Talking to the news media

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Doug just posted a link on the Web site to the AOPA guide to talking to the news media. It would've been nice if AOPA has talked to the MANY members it has who are members of the news media who could've helped them produce a piece that actually would've been helpful.

Not a single word was mentioned about being proactive and pitching story ideas that extoll the MANY positive elements of general aviation.

Too bad. Another missed opportunity.

[Ironflight]

It was a bit disapointing, I agree...basically "refer all press inquireies to the AOPA". If you tell the reporter to call you back after you've set up an apointment,the chances are you'll never hear from them again anyway...

Back when I was in training, NASA gave us a four-day "Charm School", taught by veteran network reporters. Everything you'd want to know about doing press conferences, interviews (planned and unplanned), as well as being "ambushed" by the press. A lot of fun actually, but it left you with a great appreciation for just how quickly you can get yourself in trouble. Remember, you might get one or two chances in your life to talk with the press to influence a story, but they do it every day - they're the professional, and you're the amateur. If you do run into one of the rare press folks who is out to grind an axe, or make a name for themselves at your expense, you are going to lose.

I have found that the easiest and most graceful way out of an interview or question (if you don't feel like being quoted) is the response "You know, I'm really not familiar enough with the issue to give you a meaningful comment..." There's no story there, and it sounds a lot better than "no comment".

All that said, the majority of press folks are really just out to write the best story they can - they just don't usually have the expertise to get it as right as we'd like it.

A guy like Bob has GOT to be good for our casue!

Paul

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

I think NASA had it right, Paul. Charm. That's huge.

The other thing is most of the press people will run across, isn't a pack of 20 cameras and two dozen reporters. OK, sure, maybe that's what guys like Boyer face or folks in New York or Los Angeles face at some big story that's already a story.

But much more likely for the average pilot is he'll face one reporter, probably some schlep who covers city council meetings and whose daughter is in your kid's class or plays on the local softball team with you.

So when AOPA says, "never think of a reporter as your friend," well out in "real" America (Washignton is 12 square miles surrounded by reality), sometimes they are.

Let's suppose that someday there is an incident at a local airport or a plane goes down or something and that guy has to cover it. Which guy do you want it to be...the guy you have met and shared coffee with...maybe given a tour of the hangar to and maybe a ride and who has your number in the Rolodex.... or the guy who has never been within an inch of a pilot or a plane before?

But THE most objectionable part of the AOPA presentation was the admonishment that "a reporter should never be ALLOWED at an airport unescorted.

Excuse me? Allowed? Time for a reality check, AOPA. THIS is why airports are vanishing and why all the great work EAA chapters do to bring the local community together at airport days and such can go down the shoot in a matter of seconds. Out in real America...the local reporter is one of the people who paid the taxes for that airport. Allowed? As long as he/she/it isn't violating the law, isn't going where he/she/it is unauthorized... he/she/it has the right to go where anyone else can go and if that means walking hangar row...than so be it.

It's just lousy advice born from paranoia that creates the impression pilots have something to hide.

BTW, I'm thinking of starting a new initiative -- probably with EAA because I think AOPA is way too paranoid to be of any use -- that basically creates the "young Eagles" model and applies it to the media. The idea would be to come up with some sort of relationship between EAA and some of the journalist associations around the country that match up volunteer pilots with interested media members for first flights and tours of the airport and seminars and stuff.

I'm trying to get ahold of Poberezny to see if it's something he'd be interested in.

[jcoloccia]

Frankly, I saw the presentation and had a "who the **** does the AOPA think it is?" moment. Amongst their many suggestions was that pilots have to stop doing things like violating TFRs. LOL...I guess I have to find something else to do this afternoon....I had planned on buzzing some nuclear power plants and stadiums, but now I see that this may give aviation a bad name in the press so I changed my mind

I agree with Bob. A long time ago I decided that young eagles was a nice feel good idea, but not terribly effective. You have to get the parents and THEY'LL get the kids. Can you imagine this conversation: "Daddy Daddy....I need $7000 so I can learn to fly an airplane". Yeah right. What we REALLY need is "Middle Aged Eagles". Now I see we need "Media Dope Eagles" as well.

[srv]

Re the comment about being proactive with the media - does the Young Eagles program bring the media in much when they have rides?

[Capflyer]

I struggled to justify renewing my membership to AOPA this past year. Living in the DC area and occassionally flying in and out of Frederick (AOPA's home airport) gives me a chance to hear all the **** about them. The biggest problem is the leadership. Boyer has become a politician instead of a fighter. He has his beautiful biz jet to fly around the country and speak. Many pilot around here are not members.

Their fight for us the past few years regarding the ADIZ has been dizmal. They don't get the press involved at all. We need a fighter to run this rich organization. They support no one but themselves. They are unfriendly to the EAA clan, aircraft clubs, CAP and it's cadet program, etc. They are the total opposite of EAA when it comes to positive deeds and publicity.

