Maybe being "vaguely annoyed" is an excuse for ignorance or political loyalty.
Maybe its the product of the tedious experience of dealing with folks who are crying wolf. For example, folks fallaciously claiming there was 'no media attention' for a story covered by numerous major media outlets.
Its annoying.
"The term "media blackout" has a couple of meanings.
And who defines these terms? Let me guess.....you do, citing yourself?
First of all you can't hide the wreckage of an F-15 that crashes in the US so you have to cover it. The term "media blackout" indicates the intentional lack of interest and the bland acceptance of the authorities version.
An intentional lack of interest....
by whom? You're leaning a little hard on the passive voice. The media has covered the story. USA Today, Rueters, AP. NBC. ABC. FOX. What degree of coverage is it 'supposed' to get. And according to who?
There seems an awful lot of arbitrary, useless subjectivity in your imagining of the term 'media black out'.
A story in "USA Today" is hardly indicative of media coverage.
I don't think 'media' means what you think it means. As coverage in a nationally syndicated news source is most definitely 'media attention'. Its also been covered by CNN, ABC, FOX, the Boston Herald and many local affiliates.There are pictures of the crash site, press conferences by the military, and a litany of articles online on the topic.
And still you insist there is 'no media attention'? Either your personal definition of 'media attention' is so uselessly skewed toward the subjective as to be meaningless to anyone but you, or you simply didn't know what you're talking about.
If the plane needed maintenance the pilot should have been aware of it and ready to eject if something went wrong. I've seen pilots eject on the freaking flight deck of a Carrier split seconds after a mechanical problem.
Says who? So far you citing yourself isn't a particularly helpful source.