USA Today hit piece on GA

I stopped picking up that rag when traveling- no need have the hotels I use order more to increase their circulation.
 
I don't think the hotels order it. I think USA Today has to give it away because no one buys it. I won't have anything to do with it either.
 
I love USA Today. It makes a great liner for the cat boxes, and when rolled up it can make a reasonable splint in an emergency. Also good for starting fires, playing fetch with a retriever, or oil changes. And if you have to make poo and there's nothing else, well....

Buy it/Read it? Why on earth would anyone want to do that?

[rant]
Because it incites a righteous adrenaline rush in the readers, which translates to reader retention, which translates to increased revenue.

The media (with the possible exception of the Christian Science Monitor and National Geographic) have learned that negative emotions (fear, envy, righteous indignation) generate the highest emotional response, and as a result, the stuff they peddle is designed to get your glands pumping, not get your brains working. NatGeo does similar stuff with their pictures that make you go "wow". In the end, mass media is about making money. Any informing they do is a by-product, and they've been reducing this by-product for decades.

For some scarily accurate pop culture takes on what the media has become, I refer you to:

I'm the Slime - Frank Zappa (he saw this crap coming decades ago) Mother of Storms - John Barnes (consider how close we are to Passionet)

I haven't watched network news (ABC/FOX/CBS/CNN/NBC) in well over a year now, and it's amazing how much better I feel. I read the Washington Post, but I pretty much know where their bias lies and can correct for it, or take the Washington Times as an antidote.

My advice - watch Discovery Network and spend your time with Mike Rowe on Dirty Jobs, Adam and Jamie on Mythbusters, and that rigger guy on "World's Toughest Fixes". Or try Boomerang or Qubo. Scooby-Doo is still Scooby-Doo, and Shaggy's still a stoner jonesing for some food.
[/rant]
 
Well hey. I have heard that government does nothing well or efficient, so they should get out of the small airport funding business...right?


If these airports cannot make it on their own then they should close...right?

We would not want huge government program spending tax dollars on something that only funds a few...Right?
 
TMetzinger said:
I'm the Slime - Frank Zappa (he saw this crap coming decades ago)

I haven't watched network news (ABC/FOX/CBS/CNN/NBC) in well over a year now, and it's amazing how much better I feel.
Click to expand...

Great post, Tim! I agree. Frank was a true Prophet and he seemed to have a way of seeing through the crap.

And I have been living broadcast TV free for four years last July. It really set me free to remove that from my life. I still have a monitor and DVD player for occasional movies, but the rest of it is just a mental corrosive as near as I can tell.
 
N5571Q said:
And I have been living broadcast TV free for four years last July. It really set me free to remove that from my life. I still have a monitor and DVD player for occasional movies, but the rest of it is just a mental corrosive as near as I can tell.
Click to expand...

You dah man. Seriously, no smilies or foolin'. My apartment was a media free zone for half a dozen years. I read more, wrote more, lived more and had more time that at any other point in my life.
 
smigaldi said:
Well hey. I have heard that government does nothing well or efficient, so they should get out of the small airport funding business...right?


If these airports cannot make it on their own then they should close...right?

We would not want huge government program spending tax dollars on something that only funds a few...Right?
Click to expand...

Works for me, as long as they stop taxing that same few.
 
Well, if you look at the grant money, and where it comes from (not just ticket taxes but also GA fuel taxes), and where it goes (mostly to large airports)...

I imagine that if you tracked the income and outgo of the trust fund, and broke it down between money coming from ticket taxes and money coming from fuel taxes, and money being spent on air carrier infrastructure and money spent on ga infrastructure.... You'd find the the GA might receive more than collected. But I'm not sure how much more. And remember that Stafford was built to be a reliever airport, to reduce congestion at air carrier airports.

Every major infrastructure investment (airport, rail station, power plant, dock) is underutilized in the beginning in a well-thought-out system. Dulles was criticized as a huge waste of money, as was Denver, as was O'Hare. See my earlier post for motives for this type of reporting.

