Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Chat

Join the discussion and chat with other Mumsnetters about everyday life, relationships and parenting.

Appallingly slanted reporting from the Guardian -- DC plane crash

512 replies

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 08:48

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).

OP posts:
Thread gallery
8
GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 17:26

wisbech · 31/01/2025 17:13

You don't have to read the Guardian if you disagree with their position on this.

The thing is, I don’t think news articles should have a position.

A general world view of the paper, sure. And reading a range of media is important for that. That’s about which issues are prioritised, which framings are used, etc. And opinion, in the comment/editorial pages.

OP posts:
CurlewKate · 31/01/2025 17:41

@GeneralPeter "The thing is, I don’t think news articles should have a position"

But it's OK for a world leader to express his opinions as fact a priori?

RingoJuice · 31/01/2025 17:43

CarolinaWren · 31/01/2025 16:23

A conspiracy theory blog isn't proof of anything.

It has actual screenshots from the court case in question, which is helpful for background.

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 17:52

CurlewKate · 31/01/2025 17:41

@GeneralPeter "The thing is, I don’t think news articles should have a position"

But it's OK for a world leader to express his opinions as fact a priori?

Trump is not a model of good anything. But 'expressing opinions as fact' is something politicians of all stripes do commonly.

There are plenty of occasions where Trump really does merit the 'baselessly' label. But that can't just be the reflex adjective whenever he says something ideologically distasteful. It should depend on the content of the claim, not the color of the politics.

OP posts:
thepariscrimefiles · 31/01/2025 18:12

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 17:26

The thing is, I don’t think news articles should have a position.

A general world view of the paper, sure. And reading a range of media is important for that. That’s about which issues are prioritised, which framings are used, etc. And opinion, in the comment/editorial pages.

All the right wing papers in the UK make their position very clear in their news articles. The Daily Mail, Telegraph and Daily Express are far more partisan than the Guardian. The Times obviously leans centre/right but is much more measured/impartial than the other right-wing papers.

LordEmsworth · 31/01/2025 18:36

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 13:45

@LordEmsworth

However great that you apparently do have evidence and can state these things categorically, within 24 hours of the incident.

Goodness me, that is a silly straw man.

Can I categorically state there is an actual issue here? Yes, with links to analysis and court documents. I could have done that 24 hours before the crash too. This is not new.

Can I categorically stated this was a cause of the crash. Absolutely not. I’ve been at pains to say we don’t know repeatedly in this thread.

Is my beef with DEI on this thread? Not really. It’s with the Guardian’s reporting.

But why are you singling out the Guardian when most of the press and broadcast media are reporting in the same way?!

Anyway you carry on pursuing your agenda, enjoy your evening.

wisbech · 31/01/2025 18:40

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 17:26

The thing is, I don’t think news articles should have a position.

A general world view of the paper, sure. And reading a range of media is important for that. That’s about which issues are prioritised, which framings are used, etc. And opinion, in the comment/editorial pages.

That's good to know. And I think they should have a position, or rather, just the decision about what to report on as a news article is already a position. But as neither of us is the editor of the Guardian, what we think is worth a warm bucket of saliva

DuncinToffee · 31/01/2025 19:30

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyeg61pnl5o

Fact-checking Trump's claims about diversity schemes and the Washington plane crash

Ohnobackagain · 31/01/2025 21:11

@notimagain I’m aware.

juldan · 31/01/2025 21:22

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 08:48

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).

You cannot be serious using X for fact checking on this. You know who owns X, right?

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 21:33

juldan · 31/01/2025 21:22

You cannot be serious using X for fact checking on this. You know who owns X, right?

Substack, mainly, with links to the court documents.

Twitter (pre-Musk) is how I became aware of this, but it’s not where the fact-checking is coming from. Substack is of course only as good as the writers, but that’s why it’s good to be able to check out various sources and takes (and I find X helps with this: if someone’s work is shoddy you are much more likely to find out quickly than if you’ve just got their book or newsletter).

