Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 76 posts

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#21

Post by wantoncl »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #19
gojomo wrote: post #12

What an awful metaphor – "contain fallout" – for the NYT to use in its current online headline. ("Boeing Scrambles to Contain Fallout From Deadly Ethiopia Crash") It makes it sound like there's some toxic debris Boeing is still racing to clean-up, when in fact the story is just about financial/reputational after-effects. (NYT's original print headline for this story, "Crisis for Boeing As Safety Worry Grounds New Jet…

> It makes it sound like there's some toxic debris Boeing is still racing to clean-up, when it fact the story is just about financial/reputational after-effects. It doesn't make it sound like that at all. I don't think anyone except maybe you reads it that way. "Fallout" well-understood to mean "effects" or "results".

Or, just spitballing here, "fall(ing) out of the sky" perhaps.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#22

Post by slyfocks »

freddie_mercury wrote: post #19
gojomo wrote: post #12

What an awful metaphor – "contain fallout" – for the NYT to use in its current online headline. ("Boeing Scrambles to Contain Fallout From Deadly Ethiopia Crash") It makes it sound like there's some toxic debris Boeing is still racing to clean-up, when in fact the story is just about financial/reputational after-effects. (NYT's original print headline for this story, "Crisis for Boeing As Safety Worry Grounds New Jet…

> It makes it sound like there's some toxic debris Boeing is still racing to clean-up, when it fact the story is just about financial/reputational after-effects. It doesn't make it sound like that at all. I don't think anyone except maybe you reads it that way. "Fallout" well-understood to mean "effects" or "results".

I read it that way as well—-words do have secondary and tertiary connotations, and any competent journalist knows how to use composition and careful word choice to more effectively convey a particular narrative.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#23

Post by [deleted] »

RickJWagner wrote: post #2

This is an interesting one. NYT and CNN are running prominent doomsday stories in big headlines. Fox News has been nearly silent on this one. My inner conspiracy theorist tells me this isn't a fluke. Left-leaning sources are pouncing on Boeing, while right-side Fox is staying mum. Is it my imagination? I can't think up a reason why.

[deleted]

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#25

Post by voodooranger »

liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty.

There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that there is such a thing. What do you know that the rest of us don’t?

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#27

Post by freddie_mercury »

slyfocks wrote: post #22
freddie_mercury wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It makes it sound like there's some toxic debris Boeing is still racing to clean-up, when it fact the story is just about financial/reputational after-effects. It doesn't make it sound like that at all. I don't think anyone except maybe you reads it that way. "Fallout" well-understood to mean "effects" or "results".

I read it that way as well—-words do have secondary and tertiary connotations, and any competent journalist knows how to use composition and careful word choice to more effectively convey a particular narrative.

Here are some other recent NY Times headlines that use the word fallout

Trauma May Have Fallout Over Generations

Cambridge Analytica and Facebook: The Scandal and the Fallout So Far

As Trump Struggles With Helsinki’s Fallout, Congress Faces a New Charge: Complicity

Inside Uber’s $100,000 Payment to a Hacker, and the Fallout

Nissan and Renault Wrestle With the Fallout From Carlos Ghosn’s Arrest

Fallout is widely used to mean "affect-effects" with no secondary or tertiary connotations.

I mean....you really thought there was some kind of nuclear disaster in Helsinki after reading that headline?

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#28

Post by tedunangst »

liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

Grounding the fleet causes disruptions, cancelled and delayed flights, etc. The direct costs may be paid by the airline, but it's not free from the passenger perspective either. People who have places to be also have "priceless" lives.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#29

Post by ethbro »

voodooranger wrote: post #25
liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty. There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that…

I'd be curious to hear from anyone who's a pilot (I know there are a few of them here).

What are the interactions between an automated system and the pilot?

Specifically, can a plane quickly switch from flyable to out of control?

There's a huge number of unknowns here, but I thought most pilot assistance systems were designed to be disengaged if needed.

Re: Boeing scrambles to contain fallout from deadly crash

#30

Post by liability »

voodooranger wrote: post #25
liability wrote: post #3

Boeing and the FAA no doubt believe they are protecting shareholders by not grounding the fleet, but they're risking their reputation. If it turns out that Boeing is at fault, will the American media/industrial complex be able to keep a lid on it? I doubt it.

I haven’t seen any evidence that the two Max crashes are related. The first one was the result of Lion Air flying a plane that was not airworthy because its AOA sensor was known to be faulty. There is no information about the cause of the second crash as of yet. You’re making a claim about the purported alignment of Boeing, the FAA, and the “American media/industrial complex” (whatever that is) but I’m not aware that…

You have the wrong standard of proof. Boeing and the FAA should be erroring on the side of caution, not hiding behind innocent until proven guilty.

And in case it's not totally clear, the caution should be for the passengers, not shareholders.

> "its AOA sensor was known to be faulty."

The plane was what, two months old? It should have been non-lethal even if a troop of rabid baboons was hired to maintain it.

Post reply on HN