4 ms·

Agreed. They're being "sanctioned" for answering the media's questions about their own company, probably because the NTSB wants to control the narrative. The

Agreed. They're being "sanctioned" for answering the media's questions about their own company, probably because the NTSB wants to control the narrative. The "sanction" seems to amount to nothing, though. No fine. No change to the investigation. Just bureaucratic finger-wagging and empty threats. Boeing certainly deserves to be investigated and prosecuted, if the evidence supports it, but arbitrarily refusing to let them talk to the media is wrong.

KerrAvon 2y ago
TFA seems pretty clear about it? For example: "The NTSB said that during a media briefing on Tuesday, a Boeing executive provided non-public investigative information to journalists about the Alaska Airlines incident that the agency had not verified or authorized for release." That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.
- Bluestein 2y ago
  > provided non-public investigative information to journalists about the Alaska Airlines incident that the agency had not verified or authorized for release I think "non-public" is key here ...
calf 2y ago
The "bureacratic finger-wagging" in this particular context is a lesser evil than the alternative, allowing a corporation to pre-manufacture public opinion by contaminating the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution. It's just a lesser evil given the status quo of the opposing systems of regulation and capitalism.
- garrettgarcia 2y ago
  How on earth is speaking to the media about their own analysis of what happened going to "contaminate the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution"? Are the NTSB and DOJ so easily swayed that Boeing's words will negate their ability to tell fact from fiction? And if so, why should we listen to them at all? Protecting a government narrative is NOT a valid reason to suppress speech. That is the path to despotism.
  - foobar1962 2y ago
    > How on earth is speaking to the media about their own analysis of what happened going to "contaminate the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution"? Something along the lines of "if the findings are negative then the system is rigged against us."
    - fallingknife 2y ago
      This is the United States and you have every right to claim the system is rigged against you even if it isn't. You even have the right to sue if you believe it. This does not impede the investigation in any way.
Dalewyn 2y ago
>They're being "sanctioned" for answering the media's questions about their own company It is customary for someone to answer "I/We will withhold any comments pending an ongoing investigation." against such questions. If you violate that, at best you're a flaming idiot and at worst you're trying to derail the investigation. All that to say: If you're under investigation, kindly STFU until the dust has settled and everything is finished.
- fallingknife 2y ago
  It is good advice to not talk about an ongoing investigation, but the government should not be able to force you not to. Talking about an investigation is not "derailing" it.

KerrAvon 2y ago

TFA seems pretty clear about it? For example: "The NTSB said that during a media briefing on Tuesday, a Boeing executive provided non-public investigative information to journalists about the Alaska Airlines incident that the agency had not verified or authorized for release." That doesn't seem unreasonable to me.

Bluestein 2y ago
> provided non-public investigative information to journalists about the Alaska Airlines incident that the agency had not verified or authorized for release I think "non-public" is key here ...

calf 2y ago

The "bureacratic finger-wagging" in this particular context is a lesser evil than the alternative, allowing a corporation to pre-manufacture public opinion by contaminating the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution. It's just a lesser evil given the status quo of the opposing systems of regulation and capitalism.

garrettgarcia 2y ago
How on earth is speaking to the media about their own analysis of what happened going to "contaminate the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution"? Are the NTSB and DOJ so easily swayed that Boeing's words will negate their ability to tell fact from fiction? And if so, why should we listen to them at all? Protecting a government narrative is NOT a valid reason to suppress speech. That is the path to despotism.
- foobar1962 2y ago
  > How on earth is speaking to the media about their own analysis of what happened going to "contaminate the neutrality of the investigation and prosecution"? Something along the lines of "if the findings are negative then the system is rigged against us."
  - fallingknife 2y ago
    This is the United States and you have every right to claim the system is rigged against you even if it isn't. You even have the right to sue if you believe it. This does not impede the investigation in any way.

Dalewyn 2y ago

>They're being "sanctioned" for answering the media's questions about their own company It is customary for someone to answer "I/We will withhold any comments pending an ongoing investigation." against such questions. If you violate that, at best you're a flaming idiot and at worst you're trying to derail the investigation. All that to say: If you're under investigation, kindly STFU until the dust has settled and everything is finished.

fallingknife 2y ago
It is good advice to not talk about an ongoing investigation, but the government should not be able to force you not to. Talking about an investigation is not "derailing" it.