John Barnett had worked for Boeing for 32 years, until his retirement in 2017.
In the days before his death, he had been giving evidence in a whistleblower lawsuit against the company.
Boeing said it was saddened to hear of Mr Barnett’s passing. The Charleston County coroner confirmed his death to the BBC on Monday.
It said the 62-year-old had died from a “self-inflicted” wound on 9 March and police were investigating.
Why don’t news organizations address the elephant in the room? They can say there is no evidence of foul play but the circumstances warrant further investigation as his death is quite convenient for Bowing. I don’t see how that could be libelous.
Because news organizations no longer do any work investigating, only propagandizing for the sweet greenback$. 💰
They can be sued if they claim Boeing executives murdered a guy unless there are court records showing Boeing executives were convicted for murdering a guy. However, I guarantee you people like Trevor Noah and John Oliver will absolutely run with this bit if they get the chance.
“WhY iSN’t ThE MEdiA CoVEriNG tHe NeWs” people scream in the comments of a news feed that alerted them to this exact issue.
That’s simply not true. Defamation/libel against a public company requires “actual malice”, which essentially means that the news outlet would have to have evidence that what they’re saying is not true.
Fox was going to lose to Dominion because they 100% knew they were lying about the company, and there were records proving it. It’s not actually common at all for cases regarding defamation against public figures or corporations to go anywhere.
You bringing up the Fox News counter-example and claiming it was a one off is kind of self-awarewolf.
I’m bringing it up because it was a remarkably rare thing that recently happened.
The reason Fox lies 50 times a minute is because defamation is incredibly difficult to prove.
did you even read the comment you’re responding to?
Not only did I read it but I answered the question.
You absolutely did not. The question was not: “Why don’t news organizations claim Boeing execs murdered a guy…?” The commenter was clearly aware of the problem of libel, which you completely ignored. They asked why news orgs aren’t discussing the fact that the death comes at a suspiciously convenient time - because they aren’t. This is not the same as claiming that he was murdered by Boeing.
He claimed it shouldn’t be libelous and I explained that it would be libelous. You’re implying that journalists are somehow dancing around the issue, which is silly because we’re all pretty well informed that the whistleblower was probably murdered.
it’s not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.
If you say a person or entity with a public image did something really bad that they haven’t been strictly proven to have done, with exceptions for things such as parody, then that is defamation. So, yes, it can be libelous to talk about the fucking elephant.
wowdaft. it couldn’t be more clear that the suggestion is discussing the suspicious nature WITHOUT making direct accusations.