As for the property taxes, that's up to the local governments. Many of them feel that they are doing the best they can with their taxing choices.
 
TMetzinger said:
Well, if you look at the grant money, and where it comes from (not just ticket taxes but also GA fuel taxes), and where it goes (mostly to large airports)...

I imagine that if you tracked the income and outgo of the trust fund, and broke it down between money coming from ticket taxes and money coming from fuel taxes, and money being spent on air carrier infrastructure and money spent on ga infrastructure.... You'd find the the GA might receive more than collected. But I'm not sure how much more. And remember that Stafford was built to be a reliever airport, to reduce congestion at air carrier airports.

Every major infrastructure investment (airport, rail station, power plant, dock) is underutilized in the beginning in a well-thought-out system. Dulles was criticized as a huge waste of money, as was Denver, as was O'Hare. See my earlier post for motives for this type of reporting.

As for the property taxes, that's up to the local governments. Many of them feel that they are doing the best they can with their taxing choices.
Click to expand...

Most GA airports are far from new, and will not see increased operations in the foreseeable future. What bothers me about this article is that it paints the large number of GA aircraft and airports in the US as a bad thing. I posted in the other media thread that the users are strictly private citizens and private enterprise (and I stand by that). However, I do wonder if the tax revenues from all the pilots, manufacturers, linesmen, mechanics and everyone else working in the GA industry doesn't far outpace the funds spent on the airports. And for an investment that probably makes money we get technological development and jobs.

I break with the conservatives in that I feel that government can successfully interact with private enterprise to the betterment of both and to the betterment of the American people. I do feel that conservatives are somewhat hypocritical to criticize this and similar articles, since they (the conservatives) tend to rail against the government doing anything it didn't do in 1786.
 
steingar said:
I break with the conservatives in that I feel that government can successfully interact with private enterprise to the betterment of both and to the betterment of the American people. I do feel that conservatives are somewhat hypocritical to criticize this and similar articles, since they (the conservatives) tend to rail against the government doing anything it didn't do in 1786.
Click to expand...

I don't know which "conservatives" those might be -- Since the Government bought a Navy (small), maintained an Army (also small), and built roads and canals (toll) not long after 1786.
 
steingar said:
I break with the conservatives in that I feel that government can successfully interact with private enterprise to the betterment of both and to the betterment of the American people. I do feel that conservatives are somewhat hypocritical to criticize this and similar articles, since they (the conservatives) tend to rail against the government doing anything it didn't do in 1786.
Click to expand...


I've seen some public/private partnerships work and in fact ran one in the 80's called the Ben Franklin Partnership which worked with universities, private companies and economic development organizations to promote innovation and job creation.

Government has a place, but not to the extent we have today. There are several Federal Departments that should go, starting with Education which should be locally controlled.
 
I resent my public tax dollars being spent to benefit the airlines - which are private corporations which use those freebies to make money for themselves... Let those freeloaders pay for their own runways!

denny-o
 
Dr. O said:
I resent my public tax dollars being spent to benefit the airlines - which are private corporations which use those freebies to make money for themselves... Let those freeloaders pay for their own runways!
Click to expand...

Are airports docks or are they depots? That was the question back in the twenties, when airlines were being established. Should airports be built and operated by municipalities, like municipal docks, or should they be built and operated by the airlines, like railroad depots? The dock theory prevailed.
 
On the heels of the Washington Post editorial.

Oh, and this thread looks like it might be headed the direction of Spin Zone also, so if y'all want to keep it here then let's keep the invective down below the dull roar.
 
Awwww...all those poor ailine passengers are paying fees to keep all these rinky-dink, under-capacity airports open.

Hmmm.... But I am an airline passenger.

Hmmmm... where did most of the pilots and FOs flying the airliners learn to fly?

