Sky News do it again!

I’m sorry but I’m more than an a bit ‘tipsy’ on the real ale when I right this but what a load of old bo**ocks this all is, the whole Sally B Insurance issue has nothing what so ever to do with the crash of the Firefly in 2003!! This is a plane crashing into building lead story nothing to do with airshows. The national news media are a bunch of sick shock and awe lead bunch of idiots who are trying to get the most shocking story to put in front of there viewers so they can, A – sell a lot of advertising or B – get some kind of award for coverage of an average event that they have blown out of all proportion by putting an obviously fake presenter in front of the viewer who looks as if he really cares and that he is not picking up a pay check for creating a sollom feeling and a responsive reaction out of the easily lead general public. 😡

I’ve just watched Sky News and although they are still running the piece about the insurance problems they didn’t show any Firefly footage just Dunsfold yesterday and a clip of Sally B. So maybe they are learning just very slowly!

I agree with some of the points made above that sometimes it is necessary to show unpleasant things in news reports,but there are still two things that stand out for me in this case.
As I understand it,the current trend towards the rising cost of insurance has little if anything to do with crashes involving vintage aircraft at airshows in previous years,the impetus behind the changes is coming from the EU and the CAA/airlines. It’s a red tape exercise rather than a practical response to anything in particular,so why choose to show footage of a quite recent fatal accident involving a historic aircraft? The footage doesn’t directly relate to the story.
The second thing that bothers me is Sky’s choice of this particular accident,and the fact that they should’ve learned not to show it again after the ticking off they got from Broadcasting Standards the first time around. Did they pay so little attention to the complaints the first time around that they forgot about them,or did they just decide to show it again anyway? Either way it seems to show some element of disregard for the authorities,which kinda undermines the whole point of thier existence.

Was the Firefly actually insured? I thought it was a military-owned aircraft and therefore wouldn’t be insured.

John Boyle – very good comments. I understand their thinking in showing the clip, but still think it was wrong to do so. I was thinking the same thing myself about shots of the aftermath illustrating the point just as well as the crash itself. Surely there is footage of crashed warbirds where no-one was killed they could have used.

What was the news item actually talking about? Was this to do with the Sally B fiasco?

Glad it wasnt on when i sat down to dinner i think i might of been physically sick. there is absolutley NO excuse for it i mean it makes some of the public think that these aircraft are dangerous when half of them are restored to a factory fresh standard. people dont want to see death on T.V especially under those circumstances we are lucky to have what we do in the UK and we should be greatful yet if we want continue our heritage of aviation we cannot allow any doubt in the public. its probably a fact that you are more likely to die from a bee sting than be killed by a warbird. accidents DO happen thats fact but theres no point in dragging up the past ive seen one to many accidents i NEVER WISH TO SEE them relieved.

“-They are doing a story about warbird insurance.
-One reason why rates are so high is the number of crashes…and their potential liability.

–Therefore you show a crash. Fairly simple really”

Thanks that was what I meant to say but cocked up.

End of issue really. Lets get back to what is still flying.

Here’s why they showed the crash…

While not condoning what they showed, as a former TV news correspondent/editor/manager I’m guessing the reason why they showed the crash again probably goes like this….
-They are doing a story about warbird insurance.
-One reason why rates are so high is the number of crashes…and their potential liability.

–Therefore you show a crash. Fairly simple really.

They probably figured it was a fairly old crash so no harm done…in the same way many producers don’t have trouble showing JFK’s head getting blown apart or the USS Arizona getting hit by the bomb that entombed 1200 sailors…or that shot they always use of D-Day where a soldier falls on the beach (I’m guessing he didn’t trip). They assume that after a period of time, the impact is lessened.
Still, I’m sure someone, somewhere, would have been offended..even after we took precautions not to be too graphic.
It’s the price you pay for a free press.
I’m guessing not many people got upset about the tapes of the December tidal waves sweeping through villiages.
Why? Because it probably didn’t effect anyone you knew.

