←back to thread

279 points Michelangelo11 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0.219s | source
Show context
dfox ◴[] No.45040695[source]
The article is somewhat sensationalistic. If you read the actual report you will find out that:

The pilot was not part of the conference call!

What froze was not hydraulic fluid for actuators (in some hydraulic line), but hydraulic fluid in the shock absorbers.

The last paragraph of the article and seems to be missing a few words and reads as the investigators blaming the people directly involved, which is essentially a complete opposite of what conclusions of the report say.

replies(13): >>45041203 #>>45041205 #>>45041260 #>>45041299 #>>45041304 #>>45041313 #>>45041359 #>>45041599 #>>45041942 #>>45041944 #>>45042051 #>>45042571 #>>45044912 #
RyanOD ◴[] No.45041599[source]
And, of course, CNN only links to their own articles. Why bother linking to the actual report? The rise in sites that only link to themselves 99% of the time really frustrates me.
replies(2): >>45041690 #>>45041754 #
MostlyStable ◴[] No.45041690[source]
Journalism's failure to adopt linking to sources etc in the internet age is kind of infuriating. I get it, back in physical newspaper/magazine days, linking wasn't possible, and it takes a while for new norms to change and habits to form, but articles have been internet-first for well over a decade at this point. It should be completely unacceptable not to have linking to sources whenever relevant. I'm not sure I have ever found a news article that makes finding the original source or subject of the article easy. Certainly not on mainstream news outlets.
replies(7): >>45041850 #>>45042174 #>>45042190 #>>45043156 #>>45043271 #>>45043751 #>>45043767 #
1. ◴[] No.45043271[source]