How the media works
As Dan pointed out there’s been a little bit of a prang over at Heathrow. I read about it on the BBC website, however, here is how I suspect the sequence of events went.
- Plane comes down early of runway, a few people sustain bruises, the plane is slightly bent.
- The Media get wind of things, initial reports on the 24 hour news programs.
- BBC News 24 notices that Sky News is running something on it and so elevate the importance of the story. The same thing happens at Sky.
- It’s decided that it’s a Major News Story. Reporting on other news ceases, the endless speculation and repetition starts.
- A brief article is put on the website.
- The ‘experts’ are wheeled out, more speculation, more repetition.
- More ‘detail’ based on the speculation is put on the website.
- Reporters get to the scene are start getting statements from witnesses. This is added to the endless round of speculation that have now been going on for hours without any hard facts other than “someone bent a plane“.
- Finally something else pushes the story out and the story becomes a non event.
- [Several days later] The real reason behind the incident is released by the air accident investigators. No one cares.
If you saw it on the news let me know how right I am.
So far we’ve had theories about windshear, fuel starvation, flocks of geese, double engine failure, aliens from the planet zog, you name it really.
What’s funny is that most of these “experts” have never even flown a transport-category aircraft before.
Earlier on they had a report from an “airport worker” (ie. most likely a baggage droid who wanted 5 minutes of fame), who said that the pilot had told him that both engines failed 500ft off the ground.
The next eyewitness (immediately after) said that it passed over them and just cleared the perimiter fence, but it was a lot louder than normal, so something was clearly up.
Spot the contradiction?
As you say, we’ll find out more over the next couple of days, but we’ll have to wait for the AAIB to do their thing before we get the real juicy stuff.
Oh, and am I the only one who read this immediately after and thought the two may be related?!?!?
It simply struck me that today was a “Wet Wednesday” newswise so they inflated this “crash” story just so that there was something worth broadcasting…
I don’t know who said this but I heard that the news is already written, the writers are just looking for facts to fit in to their stories.
That plane did look very f-ed up though!
I’m going to bet that you would too if you’d just been slammed down hard on some grass.
It could possibly have become such a big story because one, Gordon Brown, a man who earns his living in politics, in his private Jumbo, was sat sitting on the tarmac. The said Jumbo was stuffed with over-excited journalists, off on their jollies to Beijing or wherever. Out of the window they see a ‘plane skip over the fence and miss its footing and, hey ho, the over-excited journalists can now instantly send off a story to their editors (thus proving that the trip was worth the money) claiming a near death experience.
A mishap on the tarmac suddenly becomes a huge story because somebody has to justify his/her expenses.
‘The ‘Plane is slightly bent’
And the “Master of the Understatement award goes to Dom” (again)
I think Nanook is right on the money though…
(Sorry for the double post, didn’t see her latest one until I’d posted my last…and yes that is a sentence in girlba world)
I’d forgotten that the PM was there too. I think you’ve hit the nail on the head there Nanook. From reports I’ve been reading the pilot bravely struggled with a plane with no power and tried to hit the PM’s plane, but fell short. He can only be commended for his efforts.
Dom - sadly you’re wrong - the true cause has now been revealed
http://danderdandan.wordpress.com/2008/01/18/that-explains-it/
I’m going to bet that you would too if you’d just been slammed down hard on some grass.
Ha! Good point!