Book Review

Guest Discussion
1

Controversy is good if youÂ’re a writer, so James Fallows has to be at least partly satisfied by the review in the WSJ. Putting the review flames out isnÂ’t nearly as important as providing the kindling to get the fire started. Jim has a reputation for starting fires.

However, one comment made by Mr. Felton that needs a clear response is the suggestion that Fallows is a mouthpiece for Cirrus. The comment legitimately arises from the lack of disclosure about the relationship between CD and Fallows. Nowhere in the book (at least not that I was able to find) was there a mention of the relationship (owner, investor, promoter) between author and subject. What makes this very noticeable is the reputation Fallows has rightfully earned as a respected, world-class journalist. I am reminded of the extreme care Jim took in the introduction to his 1981 book National Defense. There he flatly stated that his desire not to serve in the military was something readers should consider when reading the book. Missing from Free Flight is a similar bold disclosure. As an owner, Jim does have an interest in the success of CD. He may have a further interest as an investor. Nothing wrong with that, but it has to be clear from the outset or questions arise. Readers have become far too skeptical of the press (in part because of JimÂ’s book about the subject (see Amazon.com to pick up a copy)) to grant a hall pass on this issue.

Note: If you liked Free Flight, buy a copy of National Defense. It is no longer in print but can be purchased used from Amazon. Many interesting observations about procurement of F-16, M-16 and the volunteer military. Surprising how JimÂ’s comments from 20 years ago are still relevant today. Take a gander at the Osprey project!! If he is as prophetic about the future of GA as he was about the military, Free Flight is groundbreaking.

2

I’ll have to get a copy of National Defense. Sounds interesting.

But let’s not get too critical of the Marines and the Osprey. During my time in the Navy (until 1995) it was common knowledge that the Marines initially wanted no part of the Osprey, correctly anticipating problems with the immature technology. But congress kept pushing it on them. (The speculation was that congress wanted the military to pay the development costs for future civilian applications.)

The Marines finally got the message that no conventional helicopter follow-on to the aging H-46 would be funded, so it was the Osprey or nothing. From then on they had no alternative but to try to make it work. (Albeit with, ultimately, too much committment to a bad design.)

(Of course that’s just my opinion. I could be wrong…)

Joe

Controversy is good if youÂ’re a writer, so James Fallows has to be at least partly satisfied by the review in the WSJ. Putting the review flames out isnÂ’t nearly as important as providing the kindling to get the fire started. Jim has a reputation for starting fires.

However, one comment made by Mr. Felton that needs a clear response is the suggestion that Fallows is a mouthpiece for Cirrus. The comment legitimately arises from the lack of disclosure about the relationship between CD and Fallows. Nowhere in the book (at least not that I was able to find) was there a mention of the relationship (owner, investor, promoter) between author and subject. What makes this very noticeable is the reputation Fallows has rightfully earned as a respected, world-class journalist. I am reminded of the extreme care Jim took in the introduction to his 1981 book National Defense. There he flatly stated that his desire not to serve in the military was something readers should consider when reading the book. Missing from Free Flight is a similar bold disclosure. As an owner, Jim does have an interest in the success of CD. He may have a further interest as an investor. Nothing wrong with that, but it has to be clear from the outset or questions arise. Readers have become far too skeptical of the press (in part because of JimÂ’s book about the subject (see Amazon.com to pick up a copy)) to grant a hall pass on this issue.

Note: If you liked Free Flight, buy a copy of National Defense. It is no longer in print but can be purchased used from Amazon. Many interesting observations about procurement of F-16, M-16 and the volunteer military. Surprising how JimÂ’s comments from 20 years ago are still relevant today. Take a gander at the Osprey project!! If he is as prophetic about the future of GA as he was about the military, Free Flight is groundbreaking.

3

The comment legitimately arises from the lack of disclosure about the relationship between CD and Fallows. Nowhere in the book (at least not that I was able to find) was there a mention of the relationship (owner, investor, promoter) between author and subject.

