Monday, October 5, 2009

Blame the Dead Pilots?

Blame the Dead Pilots?
By Jamie McIntyre Monday, October 5th, 2009 12:37 pm
Posted in On Media, Readings and Reviews
Whenever there is a major aviation accident, it usually turns out there is a series of factors that contribute to the cause, any one of which could have changed the outcome.  As safety investigators weigh those factors, they tend to settle on the final, often fatal, mistake.   Except when there’s a clear case of mechanical malfunction, it often comes down to “blaming the dead pilots.”   But it’s also important to understand how the pilots were put in a position to make that mistake, and to consider whether inadequate training, lack of safety equipment, or other pressures were equally at fault.  In other words, were good pilots set up to fail?
That is the impetus behind the quixotic quest of Congressman Walter Jones (R-NC), who has for years been trying to clear the names of two Marine Corps pilots who were blamed for the deadly crash of a V-22 Osprey in 2000, a crash that almost claimed the entire V-22 program among its casualties.  Read Jone’s Letter Here
The April 8, 2000 accident in Marana, Arizona was blamed on “human factors,” which has been widely interpreted in the news media as “pilot error.”   The proximate cause was that the pilots, following another V-22’s lead, descended too quickly, putting the plane into a “vortex ring state” while in helicopter mode.   The loss of lift caused the fiery crash, which killed all 19 Marines on board, including the pilots: Maj. John A. Brow, 39 and Maj. Brooks S. Gruber, 34.
At the time, many critics (cynics?) thought the Marine Corps was anxious to blame the pilots to avoid the perception that the V-22, with sophisticated computer-assisted avionics, was too “unforgiving” to be flown safely in combat conditions.  That perception could well have doomed the troubled program.  But experts I talked to blamed general overconfidence of V-22 crews, and the fact that some pilots routinely ignored the “placarded” limit for the rate of descent of 800 feet-per-minute.   The pilots on the mishap aircraft were going down at least three times as fast.
That clearly was the final mistake that caused the crash, but in appealing to the Navy to revise the record, Congressman Jones has reviewed the official investigations and public records and talked with other aviation experts and come to a different conclusion: namely that the fatal factor was “the aircraft’s lack of a Vortex Ring State (VRS) warning system as well as the pilots’ lack of critical training regarding the extreme dangers of VRS onset in the Osprey.”  In a “Memorandum for the Record” he has requested be placed in all official records relating the accident, Rep. Jones writes, “Lieutenant Colonel Brow and Major Gruber and their families are dishonored by the assertion that the aircrew was in any way responsible for this fatal accident.”
REQUEST DENIED
I understand the intent of Jones’ crusade.   The cause of the accident was far more complex than simply “the pilots screwed up.”   But accident investigations are done in a way that is designed to totally insulate them from any outside factors, including sympathy for the families or political pressure.  And that’s how it should be.
I think the official response that Jones got from Rear Adm. A. J. Johnson, Commander of the Naval Safety Center, was exactly right.  Rear Adm. Johnson wrote, “All safety investigations are conducted solely to determine root causes and identify corrective actions, not to assign blame or document accountability.  Aviation safety investigations are conducted by a team of specialized investigators, including at least one professional aviation safety investigator. They are exceptionally adept at what they do, and they have access to all of the expertise and resources within the Department of the Navy in reaching their conclusions. Their process, which is tried and true after more than 50 years of experience, is closed to outside influences. It would be inappropriate to alter the official safety investigation report by appending your Memorandum for the Record.”
But that doesn’t mean the pilots are being depicted fairly in media accounts as the sole cause of the accident.  Training was a factor, as evidenced by the emphasis post-accident training has put on understanding and avoiding vortex ring state, and subsequent improvements in the flight software that helps the pilots avoid the problem.
For a dispassionate view, I asked my old pal Rick Whittle, a former Dallas Morning News defense correspondent, for his take.  Rick has written extensively on the V-22, and has a book coming out next year [The Dream Machine, the Untold History of the Notorious V-22 Osprey]
Here’s what he e-mailed me:
“Before I investigated the crash for my book, I thought the Marines were using a euphemism when they called the cause “human factors,” but I’ve changed my mind. I interviewed a number of Marines who were on the mission that night – including four pilots who were in other Ospreys and the copilot and crew chiefs of the Osprey that led the way into Marana. What they told me, and other evidence I gathered, makes it clear that a lot of things contributed to that crash, and they didn’t all happen in the cockpit of the Osprey that went down. For that matter, they didn’t all happen that night. “Human factors” may be about as close as you can come to describing those causes in two words.
In any event, “pilot error” makes it sound like John Brow and Brooks Gruber were cowboys taking reckless chances, and that wasn’t the case. They were two of the best pilots in the Marine Corps.
They were coming down too fast when they went into vortex ring state, but they were flying wingman for another Osprey and following it in to Marana. The first Osprey descended too fast, too, partly because its pilots got distracted during the mission and started their descent into the airfield late. They were part of a big exercise that night, and there were a lot of other things going on.
I tell the full story in the book.”
Sounds like a great read.
Tags: , ,
Share |
0
AJM · 193 weeks ago
ONLY IN CASES IN WHICH THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER SHOULD DECEASED AIRCREW BE FOUND NEGLIGENT”

