Interpretations
are like snowflakes. No two are exactly alike. (Ironic headline considering it
is June 1, but roll with me on this one).
Everyone is unique, has different paths in life and has
gone through different experiences so in turn, we all see the present in
different ways and then formulate and express those opinions about said
situation. And round and round we go, conflicting opinions, but that is what
makes life so interesting isn't it?
An emergency situation on a commercial airline is a plight
that will expose the best and worst of human emotion, so it is no surprise to
me that there is a controversy about the facts surrounding the event.
Brooklyn writer Noah Gallagher Shannon recounts a flight
experience on back page of the New
York Times Magazine (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/19/magazine/the-plane-was-about-to-crash-now-what.html?_r=0)
two weeks ago and the firestorm that has awoke around his tale is intriguing.
Jim Romenesko dissects the differing views (http://jimromenesko.com/2013/05/31/two-views-of-the-plane-was-about-to-crash/).
As one would expect, New
York Times Magazine editor Hugo Lindgren defended his
publication, even stating that: "Naturally, not every detail matches everybody else's experience. Surely even people on that plan would remember it differently. The story was about the personal experience of a fearful moment."
This must be your first sign that this should be read more
as fiction than anything else. Leave the account of record to the Associated
Press.
I thought it was well-written, but I could tell after the
first paragraph that this wasn't exactly a news release. It felt like Gallagher
Shannon was being a little dramatic with more colorful language, but that’s his
choice and I think it’s perfect back-page content that shouldn’t be expected to
have total accuracy. If Gallagher wants to embellish some facts and interject
some of his opinions then he’s got the right.
No comments:
Post a Comment