Revelation wrote:rheinwaldner wrote:Revelation wrote:And the P&P article is exactly what Airbus PR would want to be putting out, yet we have no way of knowing if either are involved.
Correct, we cant know. But let me talk about plausibility and probability. Try to think into the heads of people in Boeing's PR department. Don't forget, they need to rebuild trust into the MAX. So what they need are unsuspicious and unconnected sources that bolster the MAX and, if possible, even play down the deadliness of the original design. So having journalists whitewashing the MAX is undeniably a priceless contribution to reach that target. Now, is it unheard that large corporations "control" the media to steer the public opinion? No, it happens. Can it be proved by anybody? No, it can't, as you correctly say, compensations to anybody can be easily hidden from anybody. So is it likely in this case? I would be astonished, if Boeing would not put some effort in appearing favorable in the media....
My $0.02: Someone like Langewiesche with a detailed record of decades of journalism is not on the take, and attempts to suggest otherwise are coming from people who simply do not want his article to gain any consideration. Also, suggesting NYT is on the take is another form of shooting the messenger, and even less convincing given that NYT has published many pieces that Boeing PR would not approve.
Langewiesche has a strong opinion, as does Goyer. Both should gain consideration. Suggesting either or both are being paid off is a cheap shot and an absurdity given their decades long track records. In some regard their opinions are in alignment, but to discuss that further we'll need to use a different forum.
First you say, "we have no way of knowing of either are involved" then you suddenly know "that there is no involvement". Changing the opinion as it suits your narrative?