A Tale of Two Plane Crashes

Factual Questions
1

One Friday, a plane takes off from NJ towards Martha’s Vinyard & Hyannisport, but crashes into the ocean off Martha’s Vinyard. 3 private citizens are killed in said crash. 10 days later, 4 of MSNBC’s top 10 stories delve into the details of this crash.

The following Friday, during the midst of a memorial service for the 3 crash victims, another plane disappears, this time in the mountains of Columbia. 2 Columbians and 5 U.S. Army soldiers are aboard, and presumed dead. No one has yet gotten close enough by air, let alone on the ground, to the site where wreckage has been been found to confirm that the wreckage is indeed the plane lost on Friday, or if there are any signs of survivors. Many questions vital to U.S. security interests are raised by this crash… Is the U.S. getting involved in yet another Latin American civil war? Should U.S. military members be involved in the drug “war”? In a sovereign nation? Was the plane shot down by coca growers? Was the plane shot down by insurgents? What was a plane doing flying in clouds in a region where a “mountain” was uncharted? On the day the plane was spotted & the servicemen declared “presumed dead”, I could find NOTHING about this on MSNBC, except on the El Paso NBC affiliate (the 5 servicemen are from El Paso, their families live here).

I’m just curious -

How many of you knew about this incident before reading this?

Sue from El Paso
members.aol.com/majormd/index.html

2

I knew, but you raise an excelent point, some rich kid living off of his father’s name who happens to be considered attractive dies and the news is plastered with emotional stories. A plane crash in which more than twice as many people die and it gets barely a mention.

3

That story rated about three minutes on NPR this morning. Just goes to show that the American public (and by extension the media) have no sense of proportion when it comes to prioritizing the significance of current events.

4

I actually heard quite abit about this event, but they had virtually no info beyond the fact that the plane was missing.

We all know the media is retarded and has no concept of perspective and proportion, but in this case they simply have no info to report. The government is surely being very tight lipped on this one and for security reasons are justified. Even so the event happened half a world away, and even if it weren’t politically and militarily loaded we wouldn’t have many on the scene reporters and rescue personal to convey info. Its a matter of ratings and to a lesser extent available info. Now when they find out that this aircraft was linked to an obscure senator in Nevada who spent time in area 51, and is affliliated with several UFO cults and may or may not have had sexual relations with his alien secretary/intern you can rest asured you’ll get more news coverage than can be tolerated.

5

I’ve been wondering… Why are we seeing all these people crying and stuff over his death? I mean, does he actually personally know all of these people enough that his death would affect their lives in such a way?

I’m ready to meet Him
‘Cause where I’m livin’ ain’t right
Black hate white
White hate black
It’s right back to the same fight…

–DMX

6

[[How many of you knew about this incident before reading this?]]
I did.
[[That story rated about three minutes on NPR this morning.]] PapaBear
How much time did they spend that morning on JFK, Jr.?

[[ Just goes to show that the American public (and by extension the media) have no sense of proportion when it comes to prioritizing the significance of current events. ]]
Quite the contrary – it is not news that US military planes fly on such runs, and it is not especially surprising that, eventually, one would go down. The dead are no less valuable inherently, but they are unknown to the public. JFK, Jr. was known and beloved by millions of citizens, and his death was a much bigger story per se than the South American crash, pending further developments in that matter – and if those arise, the story will grow legs.

7

You prove my point about the public having no sense of proportion. I wish you and your fellow personality cult members well, BI. Just don’t bother me with it, or expect future historians to give a damn.

8

<< some rich kid living off of his father’s name who happens to be considered attractive dies and the news is plastered with emotional stories. >>

Venting a bit here, because I find this snotty attitude annoying, and coming from a “what’s in it for me” 90s attitude with no sense of history.

I remember very clearly when JFK Jr was born. Those few years were years of incredible hope and expectations for the country – John Kennedy, as President, was an embodiment of the promise that the stolid 50s were gone and that a new era was dawning, when we would overcome racial inequities, conquer space, defeat poverty, etc. Add to that, Kennedy made use of television in a way that no one had before – he made the Presidency an office of, by, and for the people. The public felt he was a Friend. We all saw John-John on TV, or in the newspapers, scampering under his father’s desk. The Presidency became accessible and human.

