It was more of a rhetorical 'we'. I've become quite jaded and cynical of the news media over the last couple of years.
I hear that!
In 2001 a passenger jet crashed into Queens , NY. This was the result of heavy over correction of rudder when the craft encountered wake turbulence from the heavy that preceded it off the runway.
OK, the NTSB calls a "Technical Briefing". Note that first word, "technical". Its carried live, probably CNN and I was watching. My recollection is:
The NTSB spokesman described the g forces the FDR recorded, "
xg's starboard,
wg's up" that kind of thing.
One reporter asks what a "g" is. I yell at the TV, "why are you at a technical briefing if you don't know that?". The answer is calmly put forth. "OK" I think to myself, perhaps the reporter simply wanted to get a correct definition, a corroboration of what he understood a "g" to be. A different question is asked and answered,,,, THEN several more reporters ask variations on "what's a "g"?" and the spokesman becomes increasingly testy and frankly I could not blame him. Finally when it looks like he's about to let loose on the gathered doofus news people, another NTSB person steps in to relieve him, followed by more question about what "acceleration", is and what a "g" is, and what "deflection", and "inverted" means,,,etc.
Is it just me or should a reporter attending a "Technical Briefing" have at the very least, an understanding of the
technical jargon? This is grade 11-12 science, or at least it was when I went to high school. If you are a reporter because you read Chaucer and Dickens then perhaps you should be on the art and leisure beat.