Hmmmm... whose agenda pushed for ever-increasing consolidation to hub airports?

Hmmmmm......who built tract housing on "cheap" land next to airports?

Hmmmmmmmm.... who started this whole class-warfare mentality that the "news" ignoramouses now live and breathe?
 
I think AOPA needs to do a counter to this piece by showing the economic impact on communities from small airports that while having no commercial airline service still serve businesses, business people, medical institutions and the community in general.

Has anyone seen anything from AOPA yet?
 
Anthony said:
I think AOPA needs to do a counter to this piece by showing the economic impact on communities from small airports that while having no commercial airline service still serve businesses, business people, medical institutions and the community in general.

Has anyone seen anything from AOPA yet?
Click to expand...

There was a response in today's AOPA eBrief.

The good news -- about 13 people read USA Today or watch MSNBC -- and each is over 82 years of age.

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-s...-ratings-continue-climb-msnbc-olbermanns-fall
 
Among other things, they keep referring to GA airports as private airports instead of public airports.


Remember the push a couple years ago by the commercial carriers that tried to blame GA traffic for their own delays?
 
Matthew said:
Remember the push a couple years ago by the commercial carriers that tried to blame GA traffic for their own delays?
Click to expand...

Same bloviating blowhard was all over the "news" shows then:

Prior to joining ATA, May served as executive vice president of the National Association of Broadcasters (NAB); vice president, public affairs for the Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York; directed government relations for PepsiCo, Inc; and served as vice president, public affairs for the Grocery Manufacturers of America, Inc.
Click to expand...

In his world, it's a Coke Vs. Pepsi, zero-sum, fixed pie game.
 
Jeffco KBJC ... oops, I mean "Rocky Mountain Metropolitan Airport" has been running a tv spot on Comcast channel 6 here with factiods on numbers of jobs, $$s to the community, etc for the last few nights. At least, that's when I first noticed as I was flipping channels "Hey, what's that? Airplanes? Go back!"
 
His last line in the video really turned my stomach - "Should airline passengers have to pay for ALL of it?" THEY DON'T! We pay fuel tax, sales tax, ramp fees, etc. that all go to support the airport and pay for the services we use. Do we cover all of our expenses? Probably not. Does our tax money go to fund the FAA and ATC system, which primarily benefits the airlines? Probably.

The other thing he kept saying that annoyed me was that these airports have no commercial service. That is inaccurate. They might not have airline service, but I'll bet dollars to donuts that commercial operations take place there.
 
This really does look like a coordinated attack by the airline industry. In past articles the media would at least try to put on an air of objectivity. This worries me because it's such a well coordinated attack and they no longer care about being fair or balanced. This has moved from being journalism to propaganda and disinformation.

The airline industry obviously has some relationship with Thomas Frank who wrote the article. He has been on a campaign against GA for years now. His article is almost line for line the same propaganda the airlines have been pushing.

AOPA has to step up. They have to stop their soft arguments about education and step up the offensive. The airlines spend millions lobbying politicians, lobbying reporters and spreading disinformation. They will do whatever is necessary to eliminate the freedom of Americans to fly across this country without having to buy a ticket from an airline. Those of us who love flying and enjoy this fading freedom need to recognize the threat and respond.
 
It appears that USAToday has shut off all further comment on this article, and has removed the existing comments.

Why am I not surprised?
 
So, in AOPA's response article, they mention that they knew about this article days before it was run and offered to be interviewed and help with the research from the other side, but the offers were declined. As someone who was trained as a journalist, it saddens me when people in the profession fail to research both sides of the issue they are reporting on. It absolutely sickens me when they actively refuse to do so.
 
t0r0nad0 said:
So, in AOPA's response article, they mention that they knew about this article days before it was run and offered to be interviewed and help with the research from the other side, but the offers were declined. As someone who was trained as a journalist, it saddens me when people in the profession fail to research both sides of the issue they are reporting on. It absolutely sickens me when they actively refuse to do so.
Click to expand...

