Cleveland Airport Mystery

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
They dug up an old, discredited report

How is it discredited?

Did or did not the mayor of Cleveland report that flight 93 had landed in Cleveland? Did or did not these NEWS agencies do the same?

So, the LC guys dug up a report that showed that it was reported and they are the ones who are in the wrong?

Please.

did not bother to research it

Just because someone claims to have mistaken does not change the fact that it was reported to begin with.

And don't start mentioning the State Department car bombs being reported either because I feel those reporters should be held accountable for their false reporting also.

I would get charged for yelling fire in a theater when there is not one because of the PANIC it causes. This same PANIC is caused when a reporter falsely reports something as significant as car bombs.

When a journalist lies with malice aforethought, I am all in favor of holding them responsible for their lies. However, what Ms. Foreman did that day wasnt it.

They should still be acountable for their reports just as the average citizen is. Even more so IMO because they can cause a HELL of a lot more panic than the average joe.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
No it's not, as far as I know. Libel and slander are crimes, certainly in the UK. And I know our laws are stronger regarding the former than in the US

I would be charged for yelling fire in a crowded area when there is not one.

Should reporters be charged when they yell "bomb at the State Department" when there is none?

Both cause panic which is what the law is about.

Quite so, but it's understandable how mistakes are made in the heat of the moment, esp on a day like 9/11.

I'm sick of this excuse. "In the heat of the moment".

Well then, DON'T REPORT until you know your facts.

Over here a news anchor on a major TV station said that "The whole of the eastern seaboard of the US is ablaze". Obviously she was incorrect, but under the circumstances one can see why she was so het up.

Then she should be held accountible for starting a panic.

That would be a nightmare, sure. But it's important that the press remains free, and that means that it is occasionally free to make mistakes and errors.

Then why do I not have that same right to make a mistake? What if I actually thought there WAS a fire in that theater? I would still be charged with causing panic.

If journalists faced further risks on erroneous publication that would make investigation into anything - including 9/11 - a lot harder.

Boo Hoo

I would rather have their job be hard but correct than have it easy and incorrect.

Since when did journalism become easy anyway?

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
whereas they are presumably standing by their claim,

And what exactly is their claim? That flight 93 was reported as landing in Cleveland on 9/11? Well, it was reported.

Originally posted by Nutter


I would be charged for yelling fire in a crowded area when there is not one.

That's a completely different law and has nothing to do with libel.

Should reporters be charged when they yell "bomb at the State Department" when there is none?

It depends. If planes were crashing into buildings all over the country and there was a general state of panic then I would think not. I'd certainly suggest they should have been more certain, but in the rush to get the news out in what is a febrile and admittedly competitive atmosphere, then I suspect no Prosecution service would think it worthwhile.

Furthermore there are likely to be conflicting reports from people at the scenes. If a panicking citizen erroneously said they saw a truck that they thought had a bomb in it then the police would likely investigate and report it. These kind of Chinese whispers quickly escalate on a day like 9/11.

Both cause panic which is what the law is about.

That's not entirely what the law is about. It is also there to prevent defamation.

Furthermore, the situations are completely different because yours does not involve publication, is completely unspecific, and cannot be retracted. It's potential for damage lies in the affect it has on those immediately around you in a short space of time and in specific surroundings.

I'm sick of this excuse. "In the heat of the moment".

Well then, DON'T REPORT until you know your facts.

That's fine in a perfect world, but unlikely in a situation like that of 9/11.

Have you ever been in a busy newsroom? It can be frantic at the best of times, but when something like 9/11 occurs it goes mental. I was in the office of a national UK newspaper on that day and on top of the fact that everyone was desperate to get the story out better and quicker than the competition there was also the fact that we were in the UK's tallest building and were therefore somewhat worried. Incidentally, at the time it was reported falsely on TV that we were evacuated.

Then she should be held accountible for starting a panic.

How? What method would you use?

Then why do I not have that same right to make a mistake? What if I actually thought there WAS a fire in that theater? I would still be charged with causing panic.

No you wouldn't. I'm pretty sure there's no such crime. And if you could demonstrate that you acted in good faith I seriously doubt you'd be prosecuted.

Boo Hoo

I would rather have their job be hard but correct than have it easy and incorrect.

And you would apply that to all journalism? You realise that you would make the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement significantly more difficult? Indeed major investigative journalism would probably be a thing of the past.

Since when did journalism become easy anyway?

I don't think it's that hard. But I also concede that people make mistakes in the heat of the moment.