AP3207 – RAF Manual of Flight Safety, Chapter 8, Appendix G, page 9.
/web/20130618002051/http://www.chinook-justice.org/

Here in the UK there has been a similar controversy regarding RAF Chinook pilots posthumously blamed for a fatal crash in 1994.

'The evidence against two special forces pilots who were blamed for crashing an RAF Chinook helicopter into the Mull of Kintyre, killing all 29 on board, was too thin to reach such a damning verdict, campaigners for the servicemen claim today'.
/web/20130618002051/http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6407986.ece
+1
Tregonsee 49p · 193 weeks ago
These are very old numbers, ca 1975, and for military aviation. At that time, if even one crew member survived to testify, even a non-pilot such as a flight engineer or loadmaster, the likelihood of finding crew error as the primary cause was half of what it was if all aboard were killed. With the greater use of black boxes on military aircraft, the ratio is lower today, but there is still an discrepancy.
0
brusty · 193 weeks ago
I think we have to be careful with the term "human error". In a sfaerty investigation this is not interchangeable with "pilot error". Human error can be improper training or education for the pilots that is out of their hands and precedes the accident.

Vortex ring state is an annomally of rotor-wing flight that does not occur in fixed-wing flight. The human error of the accident could be placing two experienced fixed-wing aviators in the same ****pit with limited rotor experince. In that case it is not the pilot error, but a breakdown in training on much higher levels.

Human error should never excuse others or the military aviation community from making needed changes.
0
TheSwabbie · 192 weeks ago
Human error could mean that bugs from the Flight Engineers lunch flew in the eyes of both the pilot and copilot causing temporary blindness and distraction enough to loose control of the aircraft.. that COULD be construed as human error (as stupid and silly as it sounds). I've flown (on P3s) with some great Naval Avaitors who on a number of occasions did some magnificent flying in some difficult circumstances and situations.. Fire in engines when you are 500+ miles north of Iceland - Over the cold North Atlantic.. in the Arctic Circle. No room for error there - and we got home... DRY.
0
Alan Diehl, Ph.D. · 191 weeks ago
Congressman Jones' efforts are commendable. As explained in my book "Silent Knights: Blowing the Whistle on Military Accidents and Their Cover-Ups," a senior Pentagon official tried unsuccessfully to get me assigned to that investigation "to keep the Marines honest." I was a former NTSB and USAF aviation psychologist who had long campaigned to get officials to systematically examine the underlying causes of "human error." Needless to say the Marines refused that request, just like they'll do with the Congressman's efforts.
0
luke · 187 weeks ago
It is allways blamed on human error when a computer is involved,look at all th F/A-18 crashes never has one been blamed on the plane.even when it first came out and when using night vission in flight not all of the insterments could be read like say the altimator and yes it could not be read and we had 2 planes go into the ground at night both pilots were wearing night vison at the time but they were blamed and not the plane or equipment.
Posted by at No comments:

Thursday, October 1, 2009

Propaganda or Plain Ol’ PR?

Propaganda or Plain Ol’ PR?
By Jamie McIntyre Thursday, October 1st, 2009 6:39 pm
Posted in On Media
The folks at the Pentagon Press office are being raked over the hibachi again for alleged propaganda mongering, and the guy with the bulls-eye on his back is a nondescript career civil servant named Bryan Whitman.
The charge is that the Pentagon, back during the dark Rumsfeld days, conspired to dupe the American people, by wooing hapless retired military officers to knowingly spread lies and disinformation about the war in Iraq in return for coveted access.
It’s a premise that won a Pulitzer Prize for the New York Times reporter David Barstow last year, and has resurfaced on rawstory​.com, which seems dismayed to learn that the President has not fired every civil servant who ever worked for Rumsfeld.

