The Aviation and Aerospace World Has Too Few Friends and Too Many Enemies

Aviation News/Analysis/Commentary By ANN CEO/Editor-In-Chief, Jim Campbell

I’ve been having a running conversation, the last few weeks, with a person many of you used to know – a person who is given much to the world of aviation -- and after a series of setbacks and disappointments… well, he’s given up on us.

I don’t want to single him out. I understand his disappointment. But I know many like him, and the fact of the matter is that one of my fondest desires, personally, is that something that I might do some day will convince him that not all is lost -- and that aviation not only can be saved, but should be saved.

But of course, I do have to admit the presence of the elephant in the room… the inconvenient fact that we (as an industry) have seen far, far, better days.

Decades ago, aviation produced airplanes by the thousands, the industry showed phenomenal promise, airports were bragged about, people looked to the sky with admiration, and virtually everybody you knew wanted to be a pilot.

My, how times have changed. And in a really sucky way.

To those of us who love aviation, these are not the best of times - but at the same time, like the world around us, much of aviation has refused to admit that the world is in flux -- and as a result, it has refused to change to the degree necessary (so far) to survive into the future.

And so, here I find myself working my hardest to craft a new paradigm -- not just for my company, my efforts, and my ambitions, but a new paradigm that can potentially change much of the industry.

And change it we must. Let me repeat… MUST.

Still; one of the first things I have to tell you is that I truly believe that this aviation world is something deserving of being saved, but only if it can be transformed.

I’ve off recited the old Einstein dictum that repeating the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result is the very definition of insanity, and the aviation world is proof positive of that.

Too much of our industry is so emotionally and institutionally invested in the concept of “that’s the way we’ve always done it,” that embracing not just evolutionary, but revolutionary change, is something strange, untrustworthy, and to be avoided at all costs.

In the coming days, I’ll be talking a lot more about the personal/professional investment we’re making to put all our resources into rebuilding our ‘Aero-Verse’ but something caught my eye this week that bothers me to the core -- and despite the fact that we may be drawing more attention to a person who should be shunned, if not ignored, I just want to speak up for a moment about a great wrong that needs to be addressed.

Over the last few months; Aero-News, along with other publications, journalists, and pundits from across the aviation world (and even a few from outside of it) have decried the very poor reporting we’ve seen from Thomas Frank’s so-called exposes in USA Today.

The pieces, at the very least, were sensationalistic…

And not all that well-written…

And emphasized a number of real and imagined ills coming out of the aviation world.

And just ‘plane’ got a lot of things wrong…

Mr. Frank seemed to be parroting a lot of language we’ve heard from the legal community that, here and there, has nearly decimated certain aspects of our industry via litigation, and seemed to rely (in many cases) on errant supposition, misstated “facts”, very poorly thought out conclusions, and clearly engaged in some very poor reporting about aviation technological issues that he apparently was unequipped to deal with.
I won’t repeat all the criticism we’ve heard (that would take WAY too long)…

Dozens of people from inside and outside the aviation world, with far more expertise than Mr. Frank would ever hope to have, criticized and itemized his errors, false conclusions, and the rampant hyperbole that typified the pieces that were regrettably published in USA Today.

Attempts by the industry to get equal time pretty much fell on deaf ears, our own (ANN’s) attempts to reach Mr. Frank were wholly unsuccessful, and once again aviation got a black eye and no one (in the general media, much less USA Today) thought it necessary to hear our side of the issue.

Under normal circumstances, the aviation world doesn’t need to do much to look bad – we are an over-regulated, overtly misunderstood, somewhat complex undertaking – prone to bad press and errant reporting from those who cannot or will not check their facts…

And let’s face it, there are far too many people out there, ready to capitalize on every misstep our industry makes, especially where the legal system is involved.

But regardless of the prevalent aviation-bashing; the Aero-Verse deserves to be treated accurately, fairly, and with the appropriate expertise.

Virtually none of this was rendered by Thomas Frank or by his wholly unimpressive editors at USA Today.

So… Imagine my interest when I see a press release from the National Press Foundation announcing a number of prestigious awards for journalists who supposedly did outstanding work this past year.

