11–20 of 79 posts
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes.
That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
The broader population will only remember the drone accusation. A drone maybe hitting a plane is far more interesting and sensationalist than a drone not hitting a plane. There are thousands of instances every day where drones don't hit planes. That's just how the human psyche/news in general works. You can't accuse the BBC of not reporting the updated news. Some shadier outlets might choose not to however.
This is real journalism:
"Flight X234 had to emergency land due to a collision with an unidentified object right after takeoff. It is not unusual to hit birds or other objects, but at at this time we don't know what it was."
This is pimping news for money: "OMG, terrorist drone bought at 7/11 was navigated by attackers into plane to kill citizens."
Why is libel misused to silence people, while so-called journalists can lie?
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
It's been in a prominent position on the front page of BBC news all morning - not sure how much more exposure you can give it really?
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
No one should be able to fly a drone anywhere near an airport. If the law doesn't exist it should anyway. This also isn't the first time this has happened / been claimed to happen.
"Drones" are the new UFOs at this point.
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
No one should be able to fly a drone anywhere near an airport. If the law doesn't exist it should anyway. This also isn't the first time this has happened / been claimed to happen.
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's been in a prominent position on the front page of BBC news all morning - not sure how much more exposure you can give it really?
It's that people will only remember the sensationalist news. That's why it must be a requirement to only report what is factually proven or otherwise just say "planed had to land, reason unknown".
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
Came here to say pretty much the same thing. It's a familiar old pattern: 1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing 3: "Thing" gains in popularity amongst general public 4: Government says. "General public can't be trusted with "Thing". Thing is capable of doing evil and/or killing people!" 5: News sto…
2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing
That ordering is not correct.
So, will the truth be known widely or will the broader population remember only the drone accusation? Cynic in me thinks this was deliberately suggested to make passing some drone laws easier.
Came here to say pretty much the same thing. It's a familiar old pattern: 1: "Thing" is developed which enjoys benign use amongst small subset of geeks 2: Military discover "Thing" and develop a way to use it for evil and/or killing 3: "Thing" gains in popularity amongst general public 4: Government says. "General public can't be trusted with "Thing". Thing is capable of doing evil and/or killing people!" 5: News sto…
My issue with these stories, is that there generally is no go-to organisation for the new "Thing", so all the news articles end up quoting 'Jim , the self proclaimed expert on Thing"'