Embarasssing ALPA Magazine Blunder

ATN_Pilot said:
It's taken seriously, but not as some form of serious journalism. It's a newsletter. Expecting them to have the same fact checking standards as a newspaper or newsmagazine is unrealistic.
Click to expand...

I strongly disagree. I was always taught by my father (as most of us were) that if something's worth doing, it's worth doing right.

Society of Professional Journalists website: Code of ethics page said:
http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp
Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:
— Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Click to expand...

It's the VERY FIRST LINE of a journalist's code of ethics. To say that Mr. Steenblik's article falls FAR short of that would be a fair statement.

ATN_Pilot said:
Jan had no reason to doubt it.
Click to expand...

I've never been in the military. I've never worked in emergency services (though my stepfather is a retired paramedic and firefighter). Still, even I can see that to do all the things that Mr. Martins said he did is not physically possible-especially so early in his life. This should have been a HUGE red flag to someone who works with pilots day in and day out. Mr. Nicoll (the DAL F/O who recommended Mr. Martins) didn't vouch for the BS claims...only that Mr. Martins was a good pilot, and a good/prepared FO who was easy to get along with-which may have been the case despite all his other flaws.

I also don't buy into the argument that Prater/Rice/Schwartz/etc., forced Mr. Steenblik to write this story. If you don't want to be associated with something, you shouldn't put your name on it. Most of you would never sign a release and go flying unless you were in agreement with your dispatcher's flight planning, and confident of your aircraft's airworthiness. The passengers/customers expect that from us. Similarly, I see no reason why we shouldn't hold a person in a different field to the ethos established by his chosen field.

I agree that most of this lies squarely on the shoulders of F/O Martins for his absurd claims. But Mr. Steenblik is not without fault. ALPA is paying him a fine salary for professional quality work. This work falls short.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Jan Steenblick is not a reporter.
Click to expand...

The title in the article is "Technical Editor." While that might not be a REPORTER per se, it is in the journalism field. The same code of ethics that I posted earlier still applies.

ATN_Pilot said:
We demand due process for ourselves whenever we get in some sort of trouble, but we're lightning-fast to be judge, jury, and executioner whenever someone else is perceived to have done something wrong. I want due process for all.
Click to expand...

I could be mistaken (though I don't think I am), but I'm fairly certain Mr. Steenblik is a "level 2" employee at ALPA. That would mean that he is a member of the in-house union that represents ALPA staffers. I'm sure he's got representation to give him due process.

ATN_Pilot said:
Attacking a staff member when you don't know him, don't know his job description, don't know the circumstances, don't know anything really, is completely inappropriate.
Click to expand...

True that most (if not all) of us do not know him. I DO know that he's a Technical Editor-which means his job description at least in part falls into the journalism field. Circumstances may have played a bit of a part, but the bottom line as I said before is: don't put your name on something you don't stand behind.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
ALPA does not employ journalists, nor does ALPA engage in journalism. ALPA is a labor union.
Click to expand...


You're kidding me, right? Yes, ALPA is a union. And like any other union, they hire staffers to perform duties that its members are not qualified to do-such as labor attorneys. I don't know Mr. Steenblik's background. His title in the article is "Techincal Editor," which tells me he has a background in journalism. If he is a PILOT with journalism experience, then that would make this even more of an insult that he didn't flag the BS.

I'll add this: I don't hate ALPA. I don't have any agenda against anyone there. While my MEC has had plenty of scandals, the current batch of folks there seems to be alright. The same applies for my LEC. They're alright by me. But that doesn't mean that I feel like I should excuse sloppy work by someone within the union's ranks-be it a pilot or staffer.
 
Spooge said:
The title in the article is "Technical Editor." While that might not be a REPORTER per se, it is in the journalism field. The same code of ethics that I posted earlier still applies.
Click to expand...

Air Line Pilot magazine is an internal union newsletter, not a piece of journalism. The people that write for the magazine all do other work for the Association. They are not journalists.

