Villainous Company

Groundpounders like my spouse refer to helos as
"whirling sh%tcans of death"
Affectionately, of course...

As to AP (and all the others), put headlines like these in a file called,"looking at the world through a straw"

I watched this report in the clinic while I was waiting for that prior service Gitmo medic to remove my staples. The footage used was questionable, because you saw the Chinook and then didn't see it, with the speculative analysis
of the hand hend rocket launcher being cited.

Of course, CNN is above such things as CONTEXT.
That has no relevance. Shame on you.

They increased the use of helicopters to reduce the amount of traffic on the roads thus making fewer targets for IED attacks. Generally I'd much rather take my chances there on a helo lift then on the roads in an up armored HUMMWV.

Yes, some might have written that up as "US military successfully adapts to enemy tactics!" instead of "US military has no plans to cancel dangerous helo flights!!!!"

*sigh*

Cass, they actually quoted an awssifer as saying the enemy is smart and like the Borg, the US military has adapted.

Next thing you know, they will be drooling at the sound of a bell.

Oh, I am cranky and need my Darvon.
*rummages around the laptop*

After all, as one pilot said of helicopter travel:

"It's the safest way I know to get around here,"

But that makes a lousy headline. Unless, of course, you can throw the word "risk" in there somewhere.

What the heck is wrong about pointing out that helicopter travel in Iraq can be risky? Am I misreading you on this? Isn't your last para. a criticism of pointing out (in a headline) the riskiness (notwithstanding the recent surge in helicopter downings)?

(That said, I concur that the "less than 100" lost since March 2003 is misleadingly inaccurate. Someone oughta shoot the writer/his editor(s) a note)

Everything, in war, is risky, dgf. That's a dumb-ass statement.

And by the way, if you look at that long term graph, given that the op tempo of flight hours has INCREASED by at least 40% since 2005, we have not seen at least a 40% increase in helo crashes, now have we?

So a reasonable conclusion from a statistician's viewpoint would be that this is pretty damn GOOD safety record, especially since half are due to mechanical failures and if you just fly more, you will have more mech failures especially in a sandy environment which plays hell with engines. Of course, we don't see that reflected anywhere in the story, do we?

Of course we don't. Because that would have been fair. And it would have required actual thought.

Everything, in war, is risky, dgf. That's a dumb-ass statement.

(1) What, exactly, are you referring to a "dumb-ass statement"? (2) (& if not included in your answer to the preceding question) doesn't the last para. of your original post amount to a criticism of pointing out (in a headline) the riskiness of helo travel in Iraq?

As a general matter, I concur with you that oftentimes news stories leave me with more questions than answers. That is to say, an awful lot of reporting is mediocre to shabby. It's been true for a long long time, and no doubt will continue to be true for a comparable period. And so it goes. But it most certainly is not limited to reporting on Iraq. (&, now, if you want to sink your teeth into a true "reporting horror", why not mention Frank Gaffney's recent diddlying of Lincoln).

dgf,
I think the underlying point here is the inanity of the AP making ultra-obvious statements and trying to make them *seem* like breaking news. Everyone knows that travel -- helicopter or otherwise -- in a war zone is dangerous. It seems to me that in an attempt to regain some kind of creditability (after the Jamil Hussein, et al stories) the AP is running "No Sh!t Sherlock" stories -- with a twist. There is nothing *wrong* with pointing out that helicopter travel is dangerous. Just as there is nothing *wrong* with reporting that if you wipe your a$$ with too little toilet paper, you run the "risk" of getting shite on your hand. But, is that really worthy of a nationwide story? The answer is no, unless you're trying to work a specific angle. (anti-war, anti-military, anti-Bush, take your pick, it's one-size-fits-all) Helicopter's go down in peacetime and wartime. It's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. Same as not having enough tp.

I think it's a dumb ass statement that flying a helo in a war zone is "risky".

Of course it's risky. Good Lord.

And when you add the misleading stats intended to make you think the risk has gone UP (when in fact, looking at the crashes per flight hour they appear to have gone DOWN - it being an inescapable fact of math that if you keep the numerator fairly level and increase the denominator the resulting number DECREASES, making it not MORE but LESS "risky" - over the past two years) that's pretty damned lousy reporting.

And I haven't read whatever you're talking about with Lincoln, but since he's dead and has been for some time, I am not particularly concerned with the immediate relevance there.

Meanwhile, there's a really important vote going on in Congress dgf... hence the AP's spate of articles on "risky" helo flights!!!! Ooooh!!!!

Sly -

Thanks for the civil reply.

Cass--

OK. If I've understood you, there's nothing wrong with noting the "risk" of helo movement/travel in Iraq, in the headline itself - so I *was* misunderstanding your last paragraph (original post) where you seemed to indicate that any mention therein of risk/riskiness is wrong-headed, misleading or inane. (You might want to tighten up your writing, there.) So the NewsBuzz headline on its version of the LA Times story (which you approvingly link to) ~ "Helicopters risky, but still best option in Iraq, Army pilot says" ~ is hunkey-dorey and non-dumb-assed. Understood.

Anyhoo, that said, I hadn't realized that there was a "spate" of recent AP articles on helo downings -- apart from the fact that there have been 7 downings in the past three weeks or so (and I expect that each downing merits at least one story from each news provider.) You seem to suggest that your feelings on the matter are that the AP's "spating reporting" is a calculated maneuver on that organization's part (or on writer Robert Burns') to skew the vote in Congress. I find that pretty far-fetched, but it takes all kinds.

(By the bye, I imagine your research turned up the same as my brief research on the question - that the inaccurate "100 helo" figure seems to result from a R. Burns' brainfart/Libby moment (not excusing it, just noting it) See earlier Burns' article (http://www.armytimes.com/news/2007/02/apiraqcody070210/ )

Anyways, given that (as I understand it) headline writing is the responsibility of the editors of the publication (vs. the writer or wire-service); hence, the dumb-assedness of what appears here to be the "wire-service" headline should be shared by the news outlets which published the Burns piece (which was, principally, a POV piece).

Would it have been a better piece without the "numbers lost" error? Of course. Could it have been better yet? Sure. Has there been a recent surge in helicopter downings. Indubitably. Do we know why? Nope. Is this story/headline a big deal. Doubtful. Is AP Satan? Probably not.

And so it goes.

Actually, in all fairness to R. Burns, he probably didn't title his own work.

That's not how it usually works. That is what annoys me about how the wire services do business. Often the reporter doesn't really do all that bad a job (not always). But a REALLY misleading caption or lede gets put on their story by copy editors who are pushing an agenda that has NOTHING to do with their story. And that is wrong. A good case in point is the WaPo's Doug Feith debacle last week - it turns out that the reporter didn't even turn in a screwed up story. It got botched up after he turned in work that was essentially correct - they took it and chopped it all up, then stuck his name on it and attributed shoddy, incorrect work to him under his byline. Not the first time that's happened, either.