Yet another article giving pilots a bad name

.381?! Holy crap he was wasted. Pilot or not, would you want to be sharing the roads with someone that drunk? Not me thanks...theres enough idiots driving as it is...we don't need drunk ones thrown into the mix. That judge ought to be ashamed of himself for giving the guy a break. That article doesn't give pilots a bad name...the pilot that its about gives pilots a bad name.
 
[ QUOTE ]
That article doesn't give pilots a bad name...the pilot that its about gives pilots a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]

Agreed. I'm amazed the judge wasn't more diligent prior to reducing the charge. I wonder, though, if this would have made the press had the person been something other than a pilot. If the judge was persuaded easily enough to reduce this for a pilot, he probably has done so in the past for people of other professions.
 
I would say it is another pilot making the rest look bad - it was not the article whom drove while under the influence.
 
I would say the judge looked just as bad as the pilot. DUI is a major traffic offense and to drop the charge without any proof of his airline employment is ridiculous!!!!!!!!!!!
 
[ QUOTE ]
381?! Holy crap he was wasted. Pilot or not, would you want to be sharing the roads with someone that drunk? Not me thanks...theres enough idiots driving as it is...we don't need drunk ones thrown into the mix. That judge ought to be ashamed of himself for giving the guy a break. That article doesn't give pilots a bad name...the pilot that its about gives pilots a bad name.

[/ QUOTE ]
I totally agree. Problem is that would anyone, except those involved, known about this unless it had been published...nope. So again the public has their image of pilots being drunken womanizers who are on the verge of killing themselves and their pax reinforced.

Believe me, even as a very low time pilot I talk to people all the time who do not have good information about aviation in general.

The funniest one yet was the lady who was amazed that the FAA would let people be airline pilots with only 40 hours.

Anyhow, any press about a pilot with a drinking problem, is bad for pilots private or otherwise.

Later.

Naunga
 
As a former reporter and editor I've argued both sides of different stories, and in many cases I think the newspaper/media outlet was wrong. But this is a case of stupid people doing stupid things.

The function of a newspaper is to report the news. The newspaper, as an orginazation, determines what the news is - usually in response to what they find sells or is requested from their readers. And, news, by definition, is the unexpected and that generally means the bad stuff.

In this casethe newspaper ran a story about a judge who let a drunkard off with a slap on the wrist. The drunkard just happened to be a pilot who lied about the consequences of the DUI conviction and the judge was too lazy and or ignorant to see if this guy was telling the truth.

This is a classic example of "if you don't want to show up in the paper as having done something stupid - DON"T DO SOMETHING STUPID."

The "pilot" went out, got plastered, then was dumb enough to drive. Had he taken a cab, there would be no story. Had he not got plastered, there would be no story. Had he not got caught, there would be no story.

Sorry, I don't buy that the paper is out to make pilots look bad in this story - if anything it was the judge who was the "target."
 
I wasn't clear enough I guess. I don't blame the paper for running the story. It's timely given the climate regarding pilots and drinking. It also relates to honesty etc. in our country.

I also feel that the story was not biased in anyway, however I do question why they felt it necessary to quote an FAA spokesperson saying that a DUI conviction won't necessarily ground a pilot. That portion of the story seemed somewhat inflamatory. As a Clevelander I cringed, since Voinivich, Kucinich, and Rep. Tubbs-Jones live in Clevleand and are regular readers of the Plain-Dealer which (at least in Cleveland) does not have a reputation for good journalism (albeit it's nothing like the NY Times at this point in time). Also Tubbs-Jones sits on the house aviation sub committee.

My point in sharing the article is that any article about a pilot doing something stupid is not good for pilots in general.

So you're right, don't do something stupid. Esspecially as a pilot, because (and I don't think anyone would disagree with this) people have a hard time separating one dumbass pilot from the rest of us (just look at all the jokes about pilots drinking after the America West sh*t).

Naunga

BTW pilot602, what paper did you report / edit for?
 
Nothing major in terms of who I worked for - started at the university newspaper as a stringer, worked my way up to Editor in Chief. I also worked for a 50,000 circulation daily just outside St. Louis in the pre-press/production department. I also started and ran my own newspaper (small circulation) in the metro-east area of St. Louis.

Nothing major but I did some time in the "trenches" - and my major was Mass comm. print J.
 
How about the lawyer? Both he and the pilot lied in court. Isn't that perjury?

Oh well, if you're going to start locking up lawyers who lie, there soon wouldn't be any left... but is that a bad thing?
grin.gif


(Sorry R2F.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top