Day Job

Comments appeared on a pay-per-view blog (IAG) about “attacks” against Flightblogger. Apparently I’d somehow “attacked” him.

As usual, the facts are missing.

So let’s fill in a few blanks.

I, as an *individual*, (not a representative of this editorial, or indeed of FleetBuzz.com or any other site/affiliation), posted a couple of comments on the Flightblogger site. Why?

Well, why not (?)- it has a comments section and is useful for relaying feedback unlike some closed sites that do not permit such comments. (Incidentally, the same comments section feature appears here too!).

So then, posting under anonymity, which the terms of service provide and permit over at FlightGlobal (who host Flightblogger), it was with some dismay that someone decided to edit the comments, without permission and attach the name of “Fleetbuzz” to it.

Again, I highlight the point in an email with one of the most senior editors at Flight Global who assures me that such editing is, and I quote, “big no-no“.

They are currently investigating who made the changes and more importantly WHY they were made in the first place.

Had I wanted to post as a representative of FleetBuzz.com, I would have done so and would have used a capital “B” in buzz, as is the trademark- I routinely leave responses to Kieran Daly’s and Flight International blogs as “FleetBuzz.com”. Click.

However, the telling comment in the misinformed IAG entry is the one that should be scrutinized.

“Interestingly the comments were initially posted anonymously, but were traced to Fleetbuzz and then edited to reflect this fact.“

So, whoever edited the comments has also gone on to compound their error by openly admitting to doing so. Clearly then, someone from within Flight Global has “leaked” that editing to IAG - otherwise why else would IAG brazenly state it?

In all my writing time, I have never once edited peoples responses to my articles, much less go through the trouble to identify the people behind them.

Sure, I’ve filtered out and not displayed abusive comments, such as those routinely seen on the Seattle PI blogs.

So I gotta ask, did I strike I nerve with my comments?

Obviously someone has never heard of constructive criticism.

What should be addressed is quite simple - who edited the comments and on what grounds?

Such action will likely push Flight Global readers into thinking twice about responding to comments if they are fearful that what they write will be tampered with - such action may already have damaged Flight Global’s impartiality and I await their response and findings as to who and why the anonymous identity were changed.

Perhaps the person responsible could share with us all why it is they felt the need to attach a name to an anonymous comment?

Indeed, for all we know, it has happened before and could happen again and without warning.

It’s not a slanging match or a prelude to such - it was airing disappointment in seeing links to news read by virtually every aviation enthusiast over 24 hours previously.

There is not much to be derived from essentially old news - especially when one “filler” post takes you to off site reports and the second story about Air Frances pending order which came out on the wires almost a year after being revealed exclusively on FleetBuzz.com.

About the only thing IAG states correctly, Flightblogger is famous for getting some fantastic 787 “scoops” - read by many the world over.

What it does not need is “filler” posts that then link back to existing articles elsewhere that would have been read already.

Flight certainly doesn’t need to self promote, it’s a well respected publication. What is required is quintessential quality reporting - not links to other reports.

How that somehow amounts to IAG’s misguided “cyber-war” fantasy is beyond me and quite frankly is laughable. At best.

The purpose of this entry has not been to “refute” anything. Far from it. Its been to fill in the voids that IAG conveniently left out while “sexing up” what is essentially a worthless story.

People disagree about numerous issues in aviation - heck, its been documented very well on my editorial that I do not share the same views on the industry as Scott Hamilton - I’ve never once “attacked” him as a person, despite him sending an inconsiderate email about me.

I’ve only ever disagreed with his analysis, not the man behind the analysis - just as I disagreed with the “filler” posts on Flightblogger - not the person writing those posts. Therein lies the fundamental difference.

If people are going to blog about responses in a comments section, I can only feel sorry for them. Not least because they systematically fail to ascertain the facts before “sensationalizing” something completely off the truth target. Can you imagine how many blogs there could be if we all started writing about comments?!

I would equally advocate to the plethora of aviation sites and readers to think twice about subscribing to a pay-per-view site that has failed tragically to be impartial on a issue that really doesn’t warrant being discussed in the first place- not least because it failed to seek out the correct information.

I would also urge them to also think long and hard about the correctness of information (or lack thereof) from a source that elects not to seek this out and instead launches a broadside at me.

It’s one thing to pay to use a site and read its content - at the very least such sites should ascertain ALL facts before running their own one-sided agenda.

What makes this reading more farcical is that I have not been approached to get the full facts either, kinda like how Flight Global didn’t approach Boeing with regards to Mike Bair’s comments on the 787 that were widely misrepresented.

Incidents such as these, devoid of FACT, cause more harm to the aviation community than any comments made in response to a blog. I can only ask that people who wish to foster a culture of headline-grabbing sensationalism for “hits” and “comments” stick to their day job and not lose sight of what is right and what is wrong.

Perhaps IAG should lead by example and work out whatever it is that needs working out as it’s evident there is a sinister or underlying reason why I was not approached to get my take on this façade.

Everyone has the right to disagree.

What is wrong then, is to manipulate that into something else instead of seeking out the real facts -

The Smoking Gun

Just who did edit the anonymous comment and why was it done?

Someone has gone through the trouble to tracing my previous comments on other Flight Global blogs, and then painstakingly matched up IP addresses to the anonymous comments I left on Flightblogger’s filler posts and then have the gall to amend the name.

Did my criticism hit home?

Did it violate Flight Global’s policy of anonymity, or indeed, did the person doing the editing breach Flight Globals own ethics policy and more importantly, what will they do to rectify this mess created by someone not owning up to this censorship/editing?

Think twice before posting your comments you know where…

Must have been a slow news day for IAG then…

9 comments November 25th, 2007