You can read both the original New York Times story, and the Raw Story version online.
Senior official in Bush domestic propaganda program remains Obama’s Pentagon spokesman — rawstory​.com, Sept 2009
Behind TV Analysts, Pentagon’s Hidden Hand — New York Times, April, 2007
Both portray the program as a sinister and cynical effort to provide briefings to military analysts in a ham-fisted attempt to turn them into pitchmen for the Pentagon’s official line that the war was being won.
It all sounds pretty sordid, the way it’s laid out.  But like a prosecutor’s opening argument, the evidence is all presented in the most damning light, and not much credence is given to any opposing perspective.
There is, however, another less sinister view.  Namely, that the Pentagon’s press office was just doing its job in trying to get its side of the story out.  That the veteran military commanders who were given briefings used their judgment and experience to decide how much of the Pentagon’s spin to swallow, and that the private briefings, far from being some covert propaganda program, were in fact not all that much different from the backgrounders with senior officials routinely provided top journalists who are also seen as in a position to influence public opinion.  (And who some also feel were patsies for the Pentagon, but that’s another story.)
That is what GAO pointed out when it found last July that the Pentagon’s public affairs activities did not violate the federal  publicity or propaganda prohibition,  “Federal agencies have a responsibility to inform the public about their activities and programs, explain their policies, and disseminate information in defense of those policies or an administration’s point of view.”
[Department of Defense—Retired Military Officers as Media Analysts]
But to subscribe to the more benign view that this was good old-fashioned public relations, not pernicious propaganda, one would have to give some of the people involved the benefit of the doubt, and these days no one is predisposed in that direction.
I know Bryan Whitman, a former Special Forces soldier, who as a civilian has been an apolitical advocate for whomever is serving as defense secretary.  Over the years I found him to be cautious, and credible in his dealings with the press.  The office he oversees is the part of the public relations arm of the Pentagon, and so it cannot be considered an unbiased source of unvarnished information.  Any reporter knows that, as does any retired military officer worth his stars.
I also know some of the military analysts in question.  The best ones don’t rely on their out-of-date experience, or private Pentagon briefings.  I would cite as a an example retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Don Shepperd, who worked for CNN when I was Senior Pentagon Correspondent.  Gen. Shepperd went to briefings, and even took some trips when they were offered to hear and see firsthand what the commanders were saying.  But he also worked his sources like any good reporter, looking for context, and reality checks.  And when he shared his views on the air, they were HIS views, the result of his own fact-finding and critical thinking.
Now not all the military analysts covered themselves in glory, to be sure. From the transcripts of the meetings, we can see some did seem a little too eager to salute smartly and rally support for the Pentagon position.  And some of those may have simply honesty agreed with the Pentagon’s view at the time.  But retired military officers who moonlight as TV analysts have an occupational hazard similar to Pentagon news reporters: whenever they attempt to put things in context and suggest theer may be more that one possible interpretation of the events, they leave themselves vulnerable to charge they are drinking the Kool-Aid.
Retired Army Col. Ken Allard, author of the book “Warheads: Cable News And the Fog of War” about military analysts calls the original New York Times story ” badly distorted, incomplete and intellectually dishonest.” Warheads: Cable News And the Fog of War, Ken Allard
In an email to me he wrote:
“I keep coming back to the SO WHAT? test, which is basic to this story and utterly dismissed by Barstow while serving the greater good of the NYT/Democratic/Pulitzer agenda. While we military analysts were given access to PNT officials, so too were many other reporters and other policy-relevant strap-hangers. …But there was never any harm to the public interest and arguably some positive benefits. Bottom Line: No one controlled what we said on-air — not even our own studios and certainly not Don Rumsfeld’s Pentagon! And that was the principal thesis of WARHEADS. Look it up! ”
The easy way to avoid that is to be unfailingly critical, in other words, unfailing unfair.  The best way to avoid any appearance of conflict of interest is full disclosure.  If generals want to inoculate themselves against allegations they are doing the Pentagon’s dirty work, they should make sure to disclose what, if any, special access they received.  The pubic already sees former military officers as “generally” pro-military and pro-war.
So was this propaganda, or just plain old PR?  Here’s what the GAO concluded:
“Clearly, DOD attempted to favorably influence public opinion with respect to the Administration’s war policies in Iraq and Afghanistan through the RMOs [Retired Military Officers]. However, … based on the record before us in this case, we conclude that DOD’s public affairs outreach program to RMOs did not violate the prohibition. We found no evidence that DOD attempted to conceal from the public its outreach to RMOs or its role in providing RMOs with information, materials, access to department officials, travel, and luncheons. Moreover, we found no evidence that DOD contracted with or paid RMOs for positive commentary or analysis. Consequently, DOD’s public affairs activities involving RMOs, in our opinion, did not violate the publicity or propaganda prohibition.”
Tags: , , ,
Share |
+1
CharlesHouston 81p · 193 weeks ago
Most of the unrealistic views have always come from people who were NEVER in the military. Someone who has experienced combat comes away with a deep respect for the need to prepare, and does not casually advise sending people into that situation. I am reminded of Gen Senseki, who relied on his decades of military experience to give advice to Don Rumsfeld.
0
David M · 193 weeks ago
The Thunder Run has linked to this post in the blog post From the Front: 10/02/2009 News and Personal dispatches from the front and the home front.
0
Dan d'Errico · 193 weeks ago
AS with every part of the civilian government, it's either a spin doctoring or what actually occured. Very little of what occured will get out if it has to approved by the SecDef first. Especially if it appears to blacken his tenure in the pentagon If the retired military is brought in to say it's true or not, remember they're retired. A not in the "loop any more" General is like a not in the

