Appallingly slanted reporting from the Guardian -- DC plane crash

[GeneralPeter]

This article describes Trump's theory that DEI had something to do with the crash using debunking words throughout. 'Baselessly', 'without providing evidence' etc etc.

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/jan/30/trump-washington-dc-plane-crash-dei

The thing is, this isn't 'baseless'.

The FAA has said that the tower was understaffed. We don't know if that was relevant or has not. We do know that FAA recruitment cratered because of a (very well-evidenced) extremely crude attempt at DEI. There is a long-running class action lawsuit that is on public record and not made up. The test really did award points for saying you had more Ds than Cs at school, for saying science was your weakest subject, etc etc and they did then give the answers to candidates of a particular race before the test.

Sometimes things that sound like loonish right-wing conspiracy theories actually turn out to be true. If you think I must be a right-wing loon, please read this thread first (and many others out there -- this is all public record in court documents and not denied by the FAA).

x.com/tracewoodgrains/status/1752091831095939471

You would not know any of this if you read the Guardian article. Their reporter must surely know this stuff. So it's another attempt to bury with slurs an ideologically inconvenient actual truth. We've seen this before with sex-based rights, and the Guardian should stop it.

(Obligatory: I'm not a Trump fan, think he is appalling in many respects, several of them disqualifying for the presidency. But while comment is free, facts should be sacred).

@WishinAndHopin "No evidence base yet because the investigation hasn't even started" = "baseless". And the latter fits into a headline.

You're having a massive strop over a word you've chosen to misinterpret. Maybe just have a cup of tea and wait for the investigation to tell you what actually happened, instead of freaking out about the media saying "baseless" instead of "there is no evidence base yet for what President Trumps has asserted, so he's trying to get ahead of the facts to suit himself."

The heart of this post is that @GeneralPeter hates DEI and would like to use the opportunity to jump on the band wagon and have a protracted “yeah but” argument about this.

I don't agree with Trump on very much. I doubt he will make a measured statement. But his point was that standards had been distorted by DEI at the FAA specifically, and that it's legitimate to think that excessive strain on staff was a cause. I don't think that gets proven wrong regardless of the outcome of this investigation.

If the bird strike didn't cause the Jeju Air crash then we shouldn't go around claiming it did. But the South Korean president railing against the placing of an airport next to migratory bird marshes is not thereby proven wrong. And reporting at the time shouldn't (and didn't) apply all sorts of scare quotes and distortions to make him sound obviously evil for raising the issue.

Yep. Trump is always about Trump, regardless of the situation. If he can get his name plastered all over the world's media and cause anger, hurt, shock and distress in the process then it's a good day for him. No-one should think for a second he cares about anyone else but himself. The investigation is a mere inconvenient detail to Trump.

It’s rather dramatic of you to describe me as having “a massive strop” for a few calm replies on someone else’s thread.

In case you missed it I have repeatedly agreed that Trump was reckless and in the wrong for his statements.

Two points - Firstly the ICAO manual on Accident investigation (Annex 13) pretty much states at the beginning of the main text that the aim of rhe investigation should not be to apportion blame or responsibility.

Secondly in my half century plus in/around aviation I cannot think of any accident that has become so politicised so quickly, and certainly can"t think of one where a head of state has waded in in the manner Trump has within 24 hours of the accident.

The NTSB are going to have a tough job staying objective and I do hope people don't get thrown under buses just because that suits certain agendas.

It's a real worry, to me at least.

Absolutely. The US Guardian is particularly awful for this.

DEI is a dog whistle. Especially in The States.

The crash site is a little over 3 miles from the White House - its not in some faraway backwoods - it's a brisk walk/buggy trip away

Unless he's golfing at Mar a Lago/ wherever

I don't see the connection between your unsourced quote and what I wrote.

If a child dies on an understaffed school trip then that death might be linked to staffing levels or it might not. Until there's reason to believe one way or another, suggesting that staffing levels was a cause is a claim made with no evidence. A newspaper would be doing its duty to point out that no evidence exists to support the claim.

