A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

MSNBC Reporting on GA Security Threat



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old November 19th 03, 03:46 AM
Bob Noel
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article , "C J Campbell"
wrote:


He writes these articles to
appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.


well, that doesn't require much effort.

--
Bob Noel
  #12  
Old November 19th 03, 04:15 AM
'Vejita' S. Cousin
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article v3tub.6928$Ue4.2593@fed1read01,
Scott Schluer wrote:
That's a very valid point, especially the part about which outlook got the
first paragraphs (I didn't think about that). However, I only said it was
more objective than most of the articles I've read, not that it was a
totally objective piece. ;-)


Ultimately people are just scared of anything that flies post 9-11.
You can replace every statement made about GA with 'automobile.' The
difference is that most people are not pilots (that the hobby of the rich)
and more security sounds good.
Not to take anything away from the families that lost loved ones on
9-11 but trunks/vans/uhauls have been used multiple times before and after
9-11 to do far more (total) damage). But no one talks about restricting
who can rent a F250.
I still have enough faith in the system to believe that if we can ride
out the storm its only a matter of time before everyone moves onto
something else. The question is what rights will we as pilots (or for
that matter the nation as a whole) lost along the way.
  #13  
Old November 19th 03, 04:25 AM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"C J Campbell" wrote in message
...
Actually Meeks does not feel that general aviation is a threat and has
expressed his views in private to some of us. He writes these articles to
appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.


IMHO, he didn't do a very good job with this last article, if that was the
intent. The one quote from AOPA was included without any other supporting
data, making it look like AOPA is just putting their heads in the sand.

He also allowed to go without comment the statement from the government that
GA planes are capable of producing an explosion similar to that of a
"medium-sized truck bomb" (e.g. Oklahoma), in spite of his early description
of typical GA airplanes weighing less than a Honda Civic fully loaded. How
he thinks a medium-sized truck bomb can fit in a Honda Civic isn't clear,
but allowing ridiculous statements from the government to be quoted without
rebuttal is the same as agreeing with them.

I agree that Meeks has in the past made vague indications to being
sympathetic to the plight of GA. However, I would not characterize him as
being clearly pro-GA or fully cognizant of the threat or lack thereof of GA.
This latest article just shows how far from being pro-GA he really is. He
had a great opportunity to provide some fair reporting, and instead just
quoted the GAO and TSA for the most part, letting their silly statements
stand without contradiction.

Pete


  #14  
Old November 19th 03, 09:26 AM
Montblack
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

("Peter Duniho" wrote)
snip
I agree that Meeks has in the past made vague indications to being
sympathetic to the plight of GA. However, I would not characterize him as
being clearly pro-GA or fully cognizant of the threat or lack thereof of

GA.
This latest article just shows how far from being pro-GA he really is. He
had a great opportunity to provide some fair reporting, and instead just
quoted the GAO and TSA for the most part, letting their silly statements
stand without contradiction.


I enjoyed the 70% part...


According to the GAO, which is the investigative arm of Congress,
about 70 percent of all general aviation planes are four- to
six-seat, single-engine, piston-driven propeller planes. These
types of planes, like a Cessna 172, cruise about 145 mph and fully
loaded weigh less than a Honda Civic.


I wonder if all of those two-seat planes out there were part of that 70%
number? I doubt it.

--
Montblack


  #15  
Old November 19th 03, 05:08 PM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 18:30:42 -0800, "C J Campbell"
wrote in Message-Id:
:


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
.. .
|
|
| The author of this article is doing his best to paint general aviation
| as a security threat to satisfy his need for sensational headlines.
|
| Here's the author's e-mail address:
|
|

Actually Meeks does not feel that general aviation is a threat and has
expressed his views in private to some of us. He writes these articles to
appear to comply with NBC's point of view so that they will be published,
but attempts to make that point of view look ridiculous.


You are savvy enough to see the truth, however the anxiety level of
average Americans will be increased as a result of reading this
article. Their reactions to small airplanes will no longer be one of
delight, but fear and hatred. Mr. Meeks obviously deliberate
omissions of pertinent information unquestionably reveal intentional
bias against GA in the view his article presents.

I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
article.

Trading one's integrity for a few paltry dollars is rather ignoble,
IMO. And he who panders to those in power out of fear of reprisal
does himself more harm than any punishment they may threaten to
inflict.


  #16  
Old November 19th 03, 05:24 PM
Peter Duniho
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
[...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.


I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of them.
The only reason I read MSNBC is that they carry a local news affiliate that
I like, and their font (unresizable, just like everyone else's) is larger
than the other news sites. It certainly has nothing to do with their
journalistic abilities.

