Originally Posted by
Fly Aiprt
Would it be possible to have more specific information on what was biased or inaccurate in the media reports on the subject of interest here, the 737 MAX issues ?
I had the feeling that the NYT, the WSJ, the Seattle Times, Leeham News, to name a few of the media, provided clear, detailed and unbiased info, as confirmed by the the FAA officials testimonies at Congress.
Lets put it this way. You go to an organization with 100 people. 95 of the people are happy, 5 are not. You interview all 100 people, but you write your article based entirely on what the 5 unhappy people said, leaving out what the 95 happy people told you. Do you think the result will be an accurate representation? If the idea is to write an article critical of Boeing and the FAA management, it's simple to leave out anything that doesn't support that position. In fact, that's exactly what passes for journalism these days, and the NYT has shown themselves to be particularly adept at that.
BTW, most of the stuff I've seen in the Seattle Times appeared to be reasonably accurate.
As I've noted before, I know and have worked with some of the people quoted in the NYT article, and I don't consider them to be particularly credible.
---
Edited to add:
I find it somewhat telling that the NYT article focused on rotor burst - one of the most complex aspects that they portrayed as a simple 'yes/no', totally ignoring the inherent complexity of the issue. Gee, those wicked penny pinchers at Boeing could easily have changed the rudder control to make it very slightly better for rotor burst - but somehow never mentioned that maybe Boeing had good reason to be leery of messing with a rudder control system had previously caused two fatal crashes before they figured out what was wrong.
Unintended consequence is the nightmare of every aviation designer. The path of making 'simple' safety changes is paved with a great deal of blood.