopped in the driveway, (nothing unusual so far).
>A lady got out and had ID around her neck for The Indianapolis
>Star, the local newspaper. (this is where the unusual part comes in).
>She said she had seen the plane in the garage last tuesday and
>that they want to do a story on it! I told her ok. She is going
>to contact me about setting up an appointment. I thought I would
>explain about the EAA and this list being a great help to me.
>What do you guys think? Has anyone on the list been through this before?
I quit speaking to mediatypes about 10 years ago after this
crowning touch on mis-representing "the news:";
Dee and I were out flying one cool and smooth day at lunchtime
at the little airport we used to own. While landing, I noticed
a large, obviously non-amateur camera set up on a tripod out in
the grass and panning my landing. Needless to say I was more than
extra mindful of doing a good job. By the time we taxied around
to the hangar, reporter and cameraguy were hoofing it across the
field to talk to us.
Seems newspaper headlines for that morning spoke of "Six near
misses" in Wichita over the past year. What they wanted from me
was, "my reaction" to this frigntening revelation and, "what do you
think the FAA should do about it?"
How do you explain a very complex set of facts involving
pilot responsability, limitations of government owned
facilities and personel, and limits imposed by the laws
of physics and the current state of the art in anti-collision
technology. . . . and squeeze it into a 1 minute or less?
What appeared on the 6:00 o'clock news was, "local pilot
sez FAA's equipment broke and airline passengers are doomed."
What they used from my interview was two sound bytes
pulled out of context that appeared to support the
premise of their "news blurp".
Since that time, I've declined to speak to anyone from the
so called "news" media. When asked, I tell them, "because
you never get it right."
Obviously, an in-depth feature story is different than trying
to explain physics of the universe to to a wild-eyed,
sensationalist reporter. BUT . . . there are still risks.
I'd recommend that you agree to support the piece. Heaven
knows that we can use all the positive publicity we can
get. Try to extract a promise from the reporter that you
are allowed to proof the FINAL article before it goes to
print. The pitfalls are that while your project may be the
leading particular of the article, someone ELSE may decide
to provide background about a couple of accidents involving
amateur built aircraft. While the intent may be well-meaning,
the result could be that your wife gets piles of condolance
letters suggesting that she keep your life insurance paid up,
"your gonna need it lady." Amateur built aviation doesn't need
that kind of exposure. The only way to avoid this is to
get personally involved in the whole production effort for
the piece. Left to their own devices, media reporters and
writers are dismal purveyors of fact. Give the reporter
a couple of issues of Sport Aviation to read.
Bob . . .
--------------------------------------------
( Knowing about a thing is different than )
( understanding it. One can know a lot )
( and still understand nothing. )
( C.F. Kettering )
--------------------------------------------
http://www.aeroelectric.com
|