And then, imagine my surprise and disillusionment when I see not only the name of Thomas Frank… but the specific anti-aviation series in USA Today that created such outcry and disappointment within the aviation world about this very poorly reasoned series.

Some of the superlatives ladled onto Mr. Frank and his work for USA Today brought me to the brink of nausea…

Thoroughly befuddled at how such bad journalism (IMO) could receive such lofty accolades, I put a call into the National Press Foundation and found myself surprised to be talking to Sandy Johnson, its leader. I spoke to Ms. Johnson for a short period of time and explained to her a number of the (many) errors the Frank series had made, the condemnation it had received from undisputed experts throughout the industry, and mentioned some of the very hard criticism it received from some of aviation’s most outstanding leaders -- and then, I even brought up a few specific examples as to why Mr. Frank’s articles were anything but good journalism.

I don’t think Ms. Johnson was all that interested in what I had to say. She seemed to think that what I was saying was something new and certainly something that had never been said to her or anybody else she knew, before -- and after a few minutes of explaining to her, in very specific terms, why there was such concern over Mr. Frank’s work, I found myself speaking to… thin air. I’m not sure exactly what happened, but it sure sounds like I got hung up on.

Okay… Nobody likes to receive bad news (and yes, I rendered it all quite politely), but to be perfectly honest I expected more from the National Press Foundation, and like all things remotely associated with the Thomas Frank/USA Today anti-aviation diatribes, I found myself sorely disappointed.

Again.

For the record, the National Press Association had this to say about Thomas Frank’s work for USA Today:

“Thomas Frank is awarded NPF’s “Feddie” award for explaining how federal policy affects local government in an extraordinary package on a rash of fatalities and crashes by small aircraft….”

“The judges said: ‘USA Today’s Thomas Frank’s investigation reveals that a small plane or helicopter crashes almost every day, often killing everyone onboard. In ‘Unfit for Flight’, Frank discloses how defective parts and unsafe aircraft, often concealed from the public and government regulators, contribute to these deaths. This well-reported story is convincing not just because of the way it presents facts in text, but because it effectively uses the techniques of digital journalism: video, animation and responsive design. This is modern journalism at its best.’”

Ms. Johnson did not tell me who the Judges were or what qualified them to Judge aviation-centric articles (though I did ask), but did indicate that at least one of the judges was very impressed by the number of types of digital media utilized in the story… It had great graphics, it had an eye-catching narrative (if overtly sensationalistic, and based on a lot of errant data), it was attractively rendered, it had video, and it made use of a number of other online technologies. I guess that’s what it takes to impress the National Press Foundation right now.

Too bad, as it was all pretty much bull-sh#t.

What was it?

Appearance over detail.

Sizzle over substance.

Glitz over research.

This is NOT the kind of journalism that I want to be a part of… and I won’t (and as many of you, we’ve paid a hefty price for trying to raise the aero-journalistic bar…).

But what saddens me in the NPF description is how much they take for granted that the story is factual when we know much of it to be false, when we know much of it to be misleading, and when it appears that these were stories that (I strongly suspect) were intended (right from the get-go) to cast aviation in a negative light and to further the attitudes of those who look upon aviation as something dangerous, complex, and far beyond the grasp of normal people.

So… Let’s just say this, again -- aviation deserves better and was sorely disappointed.

USA Today is not the only journalistic entity to disappoint us, and trash aviation while ignoring hard facts, expert data, all while undertaking a path of hyperbole and sensationalism -- and it’s certainly not going to be the last.

But, we in aviation must demand better and must also do better ourselves (as there is no lack of bad journalism in aviation, as well—no kidding), and, ultimately, we must all join together to make sure that the next time a Thomas Frank or a USA Today takes us on, that we’re far better prepared to refute “Bravo Sierra” with hard facts, indisputable testimony, and a united front that cannot be ignored.

That’s one of the reasons why Aero-News (via the Airborne Partnership Initiative) is taking some extraordinary risks to make big changes not just in what we do, but hopefully in influencing how aviation will conduct itself in the future… So that not only can our future be a better one, but so that errant, anti-aviation, hysteria like that published in USA Today can be countered professionally, accurately and by an industry speaking in unison.

FMI: What Say You? Are You Ready To Help Aviation Speak With A United Voice? Are YOU Going To Be A Part Of That?