Mainstream Press Unable to Understand Actual Cause of Crash -- Need To Blame Something 'Simpler'

ANN APRIL 1st "SPECIAL" EDITION: Aviation experts are describing the cause of a recent aircraft incident on matters that require some technical expertise... to the total bewilderment and consternation of the mainstream press (especially the CNN crew, now working without aviation-conversant reporters since the firing of Miles O'Brien and the Science/Tech group).

The resultant coverage is not pretty.
 
The media's current quandary involves a 1973 King Air C90 that was forced to perform an otherwise uneventful precautionary landing at a small rural airstrip, without damage, when a hydraulic failure resulted in the unexpected deployment of the landing gear. NTSB and FAA investigators have determined that the pilot's actions were appropriate and that the failure was the result of an impaired hydraulic line. The company which maintains the aircraft is currently under review, though it "feels safe" in standing by its long history and clean safety record.

When asked by a TV Anchor as to how the deployment of the gear was even possible, Raytheon engineer and aerospace expert Jay Curtiss essayed, (Admittedly with some sarcasm), "Um... we call it gravity. Familiar with it?"

Unable to understand an expert consultant's explanations of the accident and the 'overtly technical issues' at hand, mainstream press representatives have resorted to extreme generalities in the hope of avoiding sounding totally ignorant.

To date, they have met with limited 'success.'

'Consulting experts from knowledgeable aerospace firms mean that we have to deal with jargon-filled explanations that are too full of science," complained one journalist from the New York Times. "Science has nothing to do with journalism," he added.
 
Television news correspondent, Nathasha "Clu" Lesse admitted that, "We're forced to just say things like, 'electrical problem' and hope that's right. I mean, it's all electric on there... right?"

A reporter from the Chicago Sun Times added that, "Why can't they just crash, like cars and computers? There's no aerodynamics or avionics or all that (deleted) mumbo jumbo! They just crash, and maybe there's a fire. We can report fires, we know fires, we like fires. Fires are easy. And explosions... give us explosions. We don't want much, but we do need visuals."

"I told them a dozen times," reported Orville Ramos, owner/operator of the King Air, "the plane was perfectly under control the whole time. Doesn't anyone understand the difference between a precautionary landing and a crash?"

"I don't know about all that," complained one passenger, speaking to crowd of 32 reporters looking for a juicy statement. When prompted with a careful misquote of the pilot's statements, the passenger responded, that "We were just coming to land like normal when there was this big clunk. If everything was fine, what was that big noise?"

"That was the gear! Its what we land on. Without it, you'd REALLY have heard some clunking," the pilot was heard to respond, with some evident frustration... unfortunately, nearly three dozen media reps had already left (in a hurry) when a passing ambulance siren caught their attention.

FMI: www.mainstreeammediaisdumb.com