BS BULLETIN:
- A Flydubai flight headed to Tel Aviv was diverted after a co-pilot allegedly stabbed the captain and attempted to take control of the aircraft; passengers and crew helped subdue the attacker.
- The New York Times initially described what happened on social media as an “altercation between the pilot and co-pilot.”
- After critics pounced, the Times defended itself by declaring: “Unlike activists and partisans, we don’t publish speculation or unverified information.”
The New York Times had a wording problem Wednesday.
Then the PR department arrived. And suddenly the wording problem had friends.
Flydubai Flight 1073 was traveling from Dubai to Tel Aviv when one pilot allegedly stabbed the other inside the cockpit and tried to take control of the aircraft.
The plane plunged sharply, a hijacking signal was transmitted, Israeli fighter jets were scrambled, and passengers and crew ultimately helped subdue the alleged attacker before the aircraft landed safely in Saudi Arabia.
The Times initially summarized all of this on X like so:
“A plane flying from Dubai to Israel was diverted after an altercation between the pilot and co-pilot, Israeli officials said.”
“Altercation.”
Technically, yes.
In roughly the same way the iceberg and the Titanic experienced a disagreement over right of way.
Critics immediately hammered the newspaper for language they considered absurdly mild.
And that’s when New York Times Communications decided the situation required intervention.
“Our headlines and live coverage contain all the facts we’re able to confirm as we confirm them. Unlike activists and partisans, we don’t publish speculation or unverified information.”
Oh.
Oh, no.
That sentence promptly became another story all by itself.
The Times did have a legitimate journalistic point buried inside the PR thunderbolt: early reports were evolving, and responsible news organizations should distinguish between facts they have independently confirmed and allegations from officials or passengers.
The exact motive behind the cockpit attack was not immediately established publicly, and describing it definitively as terrorism before confirmation would have gone beyond what was known at that moment.
But critics weren’t merely objecting to the Times withholding the word “terrorism.”
They were laughing at “altercation.”
By Wednesday, reporting from multiple outlets described a pilot being stabbed, an attempt to seize control of the plane, passengers intervening and the aircraft transmitting a hijacking code. The Associated Press reported Thursday that authorities were investigating the apparent attempted hijacking.
So the debate quickly became less: “Should the Times speculate about motive?”
And more: “Is stabbing the man flying an airliner while allegedly trying to take over the cockpit really best summarized as an ‘altercation’?”
Then came the line about the Times never publishing “speculation or unverified information.”
Anyone who has followed American journalism for more than eleven minutes could probably predict what happened next.
People started bringing receipts.
MY QUICK TAKE
Caution is good.
But there is cautious, and then there is describing a cockpit stabbing and alleged attempted takeover as an “altercation.”
That’s not cautious.
That sounds like two guys were arguing over who left the break-room refrigerator open.
Then the Times PR department marched bravely into the fire carrying this: “We don’t publish speculation or unverified information.”
Friends, there are statements you make only if you are absolutely certain nobody on Earth has access to Google.
This was not one of them.
DBS WIRE SOURCES
- Twitchy — NY Times’ defense of hijacking headline gets roasted
- Mediaite — NY Times fires back at critics over Flydubai coverage
- Associated Press — Cockpit stabbing on Flydubai flight puts crew-related hijackings in focus
- People — Passengers describe attempted hijacking aboard Israel-bound flight
- New York Post — Passengers describe alleged hijacking attempt aboard Israel-bound flight
