Prior to his death, whistleblower John Barnett was testifying against Boeing over concerns about standards.

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.

  • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
    31·
    8 months ago

    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.

    • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
      6·
      8 months ago

      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.

        • chiliedogg@lemmy.world
          1·
          8 months ago

          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.

        • fosho@lemmy.caEnglish
          1·
          8 months ago

          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.

          • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
            1·
            8 months ago

            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.

            • fosho@lemmy.caEnglish
              1·
              8 months ago

              it’s not libelous to discuss the elephant in the room. you did not explain anything. you just disregarded the question with your assumption.

              • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                1·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • fosho@lemmy.caEnglish
                  1·
                  8 months ago

                  wowdaft. it couldn’t be more clear that the suggestion is discussing the suspicious nature WITHOUT making direct accusations.