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).

Almost certainly they would - because Trump is known to be a supporter of laissez-faire gun laws and scathing of mental health problems - in fact he is known to use baseless comments about other peoples mental healthas insults rather than engage in a grown up conversation about policy.

You are being disingenuous - the Guardian is being scathing of his statement that DEI was responsible for the accident without any proof (the definition of baseless being "without any proof"). If, and that is a big "if", aviation safety has been compromised by recruitment practices, then that is an entirely different discussion, and one that needs to take place somewhere other than the ramblings of a part-time law student on X. There is no causal link established between recruitment (or lack of it) and the accident that happened.

If you wish to involve the President of South Korea, the most relevant statement would be that he had the brains to keep his mouth shut on the cause of the accident until it was properly investigated. Something Trump doesn't have the brains to do.

BTW - one of Trumps first actions was an executive order that, amongst other things, halted recruitment of air traffic controllers despite and known and serious shortage of them. Seems he doesn't really care all that much what goes on in the skies.

I note you say "women" - why just "women"? Are any of the serious anomolies a result of millions in terms of funding to certain social groups, some of which relate to "feminism" (in the loosest sense), which has thrown things askew all over the place, behind the scenes?

What the fuck is that piece of word salad supposed to mean?

@notimagain yeah I doubt the Pentagon is going to want strict limitations on helicopters. I hate to think of all this coming back on the ATCO who was only trying to do his or her job that night.

I am none of the things you are calling me. Your post is disgusting. Quit the personal attacks.

If you like X for your news you might like this post. Just for ‘balance’

Same might apply to the ATCO in this case..they might be working in really badly thought out airspace with crap procedures but changing that (for example restricting operations at DCA or by helicopters) might be unpopular, especially with the political class, so the easy option might be to claim ATC error and throw the controller under the bus.

Badly thought out airspace with crap procedures is air traffic control error - the error doesn’t need to be the individual controller in charge at the time, it could be the ATC boss or bosses boss not raising known issues.

It's not ATC error if it's at national level.

That's my point. We don't know and he doesn't know until a investigation by experts has taken place. In apportioning blame before this Trump is instigating a witch hunt.

"He shouldn't be treated like a normal statesperson. That's how we got in this mess in the first place."

Threatening to take over Greenland is the most shocking thing recently. I can't believe he's really going around saying that.

OP BBC and the i newspaper are both reporting in the same manner. It isn’t just the Guardian. I think you might find most are doing this. Trump does not yet have evidence that DEI had any link to the crash.

It is if problems are not raised for whatever reason.

I wouldn’t expect any more of the BBC or i either.

So you invented the quote. More importantly, you also invented that I think it would be a fair summary. As you're clearly not arguing in good faith I'll leave you to it.

There are two things here.

In this immediate crash there is no evidence at this stage that DEI played any role. To start to speculate on that at this stage is unhinged and literally baseless, because THERE IS NO EVIDENCE.

It is a separate debate as to whether DEI has led to a staffing issue in the TSA, although Pete Buitegege said numbers went up whilst he was Transport Secretary.

Aviation experts say the manning of ATC that night was not an unusual set up. That is fact.

I will look at the evidence when it is available from investigators. Everything Trump says is speculation and is baseless at this stage.

Yeah, he's not great is he. He is unfit to be president on a few different grounds. He is hyperbolic and a hypocrite.

I don't think the same can be said for the reporting on the FAA issue that was the basis for his latest statements.

I know the Guardian thinks he's an awful man. I agree with them. I don't want them distorting their reporting because of it.

They have form for this, and you don't have to be a right-wing extremist to be traduced and mis-reported by them. You just need to step out of line on a few progressive nostrums that they agree with. I don't like that whoever is doing it, and whoever the target is. Put it in the comment pages.

Ah yes, just making it up, which is exactly what someone who want to appear credible should do - lie. Then say they’re lying.
That really is Trump 101 right there.
If in doubt lie and shout the lie as loud as you can then 1) admit the lie and tell everyone they were fools to believe such as obvious lie OR 2) double down and keep right out talking shite while calling everyone else haters.

You hear the ATC telling the helicopter to go round the plane. The helicopter had said they saw the plane. A lot of people think they saw another plane… I really doubt this is ATC fault. Plus the FAA hires hundreds of people - they’re not all working in ATC?

I’m sorry but an analogy that is clearly an analogy is not a lie. The MN board are pretty sophisticated and it’s hard to write for all levels, people in a rush, people who didn’t see the post it was referencing, etc. I’m happy to clarify that the Bridget Phillipson was analogy.

@Caplin The FAA itself has said that DCA ATC was understaffed that night.

I completely agree that Trump trying to score political points is awful. Trump is awful, that's already known and has been for a long time. But it's absurd to pretend that everything is a total mystery and we know absolutely nothing and ATC has nothing to do with it. That simply isn't true. We don't have a final report and won't for a long time, but the initial info does suggest ATC (as part of wider aviation issues in the USA) played a role. Denying that in order to score points against Trump just throws you into the game Trump wants to play. Better to stand back and look at the facts.

Aviation experts say the manning of ATC that night was not an unusual set up. That is fact.

That doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a cause of the crash.

But it is indeed baseless. Instead of blaming the ATC, why are the helicopter routes allowed to fly so close to the commercial routes with margins so close? And also if you listen to the transcript of the tower communciations, the ATC did advise the helicopter of the CRJ plane and the helicopter confirmed visual separation. To me this is another problem, why are we relying on visual separation on such tight airspaces at night. This airport is also so busy especially with the helicopter routes and there have been reports in the past of near collissions, it was an accident waiting to happen.

That does sound like ATC error then - pilot misunderstanding ATC instructions, pilot misidentifying the plane ATC referring to, ATC allowing aircraft in too close vicinity….

This is basically what a lot of people in aviation think, re: accident waiting to happen. Safety is a Swiss cheese model, so the "blame" on ATC comes from their not having intervened in time to stop the crash. This may have been because of understaffing. The DEI link seems incredibly tenuous, so it likely is just Trump being nasty and trying to score political points, much as one would expect of him. But, it's not incorrect to discuss the role of ATC and the wider aviation issues, which becomes harder when mainstream news outlets just focus on their Trump bashing (tempting as I realise that is). It should be possible to say why Trump is wrong about some things, without losing the nuance about other aspects.

Visual separation and the congestion of the airspace are huge issues.

@Littoralzone It was a very difficult visual environment and the plane changed positions from one landing location to another, so the helicopter crew were likely looking at the first location still. (Can't be sure, but this is probable.)

In other words, an air traffic control issue.