"loop any more" seargent. But if you're going to report the Pentagon stories, no matter what they are, Get into the loop and get your opinion with facts aired in print or televised. I hope that alot more people read this blog and understand that at least one reporter is willing to investigate an item or more to the point where he'll be trusted to give an unbiased story on the air.
0
Zathras · 193 weeks ago
Perhaps this is just a coincidence, but I noticed on the first page of Barstow's NYT story the following:

Kenneth Allard, a former NBC military analyst who has taught information warfare at the National Defense University, said the campaign amounted to a sophisticated information operation. “This was a coherent, active policy,” he said. As conditions in Iraq deteriorated, Mr. Allard recalled, he saw a yawning gap between what analysts were told in private briefings and what subsequent inquiries and books later revealed.

“Night and day,” Mr. Allard said, “I felt we’d been hosed.”

Is this the same guy quoted here?
0
primetime · 192 weeks ago
It is only Propaganda when you are in disagreement with it or those who disseminate it. Brian and his counterparts are normal people trying to do a good job. Some are idiots and time servers waiting to translate their experience into money on the outside and some are committed public servants.
Posted by at No comments:

Saturday, September 12, 2009

The Rush To Be Wrong

The Rush To Be Wrong
By Jamie McIntyre Saturday, September 12th, 2009 3:23 pm
Posted in J-Mac's Attack, On Media
How lower standards sparked the panic on the Potomac
In October 2002, while covering the infamous Washington DC sniper story, CNN Justice Correspondent Kelli Arena stubbornly refused to go on the air with unverified information — information, it later turned out that had been fabricated by a New York Times reporter.  Kelli’s intransigence in the face of intense pressure was a virtue that prevented the kind of embarrassing lapse CNN suffered this past Friday, when it mistook a training exercise on the Potomac River for a possible terrorist attack and rushed on the air with its bogus account.
[CNN Jumps the Gun on Coast Guard Story – Washington Post, Sept. 12, 2009]
Sadly, Kelli Arena is not at CNN anymore, and neither apparently is the journalistic ethos that responsible news organizations don’t report unverified information that could panic the public.