I could be mistaken (though I don't think I am), but I'm fairly certain Mr. Steenblik is a "level 2" employee at ALPA. That would mean that he is a member of the in-house union that represents ALPA staffers. I'm sure he's got representation to give him due process.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure whether he's part of the bargaining unit, or whether he's considered to be a management employee. In either case, that's not what I'm talking about. People should not be attacking the professional reputation of a staff member without having all of the facts.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
Air Line Pilot magazine is an internal union newsletter, not a piece of journalism. The people that write for the magazine all do other work for the Association. They are not journalists.
Click to expand...

The cover of the magazine says "Official Journal of the Air Line Pilots Association International." You don't think that qualifies as a piece of Journalism?

Further, there is a list of editors, writers, and contributors at the end of the magazine. But there are articles in the magazine by other people as well, who post other titles underneath their signature on the article (not Technical Editor). For Example, on page 8, there is an article that is authored by "By Capt. Randy Helling ALPA Vice-President–Finance/Treasurer"

It seems to me that Mr. Steenblik's primary task is as a "Technical Editor." That falls squarely in the journalism field.
 
If you're not gonna take the time to fact check an article before submitting it to ANY publication, then maybe you shouldn't write it. If I wrote an article for the zoo volunteer newsletter, and I quoted some bad information, I'd take responsibility for it and say "Yep. I should have either checked up on that or used a more respected source for the information." If some guy comes up to me and says he flies 757s for a living, I don't just straight up take him at face value. If I'm gonna write an article on him, I'm gonna check some stuff. I read the article, and it seemed like the only sources of info were Tim and the Delta FO that recommended him. If we're getting articles in ALPA that are THAT rushed, then maybe we should just skip articles like that if the authors don't have time to follow through with due dilligence.

It's pretty much basic research paper writing in freshman English comp to check your sources. Don't, and your professor will blast your paper into kingdom come. Sorry, but I expect at least the same level of research in a published article. The only quotes I saw were from Tim and the Delta FO. I'll grant that getting something from the guard unit might have been problematic, but how about interviewing someone at the soup kitchen he claimed to volunteer for? What about the fire department? To me, it would be nice to get a perspective from someone outside aviation to round out the article. Either one of those things might have thrown up a red flag that would have nixed the whole article. To me, it almost seemed rushed and thrown together.
 
ATN_Pilot said:
I keep saying I'm going to leave this damned thread, yet I keep coming back. Now I'm done. Have fun with your uninformed attacks.
Click to expand...

Ok I get it you don't like any attack on ALPA you work for ALPA and I get it. But hey this guy Jan makes more than most airline pilots quite a salary for a technical editor but I don't really know what his workload is but his salary would certainly command a better vetting than this story apparantly got. I have no dog in this fight as I am not an ALPA member but I find it an amusing sidebar.
 
I have a close friend who is a prof with PhD in mass communication/journalism. I have to eat my words a bit here because I didn't expect him to parallel Todd's position as closely as he did. Here's what he had to say, take it for what it's worth:

Considering this is a trade magazine. I am certain they have no fact checkers. If it were TIME, though, this fellow would have been vetted more thoroughly.

Having said that, the writer probably had no reason to suspect the subject was lying if he did not know the facts you wrote. The subject was the primary source, and with no reason to suspect otherwise the writer trusted his source.

I am inclined to say that the writer could have done a better job, but since it is merely a profile he did what most professional writers would do--take the subject at his word, especially if the subject has no discernable agenda. The publisher trusted the writer to get the facts straight, as he should.

To summarize: I don't blame the writer because this is not the kind of story you would normally fact-check. I don't blame the publisher because they trust their writers. It would have been nice if they knew the inconsistencies, but at best their most egregious fault is ignorance.

But it would be inexcusable if the publisher did not correct the story and post the facts.
Click to expand...
 
That last sentence is all I have been trying to say.

Tim made his bed, and hopefully he'll be in it for a very long time - hopefully indefinately.

Jan, and more importantly ALPA, need to step up and correct the story and indicate that they are just as pissed off that they got jacked around by one of their own members - albeit - I doubt they'll use any firm language. A simple apology to the rest of the profession is due. It just may be a little while before we see it.
 
