"gatt" wrote in message ...
"Ace Pilot" wrote in message

Aren't you a journalist, gatt?
Where's my rec.aviation.piloting paycheck?
So, you can't apply your knowledge of journalism unless you get paid
for it??? Wow. I truly hope the same rules don't apply to your
recreational flying..

Tell you what, "Ace" (really?), you don't tell me how to do my "job" and I
won't tell you how to do yours. (I work in computers, write novels, play
music and build robots for television shows. Why you folks ASSume that I'm
a professional journalism speaks of somebody else's ignorance, not mine.)

Read carefully, gatt. I'll type slowly so you can keep up. I didn't
assume you were a journalist – I simply asked the question. And I
wasn't telling you how to do your job. Based on your statements, I do
know that you've had some training in journalism. I was using irony to
point out how absurd it is for you to use your knowledge and training
ONLY when you are getting paid for it.

But my knowledge and experience in journalism says that when witnesses all
report something virtually identical and the government officials wrap the
whole thing in red tape and then stonewall, the truth is going to lie
somewhere closer to the witnesses than it is to the bureaucrats. "Nothing
to see here. Move along." Remember the Kursk.

If you want to rehash the Kursk example, start another thread since
that is a different matter.

There was nothing in the news article indicating what FSB officials had
found out at that point, or were even aware of, other than two aircraft had
crashed. Are you suggesting
that FSB officials should just take media reports at face value without
independent confirmation?

Are you putting words in my mouth, "Ace"? Do you do this to ATC too? ("I
surely hope the same rules don't apply to your recreational flying")

No – just trying to clarify what you are trying to say.

All I said is, when witnesses report explosions...write this down or sound it
out...there is EVIDENCE OF EXPLOSIONS.

I agree that's what you said. But when someone else says someone else
said (in this case the media said that witnesses said) it is called
hearsay, not evidence.

Not proof, not fact, not conclusive data. EVIDENCE. The point is that
there was evidence, the bureaucrats ignored it and then, gee, Comrade...they
found evidence of explosions and of terrorism. WOW! I mean, that's some
real Sherlock work, isn't it?

Not really. It's called deliberate investigative work. Investigators
don't use hearsay as evidence (otherwise investigation would simply be
reading the newspaper). They use it to help find evidence and pursue
investigative theories. Look at the quote you used to start this
thread"

"FSB officials had not YET found evidence of a terrorist act or
explosion..." [my emphasis added]

The part of the quote you left off (conveniently) was "...but ruled
nothing out." Hardly what most people would call "stonewalling" as you
called it earlier, but you can believe whatever you choose to.

Getting back to my original point, the journalist that wrote that
original article did a fine job. He reported what he heard from
witnesses and gave government officials a chance to comment. The quote
he used showed that it was early in the investigation and that
government officials were keeping an open mind as to the cause.