Online conversations around Boeing, its CEO, two dead whistleblowers, and the brand image of Boeing are highly negative and critical. This negativity stems from multiple issues the company has been facing, including alleged manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX, the death of two whistleblowers under mysterious circumstances, and overall concerns about the company's focus on profits over safety.

• Public sentiment toward Boeing seems to be dropping significantly, falling from around 50% just over a week ago to 39% today.
• Sentiment seems to decline with increased conversation about airline safety and Boeing aircraft.

Suspicious Whistleblower Deaths

Whistleblower Joshua Dean, a former quality auditor at Boeing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, made allegations about willful ignorance of manufacturing defects on the 737 MAX. Several weeks after another whistleblower John Barnett’s suspicious death, Dean was also reported dead, sparking outrage and suspicion.

Many Americans surmise Boeing is involved in both Barnett and Dean’s deaths. Some even accuse the company of behaving like a mob and having their "own hitmen lined up." There is a growing belief in the potential for corporate cover-ups and conspiracy theories.

People frequently discuss whether Boeing has hired professional assassins to eliminate whistleblowers, although these claims appear to be speculative and lack direct evidence.

Increased Fear of Flying

Safety has been the most prevalent issue in discussions about Boeing. Many planes, particularly the 737 Max, have been cited for various safety issues, including two fatal accidents in recent years. Stories of malfunctions leading to crashes, losses, and passenger danger are on the rise.

Ongoing safety issues have led some people to voice concerns about boarding Boeing planes and the company's commitment to safety. Some voters have even suggested the company be nationalized to ensure better safety standards.

The number of Americans who say they feel concerned about the safety of Boeing's planes seems to be increasing. Some say they would not want to fly with Boeing due to their perceived negligence and focus on profits over safety. There are also voices advising others not to work for Boeing.

Many people also call for Boeing to be held accountable for its safety issues. They demand transparency from the company and express the need for regulatory bodies like the FAA to step in and ensure safety standards are upheld.

Critiques of Boeing’s Business Practices

There is also criticism of Boeing's relationship with its employees and suppliers, and general corporate practices. One commenter mentions a cage full of defective parts in a non-union shop in South Carolina, implying the company is cutting corners on quality and safety.

The search for a new Boeing CEO after Dave Calhoun stepped down is also met with sarcasm. Some are saying the right choice should, "Restore faith that the company cares whether your plane falls out of the sky."

Furthermore, there is talk suggesting Boeing's safety issues may be a result of its focus on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Some people believe, along with general negligence in quality control, Boeing is prioritizing identity politics over passenger safety.

There are also conversations about Boeing's financial performance, with Americans discussing its stock price and financial results. Some express concern about the company's future, fearing the implications of air travel becoming increasingly unsafe.

Overall, conversations around Boeing and its brand value are highly critical and negative. Most people express distrust and dissatisfaction with the company's practices and leadership. This seems to be harming Boeing's brand image and customer trust going forward.

A recent Supreme Court decision not to hear the Mckesson v. Doe case has sparked a robust online discussion. Much of the commentary seems to be from liberal and left leaning voters who support BLM and other social justice protests.

The case in question involved DeRay Mckesson, a civil rights activist, who was sued by an anonymous police officer (Doe) who was injured during a protest Mckesson organized in Baton Rouge, Louisiana, in 2016. The lawsuit alleged Mckesson was responsible for the injuries because he should have anticipated violent actions during the protest.

SCOTUS’ decision essentially upholds a lower court ruling that organizers of protests can be held responsible for violence or illegal actions that occur, even if they didn't directly participate in or endorse such actions. This decision extends to the states of Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Critics argue this decision essentially criminalizes protest organization.

Many discussing this subject seem to misunderstand the court decisions, believing SCOTUS made it illegal to protest, when in fact the court had declined to hear a case, leaving a lower court's decision in place.

The event has also sparked conversation about politicized and weaponized justice. MIG Reports data suggests liberals and conservatives both entertain ideas that the government and courts could be weaponized – however they disagree about whom the weaponization is against.

• National sentiment towards SCOTUS is relatively high compared to protests and police.
• Sentiment towards all topics related to protests and prosecutions for protests has declined slightly in the last two weeks.

Liberals Emphasizing Mckesson’s Plight

Those arguing the decision infringes upon the First Amendment tend to lean liberal. They say it’s chilling the right to protest by making organizers potentially liable for actions they cannot control. They see this as a move to criminalize dissent and express fear about the implications for democratic freedoms.

Some voice fears this could dissuade activists from organizing protests out of fear of legal repercussions. They argue holding organizers accountable for the actions of individuals within a protest is unfair and infringes upon the constitutional right to free speech and peaceful assembly.