[Full disclosure: both Kelli Arena and I left CNN in December of 2008.]
What fooled CNN into “breaking news” mode was realistic-sounding radio transmissions from the Coast Guard as it conducted a routine drill to practice procedures to be used in the event a private boat attempted to breach the security zone it set up on the river.  [CNN Transcript: Suspicious Vessel in the Potomac]
There’s an irony here.  CNN is one of the few networks that still routinely monitors police radios to get a jump on news.   It’s a bit of a lost art.  As an old radio reporter I listened to scanners all the time.  And they produced plenty of scoops for me over the years, but as any good police reporter knows, you never, NEVER, report information heard over a scanner without getting verification.  Never.  It’s basic journalism 101.  And it would seem that CNN, believing it would get a jump on a potential major story, violated this inviolate rule. (When I was at CNN I got plenty of tips from our desk that came from overheard police or fire department transmissions, but that’s what they were — “tips,” to be checked out.   Not “initial reports” to be put on the air only to be corrected later.)
Now CNN is certainly not the first major news organization that has allowed its competitive instincts to overwhelm its better judgment.  Nor will it be the last. But how this story played out illustrates a number of ways the “new media” environment has lowered standards that are already hovering dangerously close to the ground.
[CNN Video: Confusion on the Potomac – Sept 11, 10:00 a.m.]
Here are some factors present in today’s media universe that contributed to, and culminated in, CNN’s inexcusable lapse:
Too Good to Check?
The first and biggest mistake CNN made was rushing to air without waiting to get confirmation from the Coast Guard.   This seems so basic that it’s mindboggling how it could happen.   But here’s why.  CNN absolutely believed it had a big story on its hands, and it had heard it with its own ears.   Everything fed that perception.   The Coast Guard was saying nothing.  If it were only a drill, usually they would know that right away.  But if something were going on, only then would authorities be reluctant to give a statement until they could gather the facts.   I’m sure if the people listening to the police radio had heard any hint that indicated the event might be an exercise, it would have prompted CNN to employ more caution.  But everyone in the newsroom listened as the radio crackled with the chilling transmission, “We have expended 10 rounds.”  Adrenaline flowed.  The President was nearby.  It was Sept 11th.  Twenty minutes had passed and the Coast Guard seemed to be stonewalling, insisting it still didn’t know what was going on.  Finally CNN could contain itself no longer.   Convinced it was sitting on a major story, the folks in charge rolled the dice and went with it, and figured they would get confirmation later.
First with the Scoop, First with the Correction: Win/Win!
CNN knew it didn’t have the full story.  But in the internet age, no one waits for the full story anymore.  Not even newspapers, which publish quick writes on their web pages to stay competitive long before a more thoughtful version is published in the paper.  In fact the 24/7 information marketplace seems to reward rushing to air or the web with initial, incomplete, and often inaccurate reports.   This is not seen as irresponsibly spreading information before it’s confirmed, nailed down, or fleshed out, rather it’s seen as getting on the record with the news that something is happening.  Then, as the story is calibrated, corrected, downscaled, and sometimes dropped by the end of the day, each revision is treated as a separate scoop.  So instead of scoring just one “first” with a single accurate, complete report, the news organization racks up a series of “firsts” intended to keep the viewers/readers coming back for more.  First with the bad report, first with the better report, and finally first with real report.  It’s a win/win/win!
Lack of Adult Supervision
Another factor at play here is the dwindling ranks of experienced people in the newsroom, who are grounded in the basic tenets of journalism.  I’ll bet some of the “graybeards” at CNN knew better than to go to air with that report, but none of them apparently were in a position to stop it.  Some senior editor should have stood up and shouted, “Wait!  We’re not reporting this until we nail it down.”   But if any such protestation was made, it fell on deaf ears of the anxious show producers who, unfortunately, sometimes lack the wisdom and experience to make sophisticated judgments.  When it comes to “TV news,” they often know more about “TV” than “news.”   On most days, that’s good enough.  On Friday it wasn’t.
Follow the Leader—“It’s Out There”
We also saw another phenomenon of our modern information age on display.  The “it’s-out-there-so-we-have-to-report-it” justification for passing on and thereby amplifying erroneous reporting.   When I first joined CNN in the early 1990s our policy was that reports from another news agency would be checked before they were re-reported.  If we had any reason to think the report was inaccurate we didn’t report it.  If we matched it, we reported it based on what our sources said, sometimes giving nod to whoever broke the story.  If we couldn’t match it, but we thought it was important and credible, we reported it with proper attribution, and noting what our own reporting showed.  By the time I left, that standard had changed. CNN’s current policy is to re-report anything from a credible major news organization right away, and check on it after the fact.  The idea is to be “first” to re-report the story.   But the hair-trigger policy is also a prescription for making bad reporting even worse.  We saw the British news agency Reuters fall into that trap with its bulletin: “Coast Guard Fired on Suspicious Boat on Potomac River in Central Washington, DC.—CNN,” issued seven minutes after CNN first reported the story.  A spokeswoman for Thomson Reuters quoted in the Washington Post was unapologetic about following CNN’s flawed reporting, “We have an obligation to our clients to publish information that could move financial markets, and this story certainly had the potential to do that,” said Courtney Dolan.
No, actually Reuters you have it backwards.  When it comes to information that could move financial markets, you have a responsibility to separate rumor from fact.  News organizations act like they have no choice but to be wrong, like serial killers they just can’t help themselves.   That is a total abdication of responsibility, and Reuters should be embarrassed to offer that specious defense.   The Associated Press, by the way, did not run the unconfirmed report.
[River drill shakes up DC on 9/11 anniversary — AP]
Can You Play?
Another insidious aspect of the “rush to be wrong” trend is the speculation that fills the information vacuum until facts can be unearthed.  In this respect, all-news television can reinforce the worst tendencies of its reporters.  It is fed by the desire of producers to keep the coverage going on a breaking story even when they have run out of fresh information.  They call their correspondents and contributors with this question, “Can you play?” Meaning can you come on the air and say something about what’s going on.   The standard here is, can you “say something,” not “do you have something worthwhile to say?”  This results in a lot of people babbling on the air who should be out checking the facts, instead of offering facile and fatuous observations.   CNN did this by calling on its experts and correspondents to weigh in even when they obviously knew nothing about what was going on.  As a friend of mine, a veteran reporter, commented to me, “What I did not hear anyone say was, ‘according to my sources at the FBI, or according my sources at the Pentagon…’ ”.
Olympic Conclusion Jumping
There are many examples of sensational, erroneous and incomplete reports being aired, only to see them dialed back and put in perspective as the day goes on.  But usually the game is played in a way that inoculates the news organization from the opprobrium heaped on CNN.   For one thing the initial reports are usually qualified, with some “weasel words,” that provide cover if the report turns out to be wrong, such as, “First reports indicate,” or “We don’t know for sure, but it appears” or “It would be irresponsible to speculate, but this has all the earmarks of…”  That kind of thing.  Meanwhile the news organization is then free to jump to a conclusion before all the facts are in, and if by chance it has jumped to the right conclusion it can pat itself on the back for being smart and ahead of everyone else.   If it jumps to the wrong conclusion it can simply point to the qualifiers, and insist well they never really said what they seemed to indicating.   If CNN had said, “We don’t know what’s going on out on the Potomac, but we have overheard some radio transmissions and we are checking to see if it’s a drill or the real thing,” they would have been able to defend themselves, while still inciting unnecessary panic.  Unfortunately, that’s how the hype game is usually played.  The idea of waiting until you know what’s going on is just too old fashioned.   MSNBC, whose first report accurately reported the event was a training exercise, was able to tweak Fox and CNN by saying their network “took a few minutes to gather the facts before going to air.”
Lack of Accountability
The last point I’ll make is that CNN should admit it screwed up big time, take its lumps, and make some changes to prevent a repeat.  But instead the network seems to be trying to shift the blame onto the Coast Guard for conducting its drill on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks. Dana Milbank of the Washington Post wrote, “Here’s some advice: Don’t pretend to shoot terrorists near the Pentagon on Sept. 11 with the president nearby.”  [For Coast Guard and CNN, an Exercise in Embarrassment – Washington Post, Sept 12, 2009]  The implication seems to be that the Coast Guard failed in its planning to take into account the irresponsibility of the news media.  The agency should have known that some news organization would eavesdrop on its radio transmission and irresponsibly rush to air without confirming the information, causing a panic.  Well, actually, maybe that’s true. But it’s a sad commentary on the state of journalism.
Tags: , , ,
Posted by at No comments:

