What was the nature of the contract? I tried reading the article but my eyeballs wore out.

It appears that Campbell had some unreasonable expectations wrt Cirrus commenting on negotiations with China. Company plans are generally secret either by SEC rule or company policy.

Campbell is also making a mess with whatever contract he had (has?). He is also setting himself up to be on the losing end of a libel suit. ANN might well soon be Cirrus News Network.

Based on what he wrote in the article it is my opinion that the contract involved zoom geting a free SR22 with all-inclusive maintenance and in turn would boost Cirrus in his editorials. This is how small time trade publications seem to work.



In britain maybe. In the US he'll just continue to preach down from his high horse of first amendment protected 'journalism'.

Rule 1 for trade sheets is they are a vanity press.....like it or not. You'd better not make negative comentary about your advertisers, even if it's true.

Cirrus probably got out of line, maybe broke several agreements, but ANN decided on the "scorched earth" plan. Both loose, but ANN will loose more.

10-4. That contract arrangement is also what I gathered from the article but it seemed too good to be true. If all it took was a blog to get an otherwise free airplane then more people would be doing it.

There are some limitations to free speech in the context of journalism. Campbell may well be crossing them if his allegations are false. There's a difference between opinion, e.g. I think John Doe is a liar, and something that is represented as fact, e.g. John Doe is a liar. Opinions get more protection than poorly researched facts.

What a mess.

I'll write nice things about Beech if they'll give me a G36TC. (Then I'll sell it and buy five more V tails.)

Heck I would keep it and even put pictures of it in all of my print literature to our clients who are Barons of Industry...

From my point of view I have to give credit to all the minds and knowledge of "Beechtalk" to expose the whole truth. Awesome! Just to read the "vanity press" ( I like that term) one would think a lot differently until we get a glimpse of the author's sanity issues.

Made my head "asplode" to try to read it.

Summed up: "Some really serious stuff is happening!"

Part Deux published this morning

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... 15d8a321dd

This is interesting to say the least.

From what I can only guess - Cirrus gave him an airplane in exchange for him pumping up the airplane in his writings. This goes pretty deep. Both of them may be in violation of tax laws for "bartering" and neither of them probably have a legal contract.

Point of this story: Don't barter for goods and services. Pay cash and get a receipt.

The fact that Cirrus would engage in business with this guy makes me think twice about ever buying a Cirrus.

It sounds more like there was a contract as opposed to bartering. But I may be incorrect. And of course, ANN only presented their side of the story.

Nothing wrong with bartering, there is even a whole section on the tax return on what you bartered in the past year. You just have to declare the value of your barter transactions.

For anyone so inclined, it would allow them not to use that worthless paper money printed by the evil 'FED'

And zoom did get a receipt, Cirrus sent him (and the IRS) a 1099misc for the value of the plane received. He wasn't happy about that for some reason.....

After reading ANN's side of the story I tend to side with Cirrus!

Zoom has quite the reputation.

http://www.ousterhout.net/zoom.html

I waded through the entire court transcript.

Pretty interesting, his posing as a doctor (but he didn't claim to own a Bonanza, so that is immediately suspect). Attempted jump off the WTC, etc.


Also interesting that the FAA inspector testifying against him had only been a CFI for 2 years before being hired by the FAA.


His exploits make me wonder how/why Cirrus would have even done any business with him at all...