Considering overbooking was the excuse given by United as to why this happened in the first place, I would argue that we didn't know that, and I find it interesting that they are backing away from that.
I find it pretty interesting, too. Earlier in the thread, we had a discussion about the legal scope of overbooking law, and whether it considers the fact that some seats often have to be reserved for employees, or if it requires that all available seats be distributed to customers when capacity is reached.
Now United seems to be saying this wasn't a situation where the plane was overbooked at all. More precisely, they're saying tickets were sold out, but not even oversold. But it still seems they followed the procedure established by overbooking law? A lot of things I'd like to see clarified here.
Part 2 is very telling. Talking about addressing United's role IN THIS SITUATION.
You address United's role in this situation but then have to dig up previous situations from the victim's past... why?
Thank fuck people are waking to to shady hit pieces on victims disguised as 'journalism' and rightfully calling them out.
Let's be fair, though: not all reporting covering Dao's mixed past constitute hit pieces. This story blew up, and it's easy to see how some would see Dao as part of it. His background, his behavior, the way he responded to everything are partly driving people's interest and their interpretations. None of those things are directly relevant to United's behavior, as we have a pretty good sense that he did absolutely nothing to warrant anything that happened to him, but they're relevant to a fairly big dimension of what makes this story as compelling as it is.
It's natural that reporters will want to learn more about him, and it's natural that relevations such as his gambling history and legal issues will rise to the surface of coverage. No malicious intent is required whatsoever.
If you have an issue with how news stations are covering Dao's past, be specific with your problem. Do you think it's unethical for Dao himself to be approached as part of the story at all, and therefore, it's wrong for us to be learning about his past? Or when you say "hit pieces," are you saying your issue is with
how his past is being covered? Would you be fine with it if more positive aspects of his past were given equal coverage?