I grant you, the fact that he was young, handsome, and rich with a ditto spouse didn’t hurt. I grant you, we have later learned of his character flaws.

But his assassination was the shattering of the dreams, the destructive spiral. His death was a horrible blow to the country, and followed quickly by the disillusionment of the Vietnam War, riots in the streets of the US, generational conflict such as the country had never known, and other assassinations (Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy, all within a few years).

The Kennedy family has therefore come to be a symbol of unfulfilled expectations. JKF Jr was far more newsworthy in death than in life, as another manifestation of that tragic symbolism.

I venture to suggest that there is a line drawn here between generations: those of us who remember the Kennedy Presidency find the scornful attitude of younger folks very disheartening.

Please note, I am in agreement that the media overplayed it: there must have been other news last week. My vent is against those who think that story had no national newsworthy significance whatsover.

9

“I wish you and your fellow personality cult
members well, BI. Just don’t bother me with it, or expect future historians to give a damn.”

Sorry to tell you this, Papa Bear, but there will always be–and there has always been–an interest in beautiful, rich, charming people. Is it “fair?” Maybe not, but it’s always been a fact of life, and 200 years from now, JFK’s Sr. and Jr. will still be remembered, just as Emma Hamilton, Beau Brummel and Kitty Fisher are today. Get over it–or become a celebrity yourself, if it’s so important to you. Turn off CNN, don’t look at the newsstands as you go by, but don’t expect the rest of the world to suddenly change just because you’ve got “higher standards” than the rest of us.

10

[[You prove my point about the public having no sense of proportion. I wish you and your fellow personality cult members well, BI. Just don’t bother me with it, or expect future historians to give a damn.]] Papabear
Don’t flatter yourself that you’re somehow a person of greater substance, Papabear. I, personally, had only a modest interest in the JFK, Jr. story, using my uncanny powers of intellect to read only a fraction of the stories written about it (thereby making myself immune to the over-coverage).

It’s not my fault you don’t understand the news business, though – like it or not, the early death of a famous and much-beloved son of an assassinated President, the only child ever born to a President in office (IIRC), is a much more news-worthy event than the crash of a military plane on a routine mission containing no people known to the public. If that reality is beyond your comprehension, I’m afraid there’s nothing anyone can do for you.

11

Actually, at least one of Grover Cleveland’s children was born while he was in office – possibly 2, I can’t find the reference right now. He married in office, also. His children were born before TV, though. And President Cleveland was, of course, no JFK. You may carry on with the fighting now!

Jess

Full of 'satiable curtiosity

12

Found the cite : First Ladies by Betty Boyd Caroli. The Clevelands had two daughters during his second term. Also, interestingly enough, JFK Jr. was born a few weeks after the election, but BEFORE JFK’s inaugeration. The Kennedy’s did have a son during JFK’s actual presidency, though – Patrick, who was premature and lived only a short time. So, now we know :slight_smile:

Jess

Full of 'satiable curtiosity

13

Wasn’t one of Grover’s kids named Ruth, hence the inspiration for the name of a candybar? If this is the case, I can say, with all honesty, that Ruth Cleveland has had a greater impact on my life than JFK Jr.

I get the feeling that many people on this board are interpreting my comments as some sort of anti-Kennedy tirade. This isn’t the case, at all. I’m a regestered Democrat and have voted the ticket in every national election. I have a very high regard for President Kennedy, and I don’t have a problem with inherited wealth.

I’m just a little sick of the amount of attention paid to events with no historical significance. OJ Simpson, Princess Diana, JFK Jr., etc., I simply ask “Why should I care?” Would any of you have cared if you hadn’t been bombarded with John-John reports on a monthly basis in rags like People and The Enquirer for the last 35 years?

And I really have to ask Big Iron where this “much-beloved” additude comes from. I would tend to reserve such adjectives for people I have actually met.

I feel real loss when our country loses someone that has left something of real value. I believe the plane crashes that took the likes of Buddy Holly, Will Rogers, and Glen Miller were “national tragedys” because the talent that was lost was irreplacable. I don’t see that in the case of JFK Jr. Except for the father that he barely knew, he was just another guy.

