It is becoming an interesting exercise to follow up on the aircrash news reports from both the international and Brazilian media. This morning I read an article on a respectable newspaper from São Paulo, as well as an article from the NYT. I'd recommend everyone to read both articles and draw your own conclusions, but unfortunately a lot of people won't be able to read the local news in Portuguese.
In a general analysis, the Brazilian article describes several circumstantial evidences that suggest that the American jet pilots screwed up. It also mentions the hypothesis that the jet pilots turned off the transponder on purpose so they could test the newly-purchased aircraft without the control of the towers. But in no way the article has an accusational tone to it. The NYT article reads: "Newspapers and television reports are rife with suggestions that the two pilots of the business jet caused the crash (...)"
Now the Brazilian article refers to the jet pilots turning off the transponder as a fact. It does not even mention the possibility that it was an equipment failure. The title of the NYT article is: "Equipment on Plane in Brazil Collision May Have Been Faulty". Interesting, eh?
It is clear to me that each article is biased by what they would like to believe (more so in the case of the Brazilian news) and by they would like the public to believe (more so in the case of the U.S. news).
It is very interesting to note that the NYT article fails to report that the transponder of the jet was turned back on immediately after the crash, which makes the possibility of equipment failure a little harder to believe.
Facts or no facts, it is at least unsettling to realize just how much the sources of information can influence our opinion. If we extend this from the aircrash to the elections, war on Iraq and etc, it gets pretty darn scary.
No comments:
Post a Comment