Friday, September 11, 2009

Will the Conspiracy Theories Ever Die?

Will the Conspiracy Theories Ever Die?
By Jamie McIntyre Friday, September 11th, 2009 8:16 am
Posted in J-Mac's Attack, Links
On this somber anniversary, I am going to take advantage of the fact that I now have my own blog to set the record straight on one event of eight years ago.
For years now a tiny snippet of my reporting from that day has been circulating around the Internet, and used – out of context — to buttress the malevolent arguments of some wacky conspiracy theorists who claim to believe September 11 was in “inside job.”
Click on this excerpt from YouTube to see how the clip has been used to portray me as someone who was on the scene but yet saw no evidence a plane hit anywhere near the Pentagon. Listen carefully.

Now check out what I really said in this longer clip, which can also be found on YouTube. Here you see that I am answering a question from Judy Woodruff about an earlier, erroneous report that the plane may have crashed short of the Pentagon. No, I say, nothing NEAR the Pentagon, only AT the Pentagon.
This is a good cautionary tale about believing what you “see” on the internet. As I like to say, It’s good to have an open mind, but if your mind is too open your brain can fall out.
Tags: , ,
Share |
0
Justin · 196 weeks ago
I stumbled upon this clip last night before you posted it and find it extraordinary and disturbing the lengths some will go to twist words to get exactly what they want to hear.
+1
CharlesHouston 81p · 196 weeks ago
This is a good example of the advantages and disadvantages of this Internet thing!! Both responsible people and irresponsible people can have web sites that are hard to tell apart. A well done conspiracy site could appear to be as reliable as a site done by an actual reporter.