Supporters of the decision argue protest organizers should be held accountable for any illegal activities that occur during their events. They believe this will deter violent protests and encourage peaceful assemblies. Although these voices tend to be more right leaning, there is much less discussion of the case among Republicans and conservatives.

Those who are discussing the case either blame Democratic leadership for lawlessness during protests or criticize Republican lawmakers for eroding democratic rights. The debate around this case highlights the partisan views many hold about protest rights, depending on the cause of the protest.

Contrasting Views of Weaponized Government

The politicized view of protests seems apparent when contrasting opinions about Mckesson v. Doe and January 6 prosecutions. Those who view the events of January 6 as an attack on democracy demand protesters be held accountable. These individuals frequently use terms such as "insurrectionists," "traitors," and "seditious clowns," and appear to be among the same group discussing the Mckesson v. Doe decision.

Liberal and progressive voters are more likely to call for the arrest, conviction, and jailing of J6 participants. This group also includes elected officials who they believe incited or supported the attack like former President Trump. Many demand a thorough investigation and express satisfaction when they see arrests and convictions.

Progressive and liberal voters express a sense of double standards in how different protests are handled. They say law enforcement response to the J6 demonstrators was less severe than responses to Black Lives Matter protests.

Conservatives View J6 Convictions as Weaponized

In contrast to liberals who claim lenience for Mckesson and maximum consequences for J6 defendants, conservatives view the courts as weaponized in the opposite direction. This group is more likely to claim J6 demonstrators were merely exercising their right to protest. They criticize the media and Democrats for applauding J6 convictions while shrugging off BLM protest violence.

Right leaning voters believe there is bias in the FBI's actions, specifically in the context of the prosecution of J6 participants. They contrast this with leniency towards leftist activists who commit crimes and violence in the name of Black Lives Matter of Palestine.

Conservatives are more likely to believe in the existence of the Deep State – a group of unelected bureaucrats manipulating the government. They express frustration and mistrust towards the government and politicians who politicize federal agencies and the court system.

There is a strong perception that conservatives are being unfairly targeted and labeled "domestic terrorists" by the FBI and other institutions.

MIG Reports data has identified a significant amount of dissatisfaction and frustration among Americans regarding cyberattacks and perceived failures of homeland security. Many of these feelings result from recent events that users suspect to be cyberattacks, which they blame on the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and its Secretary, Alejandro Mayorkas.

Some are calling for Mayorkas to resign, indicating dissatisfaction with his handling of security issues. There is a belief that DHS is not doing enough to prevent cyberattacks and protect American citizens. These sentiments are fueled by the perceived ineffectiveness and alleged corruption within the department.

Discussions have been increasing with a rising number of disastrous incidents on U.S. infrastructure, with many skeptical of reasons why. These events include things like the Baltimore Bridge, weather radar outages, and 911 outages. As foreign conflicts expand in countries like Russia and Iran, Americans are more worried they will never find the truth about responsible actors.

Anger is also directed at the government at large, with some voters accusing it of being compromised by foreign entities. They believe foreign adversaries have manipulated the government to their advantage, leading to a lack of accountability for cyberattacks.

Many people are apprehensive about the possibility of future attacks. There is a sense that the current government and security departments are not adequately prepared or competent to handle and prevent such incidents. As a result, there is a call for more stringent security measures and more robust responses to cyber threats.

There's also a level of anxiety about how cyberattacks could impact daily life, from increasing costs to potentially disrupting essential services. Some speculate about the potential for cyberattacks to escalate into physical conflict or even war, citing the mutual hostility between certain nations.

Others argue that hostile foreign adversaries could exploit American communications and cyber infrastructure to carry out attacks. However, there are also concerns about domestic threats, with some users accusing certain politicians and political groups of being "domestic terrorists."

Following A15 pro-Palestine protests which shut down bridges, airport traffic, and caused chaos in the streets, Americans are discussing disparate law enforcement responses. In places like California and New York, many people feel the police did little to uphold the rule of law. These optics are a sharp contrast to how police dealt with protesters in Florida where arrests were made, and protests quickly dispersed.

Much of the conversation is divided along partisan lines with more liberal and Democratic voters advocating for the protesters’ rights. Those on the right or moderates who value rule of law tend to voice support for the decisive response from law enforcement in red states like Florida.

• Sentiment toward protests on April 15 dropped in Florida to 31% from 43% the day before.
• In California, protest sentiment increased from 38% prior to April 15, to 40%, suggesting more support for the A15 protests.
• Palestine sentiment also decreased in Florida on April 15 and increased in California.

Backlash for Senator Cotton’s Tweet

A tweet from Arkansas Senator Tom Cotton has also sparked discussion about the prudence of civilian action to deal with protesters. Some people called his tweet a tongue-in-cheek call to vigilante action against protesters. Many others, however, took umbrage with the tweet.