Originally posted by Nutter

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
whereas they are presumably standing by their claim,

And what exactly is their claim? That flight 93 was reported as landing in Cleveland on 9/11? Well, it was reported.

I assume that their claim is that Flight 93 landed.

Personally I think we can all agree that Flight 93 was reported as landing, that much is obvious. But if their implication is that it did land then they are the ones who are risking prosecution under your rigorously imposed notional legal system.

Are they claiming that the original journalist is now lying with her retraction? Because I suspect that that is a genuine libel.

"If journalists faced further risks on erroneous publication that would make investigation into anything - including 9/11 - a lot harder."

Exactly which "journalists" investigated 9/11? The job of today's journalists is not to investigate, but to spread propaganda. Ironically, when they do get the story correct, they are "forced" to retract it.

Originally posted by SphinxMontreal
"If journalists faced further risks on erroneous publication that would make investigation into anything - including 9/11 - a lot harder."

Exactly which "journalists" investigated 9/11? The job of today's journalists is not to investigate, but to spread propaganda. Ironically, when they do get the story correct, they are "forced" to retract it.

I'll add her to my list of people implicated in 9/11.

I imagine you've had little experience of what journalists or journalism are like. I can assure you that if there was serious evidence to suggest a cover up there are many who would be all over it. It's not like the entire media is sympathetic to Bush or to the US's colonialism in the Middle East.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Furthermore, the situations are completely different because yours does not involve publication, is completely unspecific, and cannot be retracted. It's potential for damage lies in the affect it has on those immediately around you in a short space of time and in specific surroundings.

I'm talking about a reporter getting on air and announcing that there is abomb at the State Department.

You don't think this would cause panic?

Holmes point was that there is no absolute right of free speech, because there are always circumstances in which unregulated expression can create problematic or dangerous situations. The need for safeguarding the public (or, in the case of Schenck, the government) against certain forms of speech creates exceptions that are not protected by the First Amendment. "Falsely shouting fire in a theatre" is an example illustrating Holmes' point.

wiki.answers.com...'shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_theater'_mean

So, again I'll ask. Does a reporter reporting car bombs at the State Department fall under "unregulated expression that can create problematic or dangerous situations"?

Have you ever been in a busy newsroom? It can be frantic at the best of times, but when something like 9/11 occurs it goes mental. I was in the office of a national UK newspaper on that day and on top of the fact that everyone was desperate to get the story out better and quicker than the competition there was also the fact that we were in the UK's tallest building and were therefore somewhat worried. Incidentally, at the time it was reported falsely on TV that we were evacuated.

This is my point. Instead of being "first", why not strive to "accurate"?

If you feel false reporting is fine by you, then fine. Myself. I'm sick of it. Get it right or don't get it at all.

Then she should be held accountible for starting a panic.

How? What method would you use?

The same law that states I can't falsely yell fire in a theater causing panic.

Or is saying the entire Eastern seaboard is alit not going to create panic?

And you would apply that to all journalism?

Yes. Remember that reporting on something is the same as stating it as fact.

You realise that you would make the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement significantly more difficult?

Not if they stayed away from stating things as fact unless they are sure it is fact.

Indeed major investigative journalism would probably be a thing of the past.

When do major investigative journalists report false facts?

Just look at what happened to Dan Rather when he reported about the President's military service.

But I also concede that people make mistakes in the heat of the moment.

There wouldn't be a 'heat of the moment" in journalism if they took the time to verify facts.

This whole "we have to be first with the NEWS" crap is what causes these mistakes.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

"I imagine you've had little experience of what journalists or journalism are like."

And I 'imagine' you've had plenty of experience as an apologist for the allegedly treasonous mainstream media.

"I can assure you that if there was serious evidence to suggest a cover up there are many who would be all over it."

And I can also assure you that if media outlets were truly independent and not alleged accomplices to 9/11, you would have more than just one absurd story being parroted by these various disreputable outlets. Oh sure, there were some differing reports in the first few days after 9/11, but those were quickly cleaned up and retracted once the "Official Story" took root.

"It's not like the entire media is sympathetic to Bush or to the US's colonialism in the Middle East."

Yeah, you're right - I should have known better. The media only colluded to feed the public a bunch hogwash about 9/11, and subsequently colluded to shove Bin Laden, the Taliban and Weapons of Mass Destruction lies down the people's throat.

Amusing use of the word "allegedly". Almost as though you can't back up what you write.