And the history of governments (and corporations, and individuals) hiding things - often for good reasons - makes reasonable people want to give the fringes some ability to be heard.

The only thing that I can suggest is that journalists keep patiently explaining the truth (as they see it) and address conspiracy theories as they can.
+1
JMitchell · 196 weeks ago
The conspiracy theorists are irresponsible individuals who want to create their own version of history to fit their own politics. My friend standing at his office window of the Navy Annex watched an airliner fly over his office window, and "accordion"into the side of the Pentagon. He is an eye witness. The conspiracy theorists also can't explain what happened to the passengers of Flight 77, but they must think they are living in the Hollywood sound stage where they believe 9/11 was staged.
2 replies · active 195 weeks ago
+1
AJM · 196 weeks ago
The BBC did a pretty good job of debunking the 'Loose Change' excercise in bedroom journalism: /web/20130617031514/http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6680224505086911340#
0
Don · 196 weeks ago
The conspiracy theorists are irresponsible individuals who want to create their own version of history to fit their own politics.

Truer words were never spoken. The problem is some people will believe them because they are words that fit there beliefs. You can find them under every rock. There the uniformed many of them will believe anything . They are in the Streets of our Nations Capital to day protesting. What they do not no and they do not want to no. They have been Indoctrinated to believe anything that some people want them to.
+1
SaratogaYork 2p · 196 weeks ago
Thank your for your painfully personal passion to set the record correct. My local community swarms with "Truthers"... and yet I remain thankful that this is still America. And STILL The Home of the Brave.

The Brave. Like my brother who personally oversaw the evacuation of his floor of Building 7... and no, his corner office columns were never wrapped in detonation explosives. No, he walked the entire floor one last time before following his co-workers down the stairway.

The Brave. Like my friend FBI Agent John O'Neill who was last seen going up Tower 2 to rescue the victims, most already dead.

The Brave . Like my friend who took the pictures of the North side of Building 7 with two floors ablaze and a company of firefighters who had been turned away, dejected and disgusted. I was the one who posted the photo on a Truther's blog... a photo now widely spread and attributed to an "anonymous" source.

The Brave. Our friends and quiet anonymous neighbors who boarded planes for flights to see those they loved, those they laughed with. Those they left with broken hearts and shattered worlds.

The Brave. Like those of us who have a general grasp of the killers, a motivated and meticulous team of religious zealots, murderers all. We've learned the names of the guilty, names which do not include "Cheney" or "Rumsfeld."

The Brave. We who continue to hunt for Bin Laden and all Al Qaeda brethren committed to killing more Americans. We realize that for all of our government's lies of the past, we remain focused on the realities at hand. For all our shortcomings, we know the value of a "Canary in the Coalmine"... and the perverse Prairie Dog Panic of the delusional "Truthers."

Yes, it is always wise to know the failings and the propaganda of our nation's darker moments. Better still to understand the history of the Mideast, the meaning of Jihad, and the extreme underpinnings of the Wahabi followers of Abd al-Wahhab... the Saudi Arabian sect of Islam that took unspeakable terror into the skies on September 11, 2001.

It haunts us still. And it hunts us with a bloodlust.
0
SaratogaYork · 196 weeks ago
Thank your for your painfully personal passion to set the record correct. My local community swarms with "Truthers"... and yet I remain thankful that this is still America. And STILL The Home of the Brave.

The Brave. Like my brother who personally oversaw the evacuation of his floor of Building 7... and no, his corner office columns were never wrapped in detonation explosives. No, he walked the entire floor one last time before following his co-workers down the stairway.

The Brave. Like my friend FBI Agent John O'Neill who was last seen going up Tower 2 to rescue the victims, most already dead.

The Brave . Like my friend who took the pictures of the North side of Building 7 with two floors ablaze and a company of firefighters who had been turned away, dejected and disgusted. I was the one who posted the photo on a Truther's blog... a photo now widely spread and attributed to an "anonymous" source.

The Brave. Our friends and quiet anonymous neighbors who boarded planes for flights to see those they loved, those they laughed with. Those they left with broken hearts and shattered worlds.

The Brave. Like those of us who have a general grasp of the killers, a motivated and meticulous team of religious zealots, murderers all. We've learned the names of the guilty, names which do not include "Cheney" of "Rumsfeld."

