The article is standard news stuff. It is sloppy and misleading. The report is what you want.

I’m curious why you’re getting this worked up when the report is clear that the pilot was part of the information flow in that conference call. This is a really minor case of a headline using less precise language.

> There are, you know, journalistic standards

Are there? What are they?

> There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"!

Pretty sure you meant to use the past tense here: "There _were_ journalistic standards..."

From the Report:

> The MP initiated a conference call with Lockheed Martin engineers through the on-duty supervisor of flying (SOF). The MA held for approximately 50 minutes while the team developed a plan of action.

Seems accurate to what CNN was reporting. It's simplified a bit, but it's not misleading to me.

I mean, I guess if you want to nit pick and suggest "No the pilot wasn't literally on a phone and there was an intermediary in between" or some such, but the report makes it seem like CNN is accurate.

https://www.pacaf.af.mil/Portals/6/documents/3_AIB%20Report....

>But I'm interested in the reporting. There are, you know, journalistic standards, which are considered kinda "journalism 101"! For instance, getting the basic facts of a story correct - especially the facts stated in the headline.

Every single story is like this, every one, and f-them for not linking to the source documents.