14

I know this is off-topic, but I always thought this was a shoddy explanation for the naming of a candy bar that came out in 1921. The year after Babe Ruth hit 54 homeruns (a record) and during the year he hit 59 (a new record).
Babe Ruth was the first big sports superstar, and I think the Curtiss Company was covering themselves by saying they named their candy after the president’s daughter who died more than 10 years previously.

well, I realize this wasn’t on topic, but I didn’t think it warranted a brand new topic, just something I wanted to point out.

the snopes site has a little bit of info on it.

http://snopes.simplenet.com/spoons//fracture/babyruth.htm

pat

15

[[Wasn’t one of Grover’s kids named Ruth, hence the inspiration for the name of a candybar? If this is the case, I can say, with all honesty, that Ruth Cleveland has had a greater impact on my life than JFK Jr.]] PapaBear
Putting aside the fact that the discussion involves more than effects on YOUR life … strike one. <g>

[[I get the feeling that many people on this board are interpreting my comments as some sort of anti-Kennedy tirade. This isn’t the case, at all.]]
That impression did sort of seem apparant – apologies for the insinuation, I guess.
[[I’m just a little sick of the amount of attention paid to events with no historical significance. OJ Simpson, Princess Diana, JFK Jr., etc., I simply ask “Why should I care?” ]]
You’re right, there is certainly media overkill – but then, people like to read the sports page and the comics, too. Heck, people often rightly prefer to do “frivolous” things than “sensible” things.
[[Would any of you have cared if you hadn’t been bombarded with John-John reports on a monthly basis in rags like People and The Enquirer for the last 35 years?]]
I think many in fact would.
[[And I really have to ask Big Iron where this “much-beloved” additude comes from. I would tend to reserve such adjectives for people I have actually met.]]
It may not be rational (although it seems more rational than you credit it for), but emotions aren’t always rational. He was an important figure in one of the greatest public tragedies of our day.
[[I feel real loss when our country loses someone that has left something of real value. I believe the plane crashes that took the likes of Buddy Holly, Will Rogers, and Glen Miller were “national tragedys” because the talent that was lost was irreplacable. I don’t see that in the case of JFK Jr.]]
I agree – it’s a different sort of “tragedy.”

16

Just to clarify: Jon-Jon was the first child born to a President-elect, IIRC… he was born after the election and before JFK took office. He was not the first child born in the White House.

Also, while not disagreeing that the media overplays, why vent at this one? “Tom Cruise sneezes” gets more coverage than “Dozens starve in Pakistan.” The media has always focused on fluff – stars, if you will, who have little impact on history, geography, economics, politics, or sociology… but have a great impact on popular culture.

17

PapaBear -

I don’t write in very often, but I do follow most all of the threads. I felt that I had a good handle on you and where you ‘are’ in life. Then you throw me a curve like

“I’m a regestered Democrat and have voted the ticket in every national election.”

Was that just for impact, or can you explain to me why a man of your obvious intelligence would choose to blindly follow a slate just because of a semantic association? Do you infer by that choice that views don’t count, just party affiliation? Sorry to be off topic, but I need you input.

“The intellectuals’ chief cause of anguish are one another’s works.”
Jacques Barzun
Cheers! CAL

18

That’s an asinine assumption Chuck! I vote my conscience, and very rarely does my conscience allow me to vote Republican and practicality usually rules out the indendents.

Just because the Republicans have failed to offer a national candidate that I could vote for, does not mean I “blindly follow a slate because of semantic association”. I wasn’t in agreement with the Reagan, Bush and Dole platforms, and every Republican senatorial candidate from California in the last 20 years has been a complete moron (Michael Huffington! Bruce Hershenson! The mind boggles!)

I’ve voted for a few Republicans on a local level (granted, only when the dem has revealed himself to be incompetent) and there are Republicans of greater stature I could vote for (the mayors of LA and NYC are examples).

19

PapaBear,

Excuse me! I didn’t make an assumption, I asked you two questions based on a comment you made. Which, thank you, you refuted yourself. I didn’t think you’d vote a straight ticket every time, as you initially said. I would expect intelligent adults to vote issues and not a party name. If Republicans (amazing how I could see the spit fly as you wrote that) don’t offer a valid choice for you, then the Democratic choice is the way to go. What is asinine is to vote a ticket simply because “I am a registered Democrat.”

“The intellectuals’ chief cause of anguish are one another’s works.”
Jacques Barzun
Cheers! CAL

20

“I’m a regestered Democrat [and] have voted the ticket in every national election.”

Since when does “and” mean “therefore”?