I especially enjoyed the day that their so-called tech toy expert reported
that one brand of MiniDisc media (a digital format) resulted in better
sounding recordings than another. Fortunately, most of their content was
written somewhere else (AP, Newsweek, Washington Post, etc.).

Pete


  #17  
Old November 20th 03, 03:52 AM
StellaStar
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

[...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.

I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of them.


Simple. The American public can hold two opposing viewpoints: that "the media,"
from a smudgy weekly paper to the vast EIB radio network (snicker) is perfect
and all-knowing...and that all of them dish out lies on a daily basis that
everyone else but that individual reader/viewer/listener sucks up. Ask anyone
if some lying report in the media will sway their opinion and they'll staunchly
assert it never could. But they're sure everyone else is a gullible fool.

No problem - we can all go to the Usenet to get factual, corroborated,
infallible news. Now I have to go read some more instructions on how to tune
my tinfoil hat.
  #18  
Old November 20th 03, 04:11 AM
Lynn Melrose
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Larry Dighera wrote:

\I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
article.


That's a bit of an overreaction. First of all, unless you were familiar with
the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
with other types of thermal generating plants.

Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that. Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.
It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
decades.


  #19  
Old November 20th 03, 04:35 AM
C J Campbell
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"StellaStar" wrote in message
...
| [...] And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this article.
|
| I guess the only thing that puzzles me is that you COULD think less of
them.
|
| Simple. The American public can hold two opposing viewpoints: that "the
media,"
| from a smudgy weekly paper to the vast EIB radio network (snicker) is
perfect
| and all-knowing...and that all of them dish out lies on a daily basis that
| everyone else but that individual reader/viewer/listener sucks up.

You have a very tough sell to try to convince anyone on this news group that
anything the news media report is accurate. After all, the news media mostly
portray us as a bunch of dangerous terrorists just waiting for our chance to
rain death from the skies. That, or we're a bunch of rich, spoiled
romanticists who enjoy risking our lives for the shear thrill of it.


  #20  
Old November 20th 03, 06:11 AM
Larry Dighera
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Wed, 19 Nov 2003 22:11:45 -0500, Lynn Melrose
wrote in Message-Id:
:

Larry Dighera wrote:

\I canceled my subscription to Time magazine when they ran their
full-page promotional advertisement showing small aircraft juxtaposed
against nuclear generating plant condensation towers with the caption,
"Remember when only environmentalists would have been alarmed by this
photograph?" And I think less of MSNBC as a result of reading this
article.


That's a bit of an overreaction.


To which 'that' are you referring, dumping Time? The implications in
that ad were criminal!

First of all, unless you were familiar with
the particular airport/plant, you would have no idea if it was a nuclear plant
or not. Hyperbolic cooling towers that cool nuclear plants can look just like
hyperbolic cooling towers that cool coal plants, for example. Some nuclear
plants have cooling towers if they were built when/where environmental
regulations required them to protect thermal water quality, some do not. Same
with other types of thermal generating plants.


First of all, it's not about the towers. It's about the obscene
implication and inciting unwarranted fear of GA in the hearts of the
American public. It's about the irresponsible theft and squandering
of GA currency to swell Time magazine's subscription roster. My
indignation at the breach of public trust demonstrated by Time is more
than justified.

Now it turns out this particular photo WAS of a nuclear plant, although it did
not say that.


The ad CLEARLY implied that it was a nuclear facility, visually.
There was no need to be more explicit than that. In fact, if the Time
art director had been any more specific, she may have faced criminal
charges for suggesting/inciting terrorist sabotage. The ad was an
outrage, and I choose not to read a rag that would stoop to create and
publish such vicious, libelous and ill conceived excrement.

Nor did it say that this particular plant was constructed to
withstand the impact of a jet, let alone the light singles in the foreground.


You may have an idea of the potential magnitude of hazard that might
be unleashed in the event a C-172 collided with one of those towers,
but the lay public only sees the nuclear icon and cringes with visions
of Nagasaki.

It also did not say that the plant's owner, Exelon Corporation, and its
predecessors have owned this particular airport in the foreground, KPTW, for
decades.


That's interesting data, but how is it relevant?

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
American nazi pond scum, version two bushite kills bushite Naval Aviation 0 December 21st 04 11:46 PM
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL MORRIS434 Naval Aviation 0 April 4th 04 03:10 PM
NO MORE WAR FOR ISRAEL MORRIS434 Military Aviation 0 April 4th 04 03:09 PM
Maybe GWB isn't lying........ JD Naval Aviation 9 February 21st 04 01:41 PM
GAO Report: GA Security Threat GreenPilot Home Built 118 November 26th 03 07:27 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 09:43 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2023, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2023 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.