Perhaps you could explain to me why a newspaper like the Guardian in the UK would not be interested in exposing a 9/11 conspiracy? It would be the biggest story ever, and it's not as though that paper, and dozens like it, don't loathe the USA.

And anyway, there's a huge amount of media nowadays that is not "mainstream". Why haven't hard left organisations and blogs taken your story and run with it? Most of them would like nothing more than publishing something that could damage the US.

reply to post by Nutter


So journalists never erroneously make a report during a major disaster unfolding? And if they do, they should be punished to the full extent of the law?

Well then I guess they should have locked up all the reporters during Hurricane Katrina coverage. As I recall hearing on TV and reading in the papers that during Katrina and afterward, there were rescue helicopters being shot at (which then caused actual grounding of air assistance for a time), mass rape gangs in the Superdome, bodies stacked like cord wood in the Superdome, people being thrown off the upper deck stands, babies getting raped. Boy oh boy, it sounded as if hell opened up in New Orleans at the Superdome. But hey! What happened a few days later? OOPS sorry! There were no rape squads, gang rapes, stacked bodies or helicopters getting shot at! Oops oops oops! But it WAS reported by the news people. So now by your definition, they should also be punished right?

I recall very clearly Katrina, and 9/11 reporting. On 9/11 I recall hearing about bombs in the Capitol Building, UN building, even a small plane hitting the WTC7. all of this was reported. But as we all know, that never happened. I take it you never make mistakes in your life or had someone passed along to you incorrect information and you passed it along to someone else?

Originally posted by Nutter
"Falsely shouting fire in a theatre" is an example illustrating Holmes' point.

I'm aware of the example. It's just not relevant. The analogy is testing a point of legal philosophy regarding free speech and showing that there are some times when totally free speech is undesirable. It formed the basis of a judgement (subsequently overturned) and is not a statute law in itself.

The erroneous report is regrettable, but it's not a reason to censure the press or throw anyone in jail.

So, again I'll ask. Does a reporter reporting car bombs at the State Department fall under "unregulated expression that can create problematic or dangerous situations"?

No, because the press is not completely unregulated. It's understood that from time to time errors will be made and sometimes people will exploit this to tell lies in the hope of selling newspapers. But it's considered to be a price worth paying because it allows investigation and relative freedom of the press.

Furthermore, this is not even an example of someone (as in the analogy) unscrupulously lying - as far as I know - but rather of a heat of the moment mistake. It's regrettable and possibly dangerous, but it's not against the law, and for good reason.

This is my point. Instead of being "first", why not strive to "accurate"?

Both are striven for. But the news is a product and ultimately the idea is to sell papers and advertising. In situations of incredible pressure mistakes will be made. You could remove the market and turn over the whole press to the government I suppose, but I don't think that's desirable.

If you feel false reporting is fine by you, then fine. Myself. I'm sick of it. Get it right or don't get it at all.

It's not fine by me. As I said, I acknowledge that some mistakes will be made. That's one of the prices one pays for a - relatively - free press.

The same law that states I can't falsely yell fire in a theater causing panic.

Such a law doesn't exist. Even if it did no prosecutor would attempt to use it since the mitigating circumstances are so obvious.

Or is saying the entire Eastern seaboard is alit not going to create panic?

It didn't particularly. Certainly where I was everyone was in such a heightened state anyway that it caused a quick ripple. It was so evidently untrue anyway.

You realise that you would make the efforts of the 9/11 truth movement significantly more difficult?

Not if they stayed away from stating things as fact unless they are sure it is fact.

That's not the test they'd be put to - they'd have to prove in a court of law that they were facts, and the burden of proof would be on them. That would be very difficult to do - it's tricky at the best of times - and after they had lost a few cases (given that they are not rich) they would have to stop investigating.

I've seen judgements against press in the UK for things which I know to be true, but which can't be proved to a rigorous standard in court. Subsequently the news source has paid damages, often in significant amounts.

When do major investigative journalists report false facts?

Again, they usually don't. But again "facts" are easier to know than to prove.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that the US libel laws are tightened to the point that you are asking for. An aspect of the 9/11 truth movement says that someone has lied or been "got at" by government, and has changed their story.

This person is indignant. They sue the group. In your world the burden of proof would be so heavily on the TM organisation that it would certainly lose.

There wouldn't be a 'heat of the moment" in journalism if they took the time to verify facts.

This whole "we have to be first with the NEWS" crap is what causes these mistakes.

