(vis-a-vis AF4590)

I've heard of 'thrust reversers,' but a 'reverse thruster' makes me think we are talking about something more the likes of the Space Shuttle.

It was indeed a thrust-reverser - it reverses engine thrust to help aircraft brake.

Many jets have thrust reversers to help slow the aircraft on landing. Famously, a thrust reverser deployed accidentally on a Lauda Air 767 over Thailand back in the early '90s, resulting in the (at the time) first hull loss of a '67. I remember this because a couple of months after the Lauda Air accident, I was aboard a BA 767 which aborted a takeoff owing to what the crew said was a thrust reverser warning light, and I was only too happy to have them delay the flight and fix it.

And also, FWIW, in the case of the Concorde SST, it also is used in take off to force additional air through the shafts (kind of like a turbo/supercharger) to accelate takeoff speed!

I know, I know... I really know what a thrust reverser is... I was just trying to see if anybody else has noticed how blindly the media has been butchering the terminology...!

FQTV,

The mainstream media isn't butchering it any worse than they routinely butcher everything else they talk about... the news isn't news anymore, it's a mix of rookie reporters overdramatizing stupid stories to try to get their "Big Break" and indifferent, uninformed major news anchors who make millions and so stupid things like ask Dick Cheney what he thinks about the Napster hearings... I can't stand Matt Lauer...

Really, though it ISN'T surprising to me... and that's a little scary. I mean, reporters are humans too, and most of then had to fly to France immediately after the crash to cover the story (imagine THAT mind job if you don't fly much)... but, at the same time, news stations aren't interested in quality so much as sensationalism. By that I mean, in the immediate wake of the crash, no body was showing a d*** bit of useful information, all they did was show that 5 second video clip and slow pans of the crash site... that is not news, that's trying to get the viewer to hang on and watch YOUR station until you actually have something of substance to show him... all the stations do it... that's why the reporters say dumb things like 'reverse thrusters'... they're being told over the wire by their boss to tell the audience a bunch of nothing and make it interesting so that they'll keep watching...

Same as Columbine, same as Waco, same as the Kennedy crash (and when the heck did THAT become national news-worthy??), Princess Di... andonandonandon... news stations are not in the business of waiting until they have all the facts to fully inform the viewer all at once, they can't be. There are many stations out there and news IS A BUSINESS!!

Except the Fox News Channel... i REALLY like the Fox News Channel... most unbiased, balanced news coverage I've ever seen...

ok, I'm done now. that feel much better...

FQTV, sorry this was long, but all these feelings towards newscasting in general keep re-surfacing every time there's a "major" event and everyone rushes to the scene and stands among the rubble to tell us they're now in "such and such a location, standing among the rubble" ... am I the only one that feels this way??

ok, that's enough for now.

------------------
"Welcome to Mister Internet's Neighborhood..."

[This message has been edited by Mister Internet (edited 07-27-2000).]

I have a theory: this has something to do with Air France issuing the statement in French and its conversion to English.

From MSNBC:

From what I have read fact checking, in even venerable papers like NYT, has gone out the window during the last few years. Probably has to do with fewer staff available for that sort of thing to keep expenses down or something.

Years ago I owned a Peugeot, a very interesting automobile, the cylinder closest to the front was # 4, and the one closest to the rear # 1. The term "reverse thruster" sounds about right.

oldgold

and i cannot stand Matt Lauer either..

I don't watch network news for precisely those reasons.

But what I think is the more insidious factor in the race for ratings and "winning" is the complete inability to broadcast unsubstanciated rumors. No time to check the facts - they might get in the way of a good story.

I have little use for newspapers, too. They've joined their fellow media swinging their purses on the street corner.

There's still bias in the news reports on the internet, but you can read the AP, Reuters, NYT and WSJ accounts.

------------------
"I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, briefed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own."

Not all TV news is bad. Today O'Reilly @ Foxnews took to task a congressman for not spending on airport/ATC money which has been collected for years as tax on airline tickets. After much dithering, the congressman confessed that both republicans and democrats were opposed to spending the ticket tax money on airport infrastructure. Finally, this year a bill has been passed.

ownly theng arturo kno bout thes es wat prematurexecushun tel arturo bout runin sheep toward the clif. sheep thrust en reverse whin they git to edge. mebe knews knot kno bout sheep.

------------------
Loving, Caring, Honest, Intelligent, Empathetic, Creative, and Giving.

LOLOL Arturo, are you related to Latka? i want to learn your language!

The WSJ and NYT are probably the top two U.S. papers in terms of emphasizing fact checking, just from what I've heard (I'm a newspaper editor myself). Copy editors at those papers edit perhaps two or three long stories in an eight-hour shift and are expected to make sure that everything in them is right, especially at the WSJ.