I encourage people who get stuck behind the pro-Hamas mobs blocking traffic: take matters into your own hands to get them out of the way.

It's time to put an end to this nonsense.

— Tom Cotton (@TomCottonAR) April 16, 2024

Much of the negative response and disapproval toward Cotton's message came from liberals and progressives who claimed he was calling for violence. Some even went as far as calling for his resignation or even imprisonment.

This group accused him of inciting violence and promoting vigilantism against peaceful protesters. Some use strong language to describe their disgust, calling him a "disgrace" and stating he belongs in prison.

There also seems to be a portion of right leaning voters who agree that blocking roads is inappropriate and potentially illegal, but they disagree with the notion of citizens taking drastic actions. This group cites examples like Kyle Rittenhouse and Daniel Penny who both “took matters into their own hands,” and faced severe legal consequences.

Many asked whether Cotton would be prepared to legally defend citizens who intervened, if progressive activists or politicized prosecutors came after them legally.

Other conservative and right leaning voters voiced agreement with Cotton. They said the right to protest does not grant the right to inconvenience others or block public thoroughfares. They argue protesters who do so should face severe consequences, including jail sentences.

Law Enforcement Response in Florida

There's a mix of reactions to pro-Palestinian protests in Florida disrupting traffic. Many express frustrations at the inconvenience, while others focus more on the rationale behind anti-Israel and anti-America demonstrations.

Many Floridians commend police actions and the law-and-order stance under Ron DeSantis's leadership, particularly in dealing with Pro-Hamas protesters. This group often contrasts the response of Florida law enforcement with that of police in New York, California, and other large cities in blue states.

Progressives tend to decry any arrest of pro-Palestine protesters. Some even compare DeSantis to Adolf Hitler, saying his leadership in Florida is authoritarian and racist. However, many of the voices criticizing Florida’s governance also seem to declare their unwillingness to live in or even travel to Florida.

Perceived Inaction by Police in New York and California

Many people online criticize law enforcement in San Francisco and New York City for being passive. They believe police stood by during disruptive protests and did nothing when demonstrators blocked roads and bridges. There is a sense of frustration over disruptions to travel and commerce, accusing the police of failing to maintain order.

There is also frequent criticism for protesters for causing inconvenience and potentially endangering public safety by roads. Many are particularly critical of pro-Palestinian, anti-Israel protests, accusing them of causing unnecessary disruption, insulting America, and burning American flags.

Some protest supporters and activists who were reacting to the Middle East conflict which now involves Iran, drew attention to police brutality, arguing police officers even in blue cities are too rough with peaceful protesters. This group criticizes those who they believe are more concerned with the disruption caused by protests than with the issue of police brutality itself.

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) and its reauthorization have been a significant topic of discussion, especially in the context of surveillance and privacy issues. It is critical to understand citizen perceptions about FISA and whether they believe it is being used as a political tool against opponents.

Political party affiliation has a significant influence on perceptions of FISA. Democrats generally have a more positive sentiment towards FISA, often viewing it as a necessary tool for national security. Republicans are more likely to question the act, particularly after the 2016 elections and allegations of its misuse against President Trump's campaign. They tend to view FISA with suspicion, believing it could potentially be used to target political opponents. Independents fall somewhere in the middle, with their views varying based on individual beliefs about privacy and national security.

When looking at other demographics, it becomes a bit more complex. Economic class, for example, may influence perceptions, with wealthier individuals tending to be more skeptical of government surveillance. Geographically, those living in urban areas, particularly on the coasts, tend to be more accepting of FISA, seeing it as a necessary tool in the fight against terrorism. In contrast, those in rural areas or the heartland are more likely to view it as a potential infringement on their rights.

It's crucial to note that these perceptions are not static but can shift based on current events, political climate, and individual experiences. For instance, perceived misuse or abuse of FISA could lead to more widespread skepticism, regardless of party affiliation or demographic group. Therefore, maintaining trust in FISA requires transparency, accountability, and ongoing dialogue to address concerns and misconceptions.

There is also a lot of distrust and skepticism expressed towards politicians and institutions, including the CIA and FBI. Many voters view these agencies as being part of the “Deep State.” Many people seem to believe there is widespread corruption and misuse of power at various levels of government. These individuals often use terms like “Uniparty” or “Deep State Cartel” to refer to what they view as a singular, corrupt entity controlling American politics.

Oregon ended its three-year experiment with decriminalizing drugs, causing discussion over the fentanyl crisis. Reactions from voters on this decision show mixed sentiments, mirroring the divergent views on drug decriminalization in other states.

While some individuals and states hail this as a necessary step towards public safety and discouraging drug use, others see it as a regressive move that infringes on personal freedom and perpetuates the war on drugs.

• Oregon decriminalized drug possession in 2020 with 58% approval from its voters.
• