Originally Posted by
tdracer
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.
Thank you for responding, tdracer.
Understand your view, but that would mean that for a safety issue to be considered, more than 50% of the people implicated should be willing to report.
Whereas only one report from a whistleblower should trigger an inquiry, be it from a disgruntled employee or not.
When you say some people in the article are not credible, do you mean they lied and the conversations, email exchanges, documents do not exist, or do you just mean they are not
competent in the particular subject ?
That's quite a different thing, isn't it ?
BTW, if the articles in the Seattle Times and the testimony of FAA members at Congress are accurate, lots of people at FAA and Boeing do not appear to be especially credible ;-)