FAA Spokesperson Can't Quite Grasp The Concept of Parody
Under the heading of "we can't make stuff up that's this crazy,"
ANN finds itself in the midst of a genuine 'WTF' moment (to use
colloquial Internet parlance). Shortly after noon this day
(Monday), ANN Editor-In-Chief Jim Campbell got a phone call from a
person claiming to be calling on behalf of the Administrator of the
FAA. The initial tone was serious and somewhat stern... and the
caller claimed to be Sasha Johnson, currently the FAA Assistant
Administrator for Communications.
Ms. Johnson seemed to be upset over a parody piece (
Babbitt Mulls Fees For Low-Time Pilots) we
wrote for our infamous April 1st edition... a piece clearly labeled
as such (an April 1st Special Edition) and accompanied with a
number of supporting documents (as well as a prominent "FUNNY" tag
preceding the title) that noted the nature of the day and our
customary annual break with reality to enjoy a little fun and games
with an industry that has had to deal with way too much dreary
news, of late. Ms. Johnson wanted us to provide additional
clarification as to the piece's parody orientation and apparently
was dealing with some indignant folks who either did not read the
piece on ANN (where the labeling was clear) or chose to believe it
despite the numerous warnings and attributions affixed to the
day's parody process. Ms. Johnson was NOT happy... claiming that
Randy Babbitt had directed her to fix this confusion and was
demanding some kind of response from us... the nature of which
wasn't altogether clear.
The annual April 1st gig has been going on for well over a
decade and actually has roots in things we did several decades
ago when working in the print magazine genre... it has been lauded
far and wide, hundreds of thousands (literally) have written to us
over the years to express their amusement and we have actually had
submissions from FAA personnel, even HQ personnel, themselves. As a
matter of fact, Babbitt noted his enjoyment of one of our previous
parody pieces in a prior year and certainly seemed aware of the
nature of the joke.
ANN tried to explain to Ms. Johnson that making a fuss over
this would only create greater notoriety for the article, add more
confusion to the mix, and not let the joke die when it should
have... on April 2nd. Ms. Johnson seemed annoyed and engaged in a
heated exchange which included her statement, at one point, that
"well, then, you better stop writing about the FAA." Ms. Johnson
did not indicate how far such a restriction was likely to be
applied but regardless of the issue at hand, for ANY authorized
representative of the FAA Administrator to tell ANY journalistic
organization to stop writing about them is a line that should never
be crossed... in anger, or otherwise. Further; when explaining to
her that such a statement was, at best, offensive and an
over-reaction to the matter at hand (even invoking Benjamin
Franklin and this nation's protection of the right to parody), she
responded that it made no sense to talk to me any further since,
"...You obviously don't care." Again... about what, we're not quite
sure... but the matter definitely went out of bounds and we
politely explained that there was nothing further to discuss until
cooler heads prevailed.
The sad part of the matter is simply this... for a number of
people to believe that FAA would do something so stupid as to
target struggling pilots with additional and onerous user fees was
apparently way too believable for a number of folks who were either
not aware the piece was parody or jumped the gun because the FAA is
held in such disdain amongst so many in the aviation
community. We thought the piece was pretty outlandish, fairly
silly, and well beyond the FAA's ability to sink so low... and,
most important, plainly not believable. BUT... its obvious
that a few thought otherwise, and not understanding the
well-publicized parameters involved in our April 1st issue, chose
to complain to the FAA. That's sad... but now that we think about
it... probably a LITTLE bit understandable. The FAA has set
itself up, again and again, as working against the proper aims of
the aviation community and despite a number of attempts to proclaim
each new Administration's intent to be kinder and gentler, the FAA
has fallen well short of that goal.
So... believing that the FAA is THAT foolish may not be so
outlandish, after all.
It's sad that the FAA doesn't have a sense of humor, it's sad
that bullying a journalist seems to be the way to get their point
across (and, mind you, this is far from being the first time
we've had to deal with such nonsense), and it's sad that the FAA
has so eroded the flying public's trust in its innate sense of
fairness and propriety that even a well-documented April 1st parody
is seen to be believable by a few.
We're sure we haven't heard the last of this... and we'll keep
you informed as to what develops in this tempest via telephone.
Yeeshhh... Honest to God, Folks... even we can't make this stuff
up.
Late Monday Update: The FAA's Chief
Counsel's office called us back... and Marc L. Warren, the FAA's
Deputy Chief Counsel has invited us to call Ms. Johnson and 'clear
up' the misunderstanding. We called her office in mid-afternoon,
left a polite message, and have yet to receive a return call.
We'll keep you informed...