Here's a weird one on several levels:
In a story about airline delays, there's some information about how private jets are causing some of the problem, and there's no system of prioritizing landings based on schedules, it's just first-come-first-served, as it has been since the dawn of air travel.
A few sensible folks are talking about changing that, and allowing a full 777 to land before some private jet with one or two passengers.
In this story, which I found from the IHT, a woman is quoted as saying that the rules should not be changed. And while there may be some logistical or other concerns that would make sense, this woman instead decides to insult every person not taking a corporate jet for business.
"On a business flight, you might have people going to Wall Street from companies who are creating jobs and generating billions of dollars in commerce," Brown said. "People on a commercial flight might be going on vacation or going to New York to go to the theater."
OK, that's just horrendously bad on so many levels.
But the paper made that worse because they identified Ms. Brown as working both for the FAA (in the 11th paragraph) and for an industry group for private jets (in the 16th paragraph).
It makes it hard for me to be outraged for the bad PR, or the shocking lack of sensitivity to the taxpayers from someone in the government.
I guess I'll be outraged at both, and at the generally dismal state of editing in the mainstream media.