So was watching something on the local news about the Marines going to assist in the rescue effort in the Philippine mudslide when the commentator identifed a CH-46 shown on video as a "Chinook helicopter." I understand the CH-46 and -47 look very similar to the untrained eye; but seriously, how difficult is it to get it right? I've seen the media screw up several more times when identifying aircraft. Why the problem?
-
Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?
Go here:
Edit Account Details and Profile
The media and aircraft
- Thread starter macattack
- Start date
Its almost scary how little the civilian public knows about the military. From misidentifying planes, ships, saying people belong to the wrong branch of service, etc. My wife says that whenever she tells her friends I fly for the Navy they all look confused and say they thought only the Air Force flies planes.
Granted, I don't expect them to know all about us, but I'd expect that in a democracy people would want to have a basic working knowledge about the military that protects them and takes their tax dollars. Everyone has their own ideas about how we should be fighting in Iraq and the GWOT but it's obvious that a large percentage of civilians and civilian leadership have no idea what the military is about, what we are and aren't capable of, how we do things and what we're actually doing at any given moment.
I see this as a blatant lack of concern on their part. If we are supposed to be under civilian authority, they should be taking us a little more seriously.
Granted, I don't expect them to know all about us, but I'd expect that in a democracy people would want to have a basic working knowledge about the military that protects them and takes their tax dollars. Everyone has their own ideas about how we should be fighting in Iraq and the GWOT but it's obvious that a large percentage of civilians and civilian leadership have no idea what the military is about, what we are and aren't capable of, how we do things and what we're actually doing at any given moment.
I see this as a blatant lack of concern on their part. If we are supposed to be under civilian authority, they should be taking us a little more seriously.
Marines are called "soldiers" all the time.
You always hear about "M-16 Assault Rifles."
Ranks are generic (sergeant, "colonel," etc.)
etc, etc, etc.
Reporters aren't military experts (even though they like to think they are); don't lose sleep over it.
As long as the they have the obligatory British accent and pronounce "military" as "milli-tree," they will always sound like they know what they are talking about.
We know better.
You always hear about "M-16 Assault Rifles."
Ranks are generic (sergeant, "colonel," etc.)
etc, etc, etc.
Reporters aren't military experts (even though they like to think they are); don't lose sleep over it.
As long as the they have the obligatory British accent and pronounce "military" as "milli-tree," they will always sound like they know what they are talking about.
We know better.
KayBay and FlyingBeagle have it about right.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't lose sleep over it. But when I'm watching the news or something with aomeone not in the military, and a Prowler gets called, in the same sentence, a USAF airframe, a bomber, and an F-14, and my buddy looks confused b/c he fears everything he learned about Naval Aviation from Top Gun might be comletely false, I feel a need to reassure him that he's not being toyed with by hollywood or the news.
Yeah, I probably shouldn't lose sleep over it. But when I'm watching the news or something with aomeone not in the military, and a Prowler gets called, in the same sentence, a USAF airframe, a bomber, and an F-14, and my buddy looks confused b/c he fears everything he learned about Naval Aviation from Top Gun might be comletely false, I feel a need to reassure him that he's not being toyed with by hollywood or the news.
macattack said:
You assume that they care!
Of course, it's not just the press who gets it wrong. I was in the CO's conference room at NAS Oceana last week and noticed that the silhouette used for the CH-46 on a BRAC chart was a CH-47. Also saw a recent Military Channel special on helos in Viet Nam and they used 46s when they were taking about 47s and vice versa...oh well!
Wel-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l ..... the "media" is populated by people who are suppose to be able to "report" on a wide range of subjects. As in "Jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none". They generally don't know their subject matter. Ergo ... they don't know what they are talking about .....macattack said:
How many times have YOU had any firsthand knowledge of a story reproduced by the nightly "news" ... and had the media's version come out "correct"??? How many times ... ??? 50%?? 25%?? Close to "ZERO"??
At least, that's been my experience with the "media".
...... A4s "visual" of the MEDIA .... BTW, they don't know how to squeeze limes, either. :icon_rast
The ignorance is ubiquitous ...omnipresent .... I saw a History Channel (still got analog cable :sleep_125 ) last night and during a series on fighters and bombers during the Cold War --- they said the Navy "dropped its carrier commitment to nuclear weapons and delivery systems in the '60's in favor of using missiles on nuclear submarines."heyjoe said:
That would be news to those of us who planned SIOP missions in the '70's and hoped we never had to fly them ....
The fact is, most people really don't give a crap. I was taliking to a guy face to face and he asked who I was training to fly for, the Navy or the AF. I said the Marine Corps, and he had the nerve to look at me and say, "So the Navy then." He also said it in this snide little codescending, know-it-all attitude. I proceeded to spend the next half hour on an inpropmtu PME about the differences in military air roles. He was thinking about joining the military and was asking me which branch gave him the best opportunity to be a pilot (absolutely all he cared about) so I told him any of them besides the Marine Corps.
Ok, that was almost completely off subject, I just had to get it off my chest.
Ok, that was almost completely off subject, I just had to get it off my chest.
bigfish said:
Off your chest?? Not a problem-O ... we've all been there. Explaining the inexplicable to the unexplainable, that is .... .
But to prevent future repetitions of this exercise in futility ... remember ... you just wasted a half hour of useful consciousness that you will NEVER get back ....
A4sForever said:But to prevent future repetitions of this exercise in futility ... remember ... you just wasted a half hour of useful consciousness that you will NEVER get back ....
Could have been worse...
...bigfish could have entertained the "will prior flight time help me get jets" question.
A4sForever said:The ignorance is ubiquitous ...omnipresent .... I saw a History Channel (still got analog cable :sleep_125 ) last night and during a series on fighters and bombers during the Cold War --- they said the Navy "dropped its carrier commitment to nuclear weapons and delivery systems in the '60's in favor of using missiles on nuclear submarines."
That would be news to those of us who planned SIOP missions in the '70's and hoped we never had to fly them ....
I watched that last night too. They kept referring to the AJ-1 Savage as a P2V Neptune. I was pretty disappointed to see such a gross error.
By the way - the VTOL progran on after that was pretty cool.
batman527
Banned
ChuckMK23 said:
I thought that program was excellent. My favorite was the one that layed on the flatbad truck that would hyrdaulically point it up in the air like a launch pad. Then it had to hook/unkook to takeoff/land. It was interesting to see the progression from one idea to the next, all the way to the JSF.
/threadjack