I agree it leads to some mistakes, which are regrettable. But which channel would you have watched on 9/11? The one that spent a couple of days making sure everything was 100 per cent correct, or the one that just reported what, on balance of probabilities, it thought was happening,as quickly as it could?

Originally posted by GenRadek
But it WAS reported by the news people. So now by your definition, they should also be punished right?

Yes, they should. Especially the part about air rescue squads not taking to the air because of it. I.E. A direct result of death from these "reporters".

I recall very clearly Katrina, and 9/11 reporting. On 9/11 I recall hearing about bombs in the Capitol Building, UN building, even a small plane hitting the WTC7. all of this was reported. But as we all know, that never happened.

Exactly why these reporters should be held accountable for their false reporting.

You don't think NONE of what you showed caused any panic?

I take it you never make mistakes in your life or had someone passed along to you incorrect information and you passed it along to someone else?

The difference would be that my chinese whispers don't harm lives and cause death or panic. I'm not on the boob-tube spouting nonsense that has the potential to cause panic.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
but it's not a reason to censure the press or throw anyone in jail.

Where did I state to censor them or throw them in jail? I said charge. I can be charged with speeding but will NEVER do jail time for it.

Maybe they would try a little harder to be accurate if they had to pay a fine when they are not.

Let me give you an example. Let's say that the US libel laws are tightened to the point that you are asking for. An aspect of the 9/11 truth movement says that someone has lied or been "got at" by government, and has changed their story.

This person is indignant. They sue the group. In your world the burden of proof would be so heavily on the TM organisation that it would certainly lose.

Doesn't libel laws already cover this?

I agree it leads to some mistakes, which are regrettable. But which channel would you have watched on 9/11? The one that spent a couple of days making sure everything was 100 per cent correct, or the one that just reported what, on balance of probabilities, it thought was happening,as quickly as it could?

The one that spent the time to report accurate information.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter

Did or did not the mayor of Cleveland report that flight 93 had landed in Cleveland? Did or did not these NEWS agencies do the same?

reply to post by Nutter

Did or did not the mayor of Cleveland report that flight 93 had landed in Cleveland? Did or did not these NEWS agencies do the same?

I am truly glad that in your world, everything is perfect and no one makes mistakes. Yep, the Mayor of Cleveland said the plane had landed. He fell prey to a bad report as well, so did the news agencies that rely on the AP.

So, the LC guys dug up a report that showed that it was reported and they are the ones who are in the wrong?

The report was corrected on 9/11/01. LC, a few years later, took the original report and used it as a "fact". They are more guilty than Liz Foreman. If you are so hell bent on stringing her up for an honest mistake, then you better make room on the gallows for the LC boys (and every OTHER truther that continues to use that report)

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
LC, a few years later, took the original report and used it as a "fact".

Used it as fact? The fact that it was reported?

If you are so hell bent on stringing her up for an honest mistake, then you better make room on the gallows for the LC boys (and every OTHER truther that continues to use that report)

Why? For reporting the truth that it WAS reported?

Or are they saying that it actually did land in Cleveland? If so, I agree with you that they are liable for it. If not, they are only reporting what was reported.

So, according to you, if I report that the BBC reported that WTC 7 fell 20 minutes before it did (even though now they have resinded that report) I am liable for reporting this fact? Please.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


As I already pointed out, the LC boys have the greater accounability here. They are the ones that intentionally tried to mislead people about the subject.

So, according to you, if I report that the BBC reported that WTC 7 fell 20 minutes before it did (even though now they have resinded that report) I am liable for reporting this fact? Please.

If you try to use it to push a lie to the public...yes.



[edit on 22-12-2009 by Swampfox46_1999]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
As I already pointed out, the LC boys have the greater accounability here. They are the ones that intentionally tried to mislead people about the subject.

No. You need to do more than "point out" how they are intentionally misleading people.

Was or was it not reported that flight 93 landed in Cleveland?

Now, you need to back up your statements that the LC guys are stating as fact that it did land in Cleveland. Not just reporting that it was reported it did.

So, according to you, if I report that the BBC reported that WTC 7 fell 20 minutes before it did (even though now they have resinded that report) I am liable for reporting this fact? Please.

If you try to use it to push a lie to the public...yes.

And what lie would I pushing by reporting something that was reported? Please elaborate.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by Nutter]

reply to post by Nutter


The story that Flight 93 landed in Cleveland is a lie....

You use it to push your theories about Flight 93 not crashing in Shanksville....makes you more guilty than the reporters that screwed up and corrected their mistake.