The Brave. We who continue to hunt for Bin Laden and all Al Qaeda brethren committed to killing more Americans. We realize that for all of our government's lies of the past, we remain focused on the realities at hand. For all our shortcomings, we know the value of a "Canary in the Coalmine"... and the perverse Prairie Dog Panic of the delusional "Truthers."

Yes, it is always wise to know the failings and the propaganda of our nation's darker moments. Better still to understand the history of the Mideast, the meaning of Jihad, and the extreme underpinnings of the Wahabi followers of Abd al-Wahhab... the Saudi Arabian sect of Islam that took unspeakable terror into the skies on September 11, 2001.

It haunts us still. And it hunts us with a bloodlust.
0
Eye Witness · 195 weeks ago
I was in the parking lot of the Pentagon that morning. I heard the airplane, turned to watch it, wondered why it was so low, then watched it crash into the side of the building. I was, to say the least, stunned. I am not sure what these crazies who were not there are saying, but unless they pulled of the most amazing illusion in history, convincing me that I saw something that was not there, that airplane flew straight into the side of the building.
0
Janna · 195 weeks ago
I'm sure the plane crashed into the Pentagon, but I still wonder who was behind it. I don't believe the official story.

Post a new comment

Posted by at No comments:

Monday, August 31, 2009

Backlash Against the Press

Backlash Against the Press
By Jamie McIntyre Monday, August 31st, 2009 12:41 pm
Posted in J-Mac's Attack, On Media
“Welcome to the NFL, Rookie”
When I posted an item Friday about the wounding of CBS news correspondent Cami McCormick, I didn’t anticipate it would result in my “Welcome to the N.F.L.” moment.    You know, that point early in the season when rookie football players take a hit so hard that it results in a moment of clarity about what playing in the pros is really like.
I’ve been a reporter for more than 30 years, so I am well-acquainted with the low opinion of the press that many of you hold, but still I admit I was momentarily stunned by the number of comments that showed no sympathy for the wounded journalist, and in fact wished her ill.

Many of the posters saw evidence of the news media’s narcissism and self-absorption in the fact that I identified Cami McCormick, the seriously wounded journalist, but not the U.S. soldier who was killed in the same attack.   At the time the Pentagon had not yet released the name of Spc. Abraham S. Wheeler III, 22, of Columbia, South Carolina. (CORRECTION: Earlier I mistakenly identified the soldier as Pfc. Matthew E. Wildes, 18, of Hammond, Louisiana, who was also killed in an IED attack the previous day.)
If you want to read the grim roll call of the fallen, you can visit the Pentagon’s news release page.  Or you can sign up for an email, and get the word of every death in your inbox like I do.
This was typical of the cynics who had nothing good to say about the press:
“Sorry Jamie, reporters ARE lowlifes, especially the ones from CBS, NBC, ABC, the NYT etc. Liars and propaganda pushers. Too bad she wasn’t killed, and the soldier was only injured. His life is 10 times more valuable than hers, for sure.”
Welcome to the mean streets of the blogosphere, where anonymity exacerbates the contempt many people feel for the news media.
The thing about media criticism is it’s so easy, because frankly there is so much to justifiably criticize.   It’s a target rich environment.   But is it too much to hope for debate about the media’s many failings to focus on what is actually reported, and how that measures up to standards of accuracy and fairness?
When reporters “embed” with U.S. troops, they join them in their dangerous, often thankless, duty to try to find out what’s really happening.   If you watch or read the reports that come from these journalists, they invariably show the amazing job done by troops on the front lines, even if they raise questions about the effectiveness of the strategy.
I hope that as I launch this blog, I can help bring some facts to bear on the debate, as well as insights gleaned from 16 years of covering the U.S. military.
But I wonder what can anyone say to someone who holds this view:
“Journalists ARE lowlifes. They aren’t important enough to society to make news, so they make up news. It’s interesting to see how Bob Woodruff, for example, was hailed as a hero, while the countless soldiers who endure IED attacks in Iraq not only are forgotten, but they are almost never reported about in the first place! Yet in the bigger course of history, it’s obvious to even the most dimwitted individual that that unacknowledged soldier contributed far greater to the world than any worthless journalist. Why exactly are journalists heroic or brave? Because they made a poor career choice and then whine when they get hurt? Tough luck.  A firefighter is a hero because he or she risks his or her life to save others. A police officer is a hero because he or she risks his or her life to save others. A soldier is a hero because he or she risks his or her life to save others. A journalist is a loser, plain and simple.”
This blog thing is going to be an interesting experiment.
Posted by at No comments:
Subscribe to: Posts (Atom)