That for the general comment and support, but let me be clear:

My relationship with Cirrus is that of an enthusiastic customer. I paid full list price for the plane and for all subsequent add-ons, repairs, and so on. Complete with CPI clock! I do not have and have never had any financial relationship or understanding with the company whatosever.

I first learned about them, when doing a piece for the NY Times; then decided to take the purchasing plunge; then thought there was a larger policy/startup story to write about them, AND Eclipse, AND NASA. I admire the company, but the reasons for the admiration are all at face-value: I think they’re doing something important.

The disclosure page you’re looking for might, ummmm, be the very first page of the book, :wink: when I said I had decided to buy a certain kind of plane because I was so impressed with what the company had achieved.

4

Nowhere in the book (at least not that I was able to find) was there a mention of the relationship (owner, investor, promoter) between author and subject.

Ken,

I’m halfway through free flight. Jim discloses early on that he is the owner of a Cirrus aircraft.

George

SR22 #95

5

Joe,

I’m not being critical of the Marines (how could I as a former jar head for god’s sake!). You have hit on the issue Fallows exposes in his book. Weapons systems are altered dramatically thru the procurement process and often end up so drastically different from the original concept that they become undesirable, or worse yet, down right dangerous. It is interesting to me that while I strained in 1981 to understand what the hell the forward assist mechanism on the M16 really did, Fallows published his book National Defense with the answer: absolutely nothing! It was a result of the totally warped purchasing system.

Read for yourself and see if the same old system that messed up weapon systems then is still with us today. I think your comments suggest that it is.

Time to republish the book!

6

You expect me to remember page 1 after 254? :slight_smile:

Sorry to have forgotten the disclosure, but I really think your reply contains the bold disclosure that would have been more inclusive and helpful.

My relationship with Cirrus is that of an enthusiastic customer. I paid full list price for the plane and for all subsequent add-ons, repairs, and so on. Complete with CPI clock! I do not have and have never had any financial relationship or understanding with the company whatosever.

This is much clearer and would have matched your sensitivity to the disclosure issue.

Keep selling! Last I checked you were 463ish on Amazon.

7

This is much clearer and would have matched your sensitivity to the disclosure issue.

Thanks – here’s the reason it didn’t even occur to me to put such a disclosure in the book: of course you could not write such a book if you had a PR, consulting, investing, or other relationship with the firms involved. Or, if you had any such relationship, you’d have to disclose it right up front, because it makes the book much different.

Here’s an analogy: in national politics, for better or worse (worse from the WSJ’s perspective!) I’m associated with the Democrats. When I write something about Jimmy Carter, I have to disclose that I worked on his staff. But in writing about Bush or Gore or anyone else, I don’t routinely include disclosures saying “For the record, I am not a paid consultant to this campaign.” When writing about a political campaign, as when writing about a company, that kind of paid relatinoship would be so obviously fatal that it didn’t occur to me to have to rule it out.

I’ve been on the warpath about journalistic excesses for years. Guess I didn’t fully appreciate the depth of public suspicion!

8

Jim, I just finished Free Flight this weekend and highly recommend the book to all Cirrus pilots and their passengers.
As a former journalist and now corporate communications flack, I will admit that I was a little uneasy with the loving treatment of Cirrus in the early chapters. It was obviously a very interesting read, given that I am a position holder and major “enthusiast.” But I also knew that you were as well, which made the Cirrus portrayal feel a little too subjective.
HOWEVER, as you transitioned from the Cirrus story to Eclipse, you stepped back and covered the Cirrus product strategy and financial position with a very objective eye. By the end of the book, the reader is left with the clear impression that, although Cirrus has designed brought to market an incredible GA plane, it may never have the capital to move up market where the real profits are… before the competition gets there. That would leave Cirrus with two choices: go out of business or sell out to one of the larger GA companies.
Not exactly the kind of impression a “paid consultant” would want to leave! Tom.

This is much clearer and would have matched your sensitivity to the disclosure issue.

Thanks – here’s the reason it didn’t even occur to me to put such a disclosure in the book: of course you could not write such a book if you had a PR, consulting, investing, or other relationship with the firms involved. Or, if you had any such relationship, you’d have to disclose it right up front, because it makes the book much different.