My friends at American tell me they were sent emails not to talk about it or their jobs would be threatened. The facebook page was pulled and all the Eagle pilots are now cowed into not discussing it. Eagle must be a really fun place to work.
 
Jake Wheeler said:
My friends at American tell me they were sent emails not to talk about it or their jobs would be threatened. The facebook page was pulled and all the Eagle pilots are now cowed into not discussing it. Eagle must be a really fun place to work.
Click to expand...



Yep... here ya go- the official-shut your mouth notification...


Originally Posted by The Company
TO: ALL PILOTS
************************************************** *****
AS IT HAS COME TO THE COMPANYS ATTENTION THAT CERTAIN
EXPERIENCE OF AN AMERICAN EAGLE PILOT WHO WAS FEATURED
IN A RECENT ARTICLE HAS BEEN QUESTIONED. WE HAVE BEEN
ADVISED THAT THE PUBLICATION HAS REMOVED THE ELECTRONIC
VERSION OF THAT ARTICLE PENDING AN INVESTIGATION BY
THAT ORGANIZATION OF THE QUESTIONED EXPERIENCE.

PLEASE BE ADVISED THAT THE PILOT IN QUESTION HOLDS THE
APPROPRIATE FAA CERTIFICATIONS AND RATINGS FOR HIS
POSITION AT AMERICAN EAGLE.

CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS HAVE BEEN QUITE VOCAL ON SOCIAL
NETWORKS, LIKE FACEBOOK AND ON THE INTERNET IN GENERAL
ABOUT THEIR THOUGHTS ON THIS MATTER. THE COMPANY
RECENTLY PUBLISHED A POLICY ON SOCIAL NETWORKING. IT
CAN BE FOUND ON JETNET AND PILOTS ARE URGED TO REVIEW
THAT POLICY.

GENERALLY THE POLICY CAUTIONS THAT, PRIOR TO POSTING
ANYTHING ONLINE, AN EMPLOYEE NEEDS TO REMEMBER THAT
THEY ARE PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTENT THEY
PUBLISH IN ANY FORM OF USER-GENERATED MEDIA. TO THE
EXTENT ANY PERSONAL OR BUSINESS-RELATED POSTINGS REFER
TO, IMPLICATE OR REFLECT ON AMERICAN EAGLE, THE
EMPLOYEE WILL BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR COMPLYING WITH
THE COMPANYS RULES, POLICIES AND PROCEDURES THAT MAY
RELATE TO THAT POST.

PLEASE REMEMBER THAT THE SAME POLICIES AND GUIDELINES
THAT APPLY TO AMERICAN EAGLE EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES ON OR
OFF DUTY APPLY TO AMERICAN EAGLE EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES
ONLINE. AMERICAN EAGLE AIRLINE EMPLOYEE ACTIVITIES
INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, THE ACTIVITIES OF: AN
INDIVIDUAL, EMPLOYEE OR A GROUP OF EMPLOYEES; A COMPANY
DEPARTMENT, BUSINESS UNIT, OR STATION; AND A COMPANY
SPONSORED EMPLOYEE GROUP OR CLUBS. THANKS, J- W-
 
I love the 'certain individuals' part.

Let's name names man! :) Or, should we be thinking, "Am I a certain individual? :)"
 
Jake Wheeler said:
My friends at American tell me they were sent emails not to talk about it or their jobs would be threatened. The facebook page was pulled and all the Eagle pilots are now cowed into not discussing it. Eagle must be a really fun place to work.
Click to expand...
We are asked to remember we are professionals who represent the company we work for, and suddenly Eagle is a bad place to work?:whatever:

Any comments about the day to day quality of life made by someone who has never been employed by Eagle are completely irrelevant to this thread.
 
ready2fly said:
We are asked to remember we are professionals who represent the company we work for, and suddenly Eagle is a bad place to work?:whatever:
Click to expand...

True...ANY airline would have done exactly what Eagle is doing...trying to control the (pretty minimal) damage from this guy.
 
26037_379622246942_683176942_3923120_3435693_n.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top