This isn’t a new story. I don’t think the FAA has denied the test or the mark scheme, or the intention behind the changes, or the fact that the answers were shared with one group. There is a legal debate about whether the FAA has any liability to people who paid for their training on the assumption that the selection criteria wouldn’t change by the time they got to the assessment test.

The issue is what that did to the training pipeline. People self-fund, then the scandal hits and they feel the system is rigged (or at least capricious). Would you go into debt to pay for training on the hope that you’d be OK? Large numbers of people decided not.

OP posts:
DuncinToffee · 31/01/2025 21:44

It's all a bit of a muddle, Schrodingers safety

WH press conference

PETER DOOCY: Given DEI hires, it's not safe to fly commercially, is it?

LEAVITT: The president believes it is still indeed safe. With that said ...

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lh2makkpdm2b

notimagain · 31/01/2025 21:55

DuncinToffee · 31/01/2025 21:44

It's all a bit of a muddle, Schrodingers safety

WH press conference

PETER DOOCY: Given DEI hires, it's not safe to fly commercially, is it?

LEAVITT: The president believes it is still indeed safe. With that said ...

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lh2makkpdm2b

Good grief..

That said I’m still not sure why pilots are being dragged/mentioned in the context of this whole argument about the FAA and DEI, (for example the spokesperson mentioned them in that piece.)

The FAA has some input to pilot hiring at a mainly admin level, for example setting medical standards and physically issuing licences…but hiring policy, selection etc is set by the hiring airline.

NuNameNuMe · 31/01/2025 22:13

GeneralPeter you haven't solved Pizzagate yet. Don't start another conspiracy theory until you've resolved the last one.

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 22:15

DuncinToffee · 31/01/2025 21:44

It's all a bit of a muddle, Schrodingers safety

WH press conference

PETER DOOCY: Given DEI hires, it's not safe to fly commercially, is it?

LEAVITT: The president believes it is still indeed safe. With that said ...

https://bsky.app/profile/atrupar.com/post/3lh2makkpdm2b

It's not quite as straightforward as 'DEI hires making things unsafe'. The FAA has many problems that have created a chronic shortage of air traffic controllers. One of those factors was a crudely conceived and badly implemented DEI programme implemented in 2014 that screened out otherwise-qualified candidates, but more importantly make training to be a controller a much higher-risk proposition (people self-fund to do this), by introducing a rather capricious test, to which, to make things worse, some groups got leaked the answers. That, it is widely claimed (and totally rationally), led to people self-selecting out of the training process, exacerbating the controller shortage. That's the causal mechanism being alleged here. Definitely not the only cause, by any means, but also not "baseless" or ludicrous, and the actual facts of the DEI programme in question are also not really contested, as they are all in the court documents.

There are many reasons why US air traffic controllers are overstretched, not just this. Does it make it unsafe overall? Depends on your risk appetite. But it certainly makes it more unsafe than if they were at full complement. Was the fact that the controller that night was doing two jobs a factor? We don't know yet. But the rush to decry Trump's highlighting of this particular, well attested, issue as baseless seems an unseemly rushing to judgment to me.

It reminds me of the many articles saying how ludicrous and racist the Covid lab leak theory was (without really much articulation of why the alternative wet-market theory was inherently any better). It was just terribly important to show that that idea was believed in by bad people. Like the sex-based rights stuff too. Only bad people could believe that (say) the WiSpa guy could have bad motive. I'm not saying there's only one view that must be right here. I'm saying the opposite: stigmatising particular beliefs for being ideologically impure, when you don't hold others to the same standard, is a really bad way to do news. Bad when it's Fox, bad when it's the Guardian.

OP posts:
GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 22:16

NuNameNuMe · 31/01/2025 22:13

GeneralPeter you haven't solved Pizzagate yet. Don't start another conspiracy theory until you've resolved the last one.

I think you must be confusing me with someone else.

OP posts:
HowardTJMoon · 31/01/2025 22:30

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 12:59

@HowardTJMoon I gave an analogy. Use of analogy is not bad faith. In hindsight I should have flagged it as analogy in that specific post. I genuinely thought it was self-evident. It was an extension of an analogy we were talking about at the time. I used the conditional tense to describe how I 'would' respond to the passage I wrote, further indication that it was a hypothetical. MN board move fast and people here are smart. If I've already explained this to you once and you still aren't understanding then I think we'd better just leave it at that.

The fact that you referenced my mention of your manufactured quote while completely ignoring my much more important reference to your manufacturing of what you imagined my reaction to that quote was, is ample evidence to support my view that you're not arguing in good faith.

Or, more succinctly, go fuck yourself.

LetThereBeLove · 31/01/2025 22:34

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 09:23

I don't exactly disagree. But if a president had gone on a rant about lax gun laws and terrible mental health support after a mass shooting, would the Guardian have reported it so scathingly? Should they?

No they wouldn't. I find the standard of reporting at the Guardian these days about as good as the BBC. Pi$$ poor in both cases.

GeneralPeter · 01/02/2025 04:10

@HowardTJMoon

The fact that you referenced my mention of your manufactured quote while completely ignoring my much more important reference to your manufacturing of what you imagined my reaction to that quote was, is ample evidence to support my view that you're not arguing in good faith.
**
Or, more succinctly, go fuck yourself.

Now it's my turn to not follow.

If you think you made a very important point that I was insufficiently appreciative of then I'm sorry for that too.

I've not tried to misrepresent you (or anyone else). I'm not even sure what you are referring to by this stage. I thought we had a mix up because I used an analogy and you didn't recognise that, or took exception to that for some reason.

Anyway, I wish you well.

OP posts:
GeneralPeter · 01/02/2025 04:46

@HowardTJMoon

I think I've found what you are talking about. I went back to look because it's important to me that I haven't misrepresented someone. Here's what I said:

"If you think X, then we disagree"

That is not misrepresenting you. That's explaining where I think we disagree while also leaving open the possibility that it's not your actual position. Essentially inviting you to clarify if needed.

That feels like the mildest of rhetorical devices to check we're on the same page as we continue discussing. I'm surprised that that of all things provoked you to abuse.

Anyway, thanks for engaging on this thread.

OP posts:
BettyBardMacDonald · 01/02/2025 07:32

This is totally batshit crazy.

squizquiz · 01/02/2025 11:29

I get the feeling that many of the naysayers here have not actually read what the OP linked in her first post. It is so important that people are aware of all this (and this point is distinct from being aware that the tragic crash is still being investigated) that I post some quotes - you can see where I have left bits out as it is too long, but please do read the whole thing, it includes links to court documents, and on the whole it is eye watering:

"A scandal at the FAA has been moving on a slow-burn through the courts for a decade, culminating in the class-action lawsuit currently known as Brigida v.
@SecretaryPete
, brought by a class who spent years and thousands of dollars in coursework to become air traffic controllers, only to be dismissed by a pass-fail biographical questionnaire with a >90% fail rate, implemented without warning after many of them had already taken, and passed, a skill assessment. The questionnaire awarded points for factors like "lowest grade in high school is science," something explicitly admitted by the FAA in a motion to deny class certification.
[ ]
Mainstream outlets have given it sparse coverage
[ ]
Historically, the pipeline into air traffic control has followed a few paths: military veterans, graduates of the "Air Traffic-Collegiate Training Initiative" (AT-CTI) program, and the general public. Whichever route they came from, each candidate would be required to take and pass the eight-hour AT-SAT cognitive test to begin serious training.
[ ]
The FAA has faced pressure to diversify the air traffic control for generations, something that seems to have influenced even the scoring structure of the AT-SAT cognitive test used for pre-employment screening of air traffic control candidates. Leading up to 2014, that pressure intensified, with the National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees (NBCFAE) leading the push.
[ ]
Mamie Mallory [of NBCFAE], wrote "A Business Case and Strategic Plan to Address Under-Representation of Minorities, Women, and People with Targeted Disabilities," recommending, per the lawsuit, a workplace cultural audit, diversity "hiring targets" for each year, and "allowing RNO- [Race and National Origin] and gender-conscious hiring."
[ ]
the NBCFAE sent letters in July and October 2009 to the FAA administrator and the Secretary for the Department of Transportation claiming disparate treatment, adopted a strategic plan "advocating for affirmative employment, obtaining an 'independent valuation of hiring and/or screening tools,' and pursuing litigation,"
[ ]
the cognitive test posed a barrier for black candidates, so they recommended using a biographical test first to "maximiz[e] diversity," eliminating the vast majority of candidates prior to any cognitive test.
[ ]
Around [2012] the FAA decided to pause the hiring of CTI graduates [air traffic control course] pending the implementation of the biographical assessment. Neither the schools that ran the CTI programs nor their students were informed of this when the decision was initially made. A number of students, including the class representative, passed the AT-SAT (in the case of the class representative, with a perfect score), not knowing they would never get to use it.

In 2014, the FAA rolled out the new biographical questionnaire in line with the Barrier Analysis recommendation, designed so that 90% or more of applicants would "fail."
[ ]
Concurrent to all of this, NBCFAE members were hard at work. In particular, one Shelton Snow, an FAA employee and then-president of the NBCFAE's Washington Suburban chapter, provided NBCFAE members with "buzz words" in January 2014 that would automatically push their resumes to the tops of HR files. A 2013 NBCFAE meeting advised members to "please include [on resumes] if you are a NBCFAE Member. [...] Can you see the strategy", emphasizing they were "only concerned" with the employment of "African-Americans, women ... and other minorities."
After the 2014 biographical questionnaire was released, Snow [ ] sent voice-mail messages to NBCFAE applicants, advising them on the specific answers they needed to enter into the Biographical Assessment to avoid failing, stating that he was "about 99 point 99 percent sure that it is exactly how you need to answer each question."
[ ]
an internal FAA report cleared the NBCFAE and Snow of wrongdoing.
[ ]
People snubbed by the process filed dozens of lawsuits as a result, culminating in the class-action suit now underway as Brigida v. Buttigieg. In arguing to deny class certification, the defendants argued that the "underlying grievancethat they pursued college degrees in reliance on their perception that the role of the CTI program in the FAA's hiring process would never changeis not actionable." In a moment with a certain bitter irony, black CTI graduates who were left adrift by this process are the only demographic left out of the class: while the plaintiffs tried to include them initially, the court denied certification until they were excluded. [ ]"

x.com

https://x.com/SecretaryPete

squizquiz · 01/02/2025 11:31

And following on from the above, my question is - why has the Guardian not reported on this?

And incidentally, who funds the NBCFAE?

RingoJuice · 01/02/2025 11:42

squizquiz · 01/02/2025 11:31

And following on from the above, my question is - why has the Guardian not reported on this?

And incidentally, who funds the NBCFAE?

It would be very inconvenient for them
to report the truth of the matter. They cannot accept it

squizquiz · 01/02/2025 11:43

GeneralPeter · 31/01/2025 14:56

I'm not sure there are any Trump supporters on this thread. Maybe there are. I'm not one.

I think the election denying disqualifies him from the presidency, probably in a strong constitutional sense, not just on taste.

I like truth and evidence. Trump rides roughshod over them regularly, for power, ideology, vanity. Bad bad bad.

The Guardian does so selectively, on specific issues, for ideology. Bad.

In relation to Trump, I used to think like you until I happened to see a full press interview with him in relation to which, when in the mainstream press, only a tiny fraction was included - and the tiny fraction was taken completely out of context and it really did not reflect the whole interview.

Up to this point I used to laugh at the "white light" comments and the like. But after this I started to dig a bit deeper. If you do the same I think you'll find that the slanted reporting you have noted here has also applied to Trump, and to other world leaders and other decision makers who backed or were against key policies.

And I hate to say it, but (a) I found myself - left wing - realising that Trump was raising a lot of good concerns, and (b) there is a common denominator, all the spinning seems to follow certain interest groups' funding.

Don't get me wrong, I am not suggesting for a moment that Trump does not have his moments, and that all of the criticism is completely without grounds. But I would not be surprised if it turned out that what we read in comments and on the media is about 1.5 percent reliable.

Are some of the same posters who are aggressive about Trump also slating Musk's comments on the DEI on other threads, calling him racist? Again, if so there would seem to be a pattern.