THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, February 4, 1996 TAG: 9602030004
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Long : 103 lines
There wasn't a single call about Tuesday's banner headline, ``F-14 crashes near Nashville; 5 die.'' But that wasn't the case the next day.
Under the words ``F-14 crash investigation,'' Wednesday's lead headline stated, ``Pilot might have been showing off.''
Some readers thought The Virginian-Pilot might have been sounding off - callously.
``This is the kind of headline you'd expect to see in the National Enquirer,'' said Judy Church of Virginia Beach, ``like you're trying to sell it at the newsstand. . . . I don't want that kind of journalism in my local newspaper.''
Conjecture on the cause of the crash came less than 48 hours after the Navy F-14A fighter jet had crashed in a Nashville suburb, killing the two crew members and three people on the ground.
The story, citing Navy investigators, raised the possibility that the F-14A pilot, Lt. Cmdr. John Stacy Bates, had been trying to impress his parents when he made a ``maximum performance'' take-off, shooting nearly straight up into the air.
The nine readers who objected to the headline felt it was insensitive to the pilot and to the parents - or that it didn't accurately reflect the story.
``On the contrary, everything seems to point to the fact that his take-off was essentially routine,'' e-mailed Thomas F. Wootten.
Indeed, the story says air traffic controllers favor a steep take-off because it gets the plane out of the civilian traffic pattern quickly.
``The headline would have been just as accurate if it read, `Pilot may have had heart failure,' '' added Wootten. ``You were not exhibiting responsible journalism with that headline.''
Another caller noted that the word ``might'' simply does not belong in a headline. Stick to facts, he said, ``if they're important enough.''
There's a recent precedent we could have learned from - suggestions in news reports that the pilot of an American Airlines plane, which crashed in the mountains of Colombia last December, had been drinking. The pilot was one of 160 who died in the crash. But the press backed off after forensic tests showed the alcohol detected in his remains resulted from decomposition of the body.
It's this sort of speculation that, if not reported with restraint and qualifiers, makes the media appear sensationalistic. That's not to say we shouldn't report facts - i.e. that the F-14A pilot had requested the high-speed, vertical take-off and that the Navy was investigating whether he had climbed at a steeper rate than is permissible.
But a banner headline saying the pilot ``might have been showing off'' goes one step too far.
How did other newspapers handle the story? A staffer at The Tennessean, a Nashville daily, said its lead headline that day was, ``F-14 take-off risky, experts say.''
Five papers I looked at played the second-day story on an inside page, but then none are in communities with the same high-stake interest in the Navy fighter jets as Hampton Roads; eventually, all F-14s will be based here at Oceana Naval Air Station.
The Washington Post headlines said, ``Navy Jet's Takeoff Probed'' and ``Pilot May Have Climbed Too Steeply As Parents Watched.'' The News & Record in Greensboro, N.C., focused on the parents losing a second son.
The Richmond Times-Dispatch, the Daily Press in Newport News-Hampton and The Roanoke Times all had the ``showing off'' approach. But it had far less impact on their inside pages than stripped across the top of A1.
Six-column banner headlines may grab readers - but sometimes at a price.
A SOBBING SELES. Another presentation that irked a few readers was last Sunday's photo of Monica Seles after her Australian Open victory. It was taken at a press conference where she became upset by ``insensitive questions'' about playing in Germany, where she had been stabbed three years ago.
The caption under the photo, which shows her wiping her eyes, said, ``A sobbing Monica Seles pleaded softly to photographers, `Don't take pictures of this.' ''
Two readers said photographers should have honored her request, and that newspapers had a similar responsibility.
``Shame on the AP for distributing the picture, . .'' e-mailed Bill Bennett of Franklin. ``Even more, shame on the Virginian-Pilot editor who then chose to run the picture.''
Frank W. Putnam of Virginia Beach thought that same intrusiveness showed in the story.
``You are part of the problem - not part of the solution,'' wrote Putnam. ``The picture did nothing to enhance the article. It does, however, graphically emphasize the lack of respect the press has in such situations.'' Tough words, but they raise questions that editors need to ask themselves, questions like: Do we need to run a photo just because TV already used it? Don't celebrities deserve private moments? Where is our compassion?
TINSEL TIME. And, finally, I'll share one blooper that gave readers a chuckle last Sunday.
It appeared in a step-by-step business graphic on ``The Process of Synthetic Paper Production.'' Step 7 said, ``Typical tests check for tinsel strength, brightness, thickness and printability.''
As at least half a dozen callers pointed out, that should be tensile strength. ``I doubt they're looking for the strength of Christmas ornaments!'' said John R. Moore of Virginia Beach.
I found it gratifying that readers are giving technical stories like this such close perusal! MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net
by CNB