Armed Polite Society
Main Forums => Politics => Topic started by: Jamisjockey on February 09, 2017, 09:07:12 AM
-
http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/video/cockpit-audio-from-jetblues-near-miss-with-plane/vi-AA8OwRK?refvid=AA8FNNL
First off the transcripts of this video are painful.
Besides the excessive drama of this "reporting".
First..."That's when the pilot saw another aircraft heading his way" nope. ATC observed and pointed out traffic to the pilot.
"We've got them inside, deobrah 94.
Deborah 94 maintain distance"
WHAT THE EVER LOVING *expletive deleted*ck?
Should be We've got them in sight, Jetblue 94
ATC responds "Jetblue 94, maintain visual"
*long beep* Reporter breaks in...and that beep you heard was the collision warning going off....
THE *expletive deleted*ck? No no no. That was multiple aircraft speaking at once. Holy Flaming Xenu on a pogo stick.
And the icing is the idiot at the end who actually uses the word "decension" when describing the phase of flight Jetblue was in.
I think you meant Descent you dolt.
Oh, and lets add in passenger interviews of people who have no idea how aviation works to describe how frightening the flight was...
-
Sounds like reporters trying to report about firearms.
It is all about ratings and panic sells.
-
Oh, and lets add in passenger interviews of people who have no idea how aviation works to describe how frightening the flight was...
Was it something like this?
"And the thing is is, that was when I saw that other plane. And they was comin' right at us, like vrooooooooom! And I says to my kid, I says, 'Get down, little Bobby!'"
-
Who needs fake news when you've got fake reporters?
-
The FAA is investigating an incident involving a JetBlue flight that nearly missed colliding with a small airplane while in flight.
"Nearly missed?" As in didn't quite miss?
-
Sounds like reporters trying to report about firearms.
More likely, trying to report about anything. We just notice it in areas we are knowledgeable.
-
Sounds like reporters trying to report about firearms.
It is all about ratings and panic sells.
Who was flying the AR15 Assualt Aircraft and who was flying the AK47 Assault Aircraft?
-
Who was flying the AR15 Assualt Aircraft and who was flying the AK47 Assault Aircraft?
But did either of them have the thing that goes up?
-
"Nearly missed?" As in didn't quite miss?
Grammatical fail. You are correct - "Nearly missed colliding" properly should mean "collided."
Beyond that, why are they laying the blame on the JetBlue aircraft? It was under air traffic control, it was where it was supposed to be and doing what it was supposed to be doing. Why aren't they talking about why the small plane was in the path of a commercial jetliner?
-
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
-
Scott Adams would say you were hypnotized.
-
Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)
Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.
That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.
But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.
Maybe I should have been a pshrink - I recognized this in grammar school - even wrote a paper on it for a composition assignment. In that case, it was about a story I had personal knowledge of which the media just got plain wrong. So . . . as I argued, if the media gets things wrong we KNOW about, why should we believe they get it right when we DON'T have personal knowledge of the story?
Of course, the answer is . . . we shouldn't.