The right wing messaging ecosystem isawful and irresponsible for going on "feels" not facts. And yet this criticism can be levelled at the Guardian too. They often sink to the same (or similar) level.

It is baseless if the crash was caused by tech failure, deliberate actions of the helicopter pilot, etc.

Could the above be ruled out at the time of the press conference when the black boxes hadn't been analysed (or even recovered at that point)? No.

Also while I'm no expert in air traffic control from listening to the audio the ATC asks the helicopter pilot if he's seen the plane (by number) and the pilot says yes and is told to go behind him. So from where I am currently it sounds like pilot error not ATC, of course the investigation may say different.

It was the 39th anniversary of this tragedy this week, and I can remember it so well.
I can also remember Ronald Reagan’s response.

Yes, it’s a bit old school and of course every tragedy is different, but in times of tragedy people want a sense of leadership from someone in the first instance, not a pointing party.
I was not a huge fan of a lot of this man’s politics nor of the Republican Party, but it had gravitas then just as its opposition had. There was some level of public service wrapped within the power.
Now it feels like one, boring, Joe Rogan podcast.
After the inauguration last week I went back and watched the best inauguration speeches, from FDR to Kennedy to Obama, Clinton’s ‘state of the union’ speech, a few by John McCain and the very best by Martin Luther King. They reminded me that America is a young nation, but it has produced many great - and imperfect - people in politics, sport, science, entertainment, art and literature.
This new President to me represents a sickness that’s raging through societies, and I do understand people feel worn down by regular politics, and mainstream media, and what they see as an establishment.
However, he doesn’t give ‘the greatest’ answers but he doesn’t ask the ‘the best, the greatest there has ever been’ questions. He no more cares about the average person than any other leader who is so self-absorbed they can’t look in the mirror and acknowledge who they are.
And for the record I think bringing Biden in, letting him remain, and the cover up involving his son was just as misguided.
Like so many of us right now I have an awful lot of questions about everything, and I don’t think this man knows an answer to any of them.

@GelatoPistacchio Not baseless in an atmosphere of chronic understaffing, which is established fact. I think it's very odd that you're willing to speculate on wild, even hurtful, scenarios, but not to acknowledge something that is quite simple and factual.

I think that in some of the awful dashcam pictures the White House is actually visible! For some reason, senior moment, I was thinking it had happened in New York, like the one that landed on the Hudson.

@verysmellyjelly I think we're on the same page about visual separation.

Rolling news and aviation forums are both carrying many, many messages saying the Washington National/Potomac area's mix of machines was a disaster waiting to happen.

It is quite simple and factual that the vast majority of air accidents are caused by pilot error. I think it's very odd that there are so many people on this thread who are willing to overlook this simple fact.

You are as bad as him.

We see what you're doing. It's ugly and wrong.

@HowardTJMoon if you think that reporting would be a fair summary then we disagree. That's OK. I think it would be highly misleading, especially if only Labour ministers were reported in that way.

@Begsthequestion

Did you read the linked report?

@HowardTJMoon No one is saying pilot error wasn't involved, but the entire sphere the pilots were operating in (specifically the helicopter crew as there was nothing the jet crew could do) also needs to be considered. If there was a non human dependent safeguard built in then an error like this could not happen, for example if the jet had never been asked to move onto 33 knowing that the helicopter route was in use, or if the helicopter route was not cleared for use when that specific landing was in immediate use. Something other than relying on visual separation.

I have nothing more to say to you.

It was worrying to read that people who had gone to College to specifically study Air Traffic Control and had top grades were overlooked for people who had failed at science.

As to the people with severe mental health and cognitive issues, hopefully no one suffering these where it could affect performance would be employed in such a crucial safety role.

{One would assume random drug and alcohol testing is mandatory in such roles}

It was usually male Military veterans whom they employed as air traffic controllers- and they wanted to 'diversify' this, from what I understood.