As I sat at lunch watching a C150 forced to land at FDK after violating both the DC ADIZ and FRZ last spring, I was so happy that they landed them there. Right in the face of AOPA. The article in this issue of AOPA Pilot was way too nice to those two idiots. What should have been a wake up call to AOPA was nothing more than a humilating story about how inept AOPA is.

What happended to the days when AOPA fought it's battles in the press and made the scheduled aircarriers run for cover? Now they are just a joke.

[L.Adamson]

Originally Posted by Bob Collins

I
But THE most objectionable part of the AOPA presentation was the admonishment that "a reporter should never be ALLOWED at an airport unescorted.

Excuse me? Allowed? Time for a reality check, AOPA. THIS is why airports are vanishing and why all the great work EAA chapters do to bring the local community together at airport days and such can go down the shoot in a matter of seconds.

I agree with the AOPA statement. I live next door to an airport, and don't expect ANYONE to just walk through the gate, unless they're known by airport personel or have a gate/hangar pass. The "supposeable" reporter could be anybody. Someone intent on stealing an aircraft or just a reporter looking for security flaws. At my local airport, an unknown reporter, simply wouldn't get through the gate.

It's an unfortunate situation, that since 9/11, it's now become next to impossible to visit hangar buddies like it was in the old days, by just walking through the gate. But if a reporter is intent on writing a story regarding lax security, they will!

Since I DO live next to an airport, and HAVE been interviewed regarding aircraft accidents, I DO fully agree with the AOPA statements. But...............through practice, I know exactly what to say!

L.Adamson

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Originally Posted by srv

Re the comment about being proactive with the media - does the Young Eagles program bring the media in much when they have rides?

I think there are some EAA chapters that are really on the ball when it comes to publicity, but I can't say I've seen anything in any of the local papers (those hometown, small papers are PERFECT. Gosh, I love those) on that.

I'll tell you what, though, if you live in a small town, and you have a little newspaper there, drop an e-mail to the editor this week and just say "hey, I have a story idea for you. I'm buidling an airplane. Yep, that's right, an airplane. And, you know what, there's quite a few of us here in XYZtown." I can almost guarantee you'll get a call.

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Originally Posted by L.Adamson

I agree with the AOPA statement. I live next door to an airport, and don't expect ANYONE to just walk through the gate, unless they're known by airport personel or have a gate/hangar pass.

Of course, but that's up to airport management to establish those policies.

I will say this: most general aviation airports I've seen lately scream: "GO AWAY!" to people. And then AOPA and pilots wonder why they don't have any friends when some developer offers to buy the acreage to put up some more mcmansions.

I was offering some rides to a couple of guys a few months ago and I was waiting and wairing for them to show up. There's a chain link fence around the whole airport (a total pacifier) and one of those "no unaurhtorized persons; this area patrolled"-type signs about every 50 feet.

The gate to the FBO (this is Thunderbird Aviation in Eden Prairie MN ) was open but, like I said....the place just screams "go away!"

So the guy never drove in the gate. He said he wasn't sure he was allowed to...so he just kept driving around the perimeter until he found some evidence that this was a place he could go.

Thing is: the guy worked for the Bureau of Criminal Investigation in Minnesota. Even the cops are scared of the local airport. Sad. Just sad.

Some EAA chapters have really done a great job making the local airport seem like a place where non-pilots are welcomed. But they're shoveling side against a tide of paranoia.

As for the "call the AOPA press office (or whatever they're called) I will say there are few people that journalists have less respect for than the public relations departments, or as we call them "the flaks."

I remember one time when the DC-9 crashed on take-off in Detroit, a reporter called the Northwest Airlines public relations office to begin to get some comment and the flak said, "well, let's not talk about that. Let's talk about the 2,000 planes that landed safetly today."

Give me a break. What nonsense. "Bad news sells?" yeah, I guess it does, although I tend to think "interesting news sells" is a better description. And the AOPA makes it sound like the people buying the news are somebody else. Hey, it's us. What do we like to read in the paper? Yep, stuff that's interesting. Sometimes it's bad, sometimes it's not.

But nobody picked up the paper today to say "hey, I wonder how Lou Rawls spent His day yesterday."

[LettersFromFlyoverCountry]

Originally Posted by L.Adamson

But if a reporter is intent on writing a story regarding lax security, they will!

Well of course they will. And they should. That's not the issue. The issue is what that story is going to say.

But here's the secret of the media that the AOPA won't tell you: the first person the reporter is going to call for help with that story: is the pilot he already knows. Period.

Now whether he knows any pilots, is up to the pilots.

And whether that story says "lax security at airport" or "local pilots are at forefront of securing skies" is completley dependent on relationships.