4 ms·

> would you expect a whistleblower to not be completely anonymous? [...] This is why we still need serious journalism Exactly. I'd expect a whistleblower want

by ajross 3y ago

> would you expect a whistleblower to not be completely anonymous? [...] This is why we still need serious journalism Exactly. I'd expect a whistleblower wanting to be taken seriously to be talking to a real journalist with editors and a publication with a history of getting things right, not a single-author mid-tier aviation blog. The temptation to spin things "just a little" and to fail to verify identity and authority, for a site like this, is just too high.

g-b-r 3y ago
This is how it can go: https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683.html https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683...
- voakbasda 3y ago
  Exactly. The problem is that whistleblower protections come from the government. The courts cannot be trusted to always have your back. Hell, I would go further and outright assume that they will blatantly favor corporate interests. I do not blame someone for not wanting to risk the exposure.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    In this case I'd stress that the FAA itself cannot be assumed to "have your back", given their coziness with Boeing (although I can't know if the whistleblowers were truthful)
- ajross 3y ago
  To be clear: mainstream major media publications use anonymous sources all the time. The point here is that the whistleblower be talking to the Times or the Post[1] and not "View from the Wing". No one is demanding they come out in public to tell us who they are. [1] And let's also be clear: journalists from both those organizations are surely on the phones full time right now trying to find dirt on Boeing quality processes. That would be a huge story if they could land it.
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    Yeah you're not wrong that he should try to talk to a major publication (if the story is true)
    - g-b-r 3y ago
      I didn't realize that the whistleblower might have accessed the records without permission, that could be a good reason to stay anonymous Of course no way to know the truth for now.
ufmace 3y ago
The mid-tier blog (probably?) doesn't depend on revenue from it for their living. Professional journalists these days often do, and are teetering on the edge of solvency as-is. And so they're a lot more vulnerable to their corporate contacts telling them, don't publish that story or slip us the name of the whistleblower, or else you'll be blackballed from our PR department. Your job will be toast, since we're your only real source, and there's 50 other journalists and publications in line to replace you.
- ajross 3y ago
  > The mid-tier blog (probably?) doesn't depend on revenue from it for their living. The page is absolutely filled with ads. Clearly it's a revenue source, not a labor of love. Also your ideas about the media industry somehow being compliantly beholden to the interests of Boeing (a company less than a tenth the size of Google or Apple) seems a bit silly. This would be a huge scoop and a big win for any paper that got the story. That they don't have it speaks broadly to this blog's story being spun.
  - ufmace 3y ago
    The "View from the Wing" site that is the main link here has a relatively modest number of ads once I turn off my ad blocker. Not that much compared to many "proper" news sources. They do seem a little click-baity, and are loaded with tracking scripts, but I doubt they're making enough money for even one person to make a living. I wouldn't trust them that much, but they're not the actual source anyways, they're just republishing a comment from another page. The linked page that the comment that is the source of all this is actually on is "Leeham News and Analysis", which looks like a professional-quality aerospace news site. I don't see any ads or tracker scripts on them at all. The author and the bulk of the commenters sound pretty professional and knowledgeable. It looks like they sell subscriptions at substantial cost, which explains a lot. That's enough for me to presume they're much more trustworthy about the aviation industry than any legacy media source. When was the last time the legacy media did a real investigative report about something that wasn't super hip or somebody had a grudge against already? You may not necessarily agree, but I think it's at least reasonable that an actual whistleblower like this wouldn't bother with them. Or maybe they already did, and got ignored, because they thought the article would cost too much to put together and not get enough clicks to bother. On Leeham's site, the author did ask the commenter to contact them - perhaps something will come from that, or maybe not.

by ajross 3y ago

g-b-r 3y ago

This is how it can go: https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683.html https://www.kansas.com/news/business/aviation/article2620683...

voakbasda 3y ago
Exactly. The problem is that whistleblower protections come from the government. The courts cannot be trusted to always have your back. Hell, I would go further and outright assume that they will blatantly favor corporate interests. I do not blame someone for not wanting to risk the exposure.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  In this case I'd stress that the FAA itself cannot be assumed to "have your back", given their coziness with Boeing (although I can't know if the whistleblowers were truthful)
ajross 3y ago
To be clear: mainstream major media publications use anonymous sources all the time. The point here is that the whistleblower be talking to the Times or the Post[1] and not "View from the Wing". No one is demanding they come out in public to tell us who they are. [1] And let's also be clear: journalists from both those organizations are surely on the phones full time right now trying to find dirt on Boeing quality processes. That would be a huge story if they could land it.
- g-b-r 3y ago
  Yeah you're not wrong that he should try to talk to a major publication (if the story is true)
  - g-b-r 3y ago
    I didn't realize that the whistleblower might have accessed the records without permission, that could be a good reason to stay anonymous Of course no way to know the truth for now.

ufmace 3y ago

The mid-tier blog (probably?) doesn't depend on revenue from it for their living. Professional journalists these days often do, and are teetering on the edge of solvency as-is. And so they're a lot more vulnerable to their corporate contacts telling them, don't publish that story or slip us the name of the whistleblower, or else you'll be blackballed from our PR department. Your job will be toast, since we're your only real source, and there's 50 other journalists and publications in line to replace you.

ajross 3y ago
> The mid-tier blog (probably?) doesn't depend on revenue from it for their living. The page is absolutely filled with ads. Clearly it's a revenue source, not a labor of love. Also your ideas about the media industry somehow being compliantly beholden to the interests of Boeing (a company less than a tenth the size of Google or Apple) seems a bit silly. This would be a huge scoop and a big win for any paper that got the story. That they don't have it speaks broadly to this blog's story being spun.
- ufmace 3y ago
  The "View from the Wing" site that is the main link here has a relatively modest number of ads once I turn off my ad blocker. Not that much compared to many "proper" news sources. They do seem a little click-baity, and are loaded with tracking scripts, but I doubt they're making enough money for even one person to make a living. I wouldn't trust them that much, but they're not the actual source anyways, they're just republishing a comment from another page. The linked page that the comment that is the source of all this is actually on is "Leeham News and Analysis", which looks like a professional-quality aerospace news site. I don't see any ads or tracker scripts on them at all. The author and the bulk of the commenters sound pretty professional and knowledgeable. It looks like they sell subscriptions at substantial cost, which explains a lot. That's enough for me to presume they're much more trustworthy about the aviation industry than any legacy media source. When was the last time the legacy media did a real investigative report about something that wasn't super hip or somebody had a grudge against already? You may not necessarily agree, but I think it's at least reasonable that an actual whistleblower like this wouldn't bother with them. Or maybe they already did, and got ignored, because they thought the article would cost too much to put together and not get enough clicks to bother. On Leeham's site, the author did ask the commenter to contact them - perhaps something will come from that, or maybe not.