Because you’re a fan of vintage aviation, you took this broadcast personally. It it were shots of a F1 crash you might not be as outraged.

BTW: At my station we were instructed NOT to use any footage of the planes flying into the World Trade Centers in follow up reports. If we needed to illustrate the attacks, we were to use aftermath footage, people’s reactions, etc. It got the point across just as well…usually better…than the oft seen shots of the Boeings and buildings.

Guess you weill all shoot me down.

Anyway

TV company needs to illustrate what happens when “old a/c crashes. Database provides link to firefly crash.

You/We feel personal affiliation and aggrieved.

BUT

BBC have just done similar with Bali bombings and I daresay next Christmas we will all be inundated with tsnami (sp?)

It may well be distressing to have such an incident relived but the tv company is simply illustrating the facts (in this case) It ain’t no different to police , camera , action or any number of programmes of that ilk.

Yes my sympathy is with those involved as with the other events publicised but that is the way the media works,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

#

But they don’t all show the exact moment an aircraft hits the ground and 2 aircrew are killed when it is unnecessary and unprompted (effectively out of the blue).

Guess you weill all shoot me down.

Anyway

TV company needs to illustrate what happens when “old a/c crashes. Database provides link to firefly crash.

You/We feel personal affiliation and aggrieved.

BUT

BBC have just done similar with Bali bombings and I daresay next Christmas we will all be inundated with tsnami (sp?)

It may well be distressing to have such an incident relived but the tv company is simply illustrating the facts (in this case) It ain’t no different to police , camera , action or any number of programmes of that ilk.

Yes my sympathy is with those involved as with the other events publicised but that is the way the media works,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Bang out of order!! On Sky! SICK!!!!!!!!!!!! 🙁 🙁 🙁 🙁 Anna 🙁 🙁

why highlight the bad parts of Historic aviation. i hate it when they show footage like that it really is upsetting i hope none of the friends or family of the firefly crew were watching. Sky make me feel sick when they do things like that. i remember when the Firefly crashed they kept showing the crash time and time again once was enough. i actually broke down in shock. there is absoluetly no reason to highlight unfortunate accidents such as this. this is where bad publicity is not good for historic aviation and can make the public uneasy around historics.

At the end of the day use the OFF button. Sadly inevitable that footage of this nature will be used, screw up big time at a public event and the consequences are there for all to see.

its sick…..subscription cancelled this afternoon…box out, dish off wall…they can go shove it! 😡

Remember the company that originally sold my shots of the crash to Sky News were Red Admiral, it’s their fault Sky have the footage at all. Bear this in mind when making your video and DVD purchasing decisions.

Sky are an absolute disgrace, they deserve a serious fine for this (to be donated to the RNHF).

I agree its terrible they are still showing this footage and they should be stopped its morally wrong when it has nothing to do with whats happening at this current time.
I do not have Sky at all and feel they are too large for their own good and are able to get away with such things, I understand after a accident has happened it is news but near 2 years later its not anymore.

Its not only sky who have done this i remember GMTV used to show Hoof Proudfoots Lightning crash on there advertisments for the show, I found it awful at the time as it was first accident i had experenced first hand and was having nightmares about it.

Trouble when a Airshow accident happens its normally sickenly spectactular and in our modern news days thats what they want to show us or maybe what people want to see.

Try “no bearing at all on the current story”.

Totally gratuitous – heads should roll.

What a dopey bunch of t*ssers Sky News are! You’d think that complaints upheld by Broadcasting Standards the first time round would be enough to desuade them from showing it again,they’re just asking for trouble-and they’re going to get it too. It makes me especially bloody angry when they show something as graphic as that when it has very little bearing on the current story,they’re being graphic for graphic’s sake.

I don’t have Sky and the only thing I allow in my house from Murdoch is the Simpsons via Channel 4. Vote with your feet and tell them why.

😀 Same here

I don’t have Sky and the only thing I allow in my house from Murdoch is the Simpsons via Channel 4. Vote with your feet and tell them why.