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).

It’s a reminder of what MNHQ, operators of this forum, ask posters to do.

HTH.

I’m sure you’re going to say unbiased would be a good trait.

yet your initial post blames the Guardian for what are factual, unbiased statements. trumps points he made were/are baseless and without evidence. The black boxes haven’t been examined, the air crash investigation has not been undertaken. Nobody knows what caused the crash. Therefore what he was saying was not based on evidence. A reputable news organisation needs to point that out to their readers rather than just parroting rubbish. Just because Trump said something doesn’t make it true. And I’d say the same of they pointed out anybody’s baseless statements.

you disagree with the guardian because you say it wasn’t baseless. But the point is you/he/we have no idea if the ATC or even DEi is in any way at fault. And until that’s determined what he said is baseless. The ATC being short staffed may have nothing to do with DEi, it may not have anything to do with the accident.

Someone who thinks other people "deserve" abuse (and who think that they themselves are in a position to decide, as judge and jury, who does and does not "deserve" abuse), is an abusive person.

Anyone who dishes out abuse is abusive.

Think about it. Best to focus on what you disagree with and say why. Not go for personal attacks.

@CerealPosterHere

I feel we're slightly going over old ground here. My previous posts address most of this, but if we just do still disagree that is fine too.

There have been quite a few personal attacks on this thread, have you reported them all?

Obviously if Trump has been told a blind dwarf was flying that helicopter then maybe DEI had something to do with it. But still nothing to do with ATC which seems to be his main beef.

if he’s so worried about air safety why did he fire the entire Aviation Safety Committee only last week. Seems a little rash.

I do not consider that there have been - it is you who have stated this is your belief.

I have reported in the past on many a thread, though, whether posts were directed at me or not. Often MNHQ agrees they are PAs, and sometimes it does not.

If you report posts you think contain attacks, and MNHQ thinks so too, then they will be deleted.

There is a difference between a mass shooting in a school with an assault rifle which clearly could have been stopped by gun laws, and the mental gymnastics required to blame an aviation disaster on DEI policies. I think most aviation experts were left with their jaw on the floor at that one and promptly went on TV to say it was unhinged.

I note Trump has now posted this (BBC) focused on the helicopter:

President Trump has taken to his own social media platform, Truth Social, to claim that the Black Hawk helicopter involved in Wednesday's deadly crash was "flying too high, by a lot".
"The Black Hawk helicopter was flying too high, by a lot. It was far above the 200 foot limit. That’s not really too complicated to understand, is it???," Trump writes.

As a reminder, an investigation into what led to the crash is currently under way, with a preliminary report expected to be released within the next 30 days.

It isn't true that there is a push back of to 1950s ideas. I think that there is a recognition that some of what you call "progressive" has been damaging (eg in relation to literacy, education) and should be re-thought for the good of all - and there is a pushback against policies which are good for a tiny number of people at the expense of the majority of people, unreasonably - this applies at the top and the bottom. And a pushback against secret (or not well known, or not transparent) funding and control via that funding. And things like that.

Or if the helo pilot made an error

Ah, I see. But I am confused - are you saying that I am obliged to report every post I see which I think contains a personal attack?

Error of the helicopter pilot

Lots of correct, but even more incorrect information in X. I can categorically state the pilot was not transgender.

You can do what you like, sweetie. If you are confused by simple information, then I am sorry to hear that.

There's nothing further for me to say on this. You have a swell day, now.

You know there is a class action lawsuit about this don’t you? Birida vs Buttigieg.

It isn’t coming from nowhere.

This may be true, that doesn't mean it's reasonable for the president to make statements like he did based on vibes and 'common sense'.

>Can I categorically state there is an actual issue here
No.
You can state there is an issue with dei hiring in the FAA

You cannot state that dei had any role in this incident - the controller could be a 20 year veteran - at this point there is no basis for assuming s/he was a dei hire - actually given the timing of the dei program and the length of time it takes to get to be a controller with responsibility for somewhere like reagon it's impossible for s/he to be a diversity hire.

Also need to distinguish between atc 'cause' and atco 'cause' - if the issue was an atco following crazy atc procedures it's not the atco fault. (allowing visual separation at night for same height traffic crossing an approach path where the landing aircraft is following a circle to land pattern - ie will be head on to crossing traffic until late in approach)

@Dreammouse

This may be true, that doesn't mean it's reasonable for the president to make statements like he did based on vibes and 'common sense'.

I think this is what I mean. On the Guardian's reporting you would think it was just based on vibes and 'common sense'. There's an actual, well attested story here that predates the crash by years.

How relevant it was to the crash we don't know. Maybe not at all. But Trump's broader points about DEI at the FAA are not random anti-woke ramblings. They were painted as that from start to finish in the article. That does the readers a disservice.

What a surprise, Trump's brain has finally engaged and he's pointing out what everyone in aviation has said.

This from supporters of the president who's appointing people into the most powerful roles in government ONLY if they now refuse to openly acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election.

That's Trump DEI: he'll only hire liars.

Again, that is not evidence in this particular air accident. Just because one thing is alleged (and it is alleged because a class action has not been resolved), does not mean DEI is linked to this tragic air accident. And even in a scenario where it is found to be a contributory factor, we won't know that for a year or two. To attempt to say that now is deeply wrong. Although I would guess the investigators will come under severe political pressure to include it now Trump has said it out loud.

Meanwhile, guns kill people, assualt rifles kill dozens of people. Banning guns means less people die (see most countries in the western world as direct evidence). That is fact and so it is not unreasonable to talk about gun restrictions when dozens of children are murdered.

There hasn't been an air crash in the US for 23 years. Maybe it was because of Trump slashing air safety and freaking out air traffic controllers by giving them letters telling them to quit? Not hearing much about that. Maybe it was pilot error, maybe a radar failed, maybe there was a big gust of wind, maybe the ghost of Jimmy Carter rose up from the grave and thrust the helicopter into the plane..... (The last one is only marginally less crazy than trying to immediately jump to DEI being the cause of the crash).

Anyway, Trump has gotten what he wants. Now everyone is talking about DEI rather than the massive cuts he made to air safety just last week.

Well given I only have Freeview channels I don’t watch any American right wing channels. I do get news from BBC and sometimes read The Guardian, also Telegraph, local paper, sometimes read articles that pop up on my feed from tabloids: mirror, mail, Times. Also Scotsman, Herald, i. I’m on X though my feed has a lot birds, plants and historical stuff. But where any of these reference a report, scientific paper or parliamentary committee, I find it necessary to look at the source. All of them have their own spin. Guardian and BBC worse than many - the BBC particularly bad for leaving things unsaid.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-guardian/

'The Guardian holds a left-leaning editorial bias and sometimes relies on sources that have failed fact checks. Further, while The Guardian has failed several fact checks, they also produce an incredible amount of content; therefore, most stories are accurate, but the reader must beware, and hence why we assign them a Mixed rating for factual reporting."

Not 'appallingly slanted'

Meanwhile, guns kill people, assualt rifles kill dozens of people. Banning guns means less people die (see most countries in the western world as direct evidence). That is fact and so it is not unreasonable to talk about gun restrictions when dozens of children are murdered.

That is very much a UK perspective. Many many Americans would argue the problem is not enough guns, especially in schools to combat school shootings. So talking about gun restrictions when children are murdered is as much a political point there as DEI.