What sickens me is that AOPA, the organization that many of you pay to help in these situations, didn't go on the offensive when the requests were denied.

We need something like the airlines have, but instead, it needs to explain GA and slam the airlines.

AOPA slacks, yet again.
 
SkyHog said:
What sickens me is that AOPA, the organization that many of you pay to help in these situations, didn't go on the offensive when the requests were denied.
Click to expand...

How exactly would AOPA go on the offensive? It's not like they have great sway over mainstream media. How would you pitch a story called, "USA Today is Ignoring Us!" to CBS, or CNN?

We need something like the airlines have, but instead, it needs to explain GA and slam the airlines.
Click to expand...

All it takes is money, how much are you willing to put up? Then again, how many people would read, "General Aviation: It's not all Rich White Guys"?


Trapper John
 
Trapper John said:
All it takes is money, how much are you willing to put up? Then again, how many people would read, "General Aviation: It's not all Rich White Guys"?


Trapper John
Click to expand...

Right -- ATA is a trade organization, funded by member corporations.

AOPA is an advocacy group that represents how many GA pilots?
 
Now I have figured out my objection to this. It is an editorial piece dressed up as news. Any journalist should know better.
 
dmccormack said:
Right -- ATA is a trade organization, funded by member corporations.

AOPA is an advocacy group that represents how many GA pilots?
Click to expand...

AOPA is an organization that is funded by many people as well.

414,000 members
Each pays $39 a year

That alone is $16,146,000 in membership dues. They have 2 magazines, and could easily reduce that to 1 or no magazines. They produce a fancy AF/D that is mostly paid for by advertising revenue. Judging from my experience as a prior member, they sent out 4 "join us" letters a month per member (not including the non members), so they're spending $8,743,680 in postage plus whatever it costs to have the prepaid return envelopes in each mailing. So - best case scenario, they still have $7,402,320 to spend on advocacy. Of course, they have salaries and whatnot, and I can't even guess how much they spend there.

The money is being poorly spent is what I'm trying to say. If they took that near $9 million in recruitment TO MEMBERS THAT ARE ALREADY MEMBERS and spent it on advocacy instead, we could actually be heard somewhere. Silently lobbying congress won't help, we need to actually have defense pieces published.

Perhaps a video as convincing as that cartoon plane video that the ATA put out (without much response from AOPA) would help our cause. But instead, you are all paying $40 a month to an organization that provides you a crappy magazine with rehashed articles and a legal plan that has lead many pilots to do the wrong thing. You get a crappy credit card through a company with less than honest business practices. You get a "discount" through Enterprise where you pay more than someone without the code does.

But you don't get advocacy, at least not in a way that would help.
 
SkyHog said:
But instead, you are all paying $40 a month to an organization that provides you a crappy magazine with rehashed articles and a legal plan that has lead many pilots to do the wrong thing. You get a crappy credit card through a company with less than honest business practices. You get a "discount" through Enterprise where you pay more than someone without the code does.

But you don't get advocacy, at least not in a way that would help.
Click to expand...

I'm paying $40 a month?!?
 
The donations from pilots, manufacturers and other GA trade organizations should be enough to organize an aggressive P.R. campaign. We must have aggressive attorney lobbyists to spend lavishly on the media and other influencers. It's not enough to go to Washington to meet with congressmen and senators. This is no longer about what's best for America but it's become the fight for public perception. We are losing that battle.

It's apparent that the ATA has had some influence over the Thomas Frank who has written multiple anti-GA articles over the years. Frank did not derive these anti-GA sentiments on his own and his articles have become nothing but a sounding board for the ATA. You can only conclude that the ATA lobbyists have done a very good job of "taking care" of this guy.

Our tactics must be as shrewd and ruthless as the airlines. These people will not stop until none of us can afford to fly and another competitor is eliminated.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top