Here’s an analogy: in national politics, for better or worse (worse from the WSJ’s perspective!) I’m associated with the Democrats. When I write something about Jimmy Carter, I have to disclose that I worked on his staff. But in writing about Bush or Gore or anyone else, I don’t routinely include disclosures saying “For the record, I am not a paid consultant to this campaign.” When writing about a political campaign, as when writing about a company, that kind of paid relatinoship would be so obviously fatal that it didn’t occur to me to have to rule it out.

I’ve been on the warpath about journalistic excesses for years. Guess I didn’t fully appreciate the depth of public suspicion!

9

I’ve been on the warpath about journalistic excesses for years.

For which we are grateful! Consider, though, the message you sent with your disclosure statement that reads, “The new plane I had ordered was not yet ready when we made this coast-to-coast trip, so we had arranged to use instead a demo from the factory.”

I think you recognize that such an arrangement would not have been made for just anyone, hence the suspicion.

10

“The new plane I had ordered was not yet ready when we made this coast-to-coast trip, so we had arranged to use instead a demo from the factory.”

I think you recognize that such an arrangement would not have been made for just anyone, hence the suspicion.

Fair question, and here is the answer: this is standard “journalist privilege,” as opposed to “financial stakeholder privilege.”

One of the big pluses in my line of work is that you get to have lots of different experiences than you might otherwise do. I’ve been on rides in an F-15, out a nuclear submarine and aircraft carrier. Spending time in genetics labs, traveling with foreign digniataries.

The exhange involved in all of these transactions is this: I am getting a privilege not available to the general person, and in exchange I will describe the experience for the general public in my magazine, newspaper, book, or for my TV or radio broadcast.

Is there a potential for abuse and corruption in these relationships? Certainly there is. The implied bargain is that I will describe the experience – not that I will describe it positively. But obviously it can become abused.

[Similarly: after I published an op-ed in the NYT about the prospects for improved GA, I got a call from a corporate-jet company, asking if I wanted to ride with them NYC-Paris as they tried to set a speed record for the Lindbergh route, while going to the Paris Air Show. That I didn’t do.]

In the Cirrus case, I said: you know that I am a customer and have laid down my money for the plane. But I have also decided to report on the state of GA in a book – and as a narrative “spine,” I would like to describe what it is actually like to fly a little plane coast to coast. Variants of this are the way the flying magazines work, as you know. (With the difference that the reviewers there obviously can’t restrict themselves to planes on which they’d made a down payment.) And as you know from the “coast to coast” chapter, my description of GA long-distance flight probably will not make it seem inviting to the average “civilian” – thunderstorms, turbulence, three days for the trip, and so on.

In any case, that was the "journalist exchange" bargain. But you're probably right that I should have made clear it was not some extension of any other relationship with the company. thanks jf
11

Jim,

Your response to Ken was lucid, accurate, not full of “fluff”, rational and logical… are you sure you are a demi-crat? :wink:

Mark

12

We have to be understanding with Jim F. He is already under great stress being both a pilot and “associated with the Democrats”.

Jim,>

Your response to Ken was lucid, accurate, not full of “fluff”, rational and logical… are you sure you are a demi-crat? :wink:

Mark

13

Hmmm, you may have noted the line in my book comparing the AOPA with the NRA???

We have to be understanding with Jim F. He is already under great stress being both a pilot and “associated with the Democrats”.

Jim,>

Your response to Ken was lucid, accurate, not full of “fluff”, rational and logical… are you sure you are a demi-crat? :wink:

Mark

14

Hmmm, you may have noted the line in my book comparing the AOPA with the NRA???

Jim: I just can’t let that one go!

Without defending either one, clearly IMHO the NRA follows old doctorine to the detriment of the very group it seeks to represent, its members.

I personally do not feel that the AOPA’s actions result in more ‘citiznes’ to resent AOPA or its members.

Its efforts toward safety, pilot and ‘citizen’ education are commendable. Its stances on any particular legisalation is a mattter of personal opinion.

But, in good humor, I will follow Jim DeVries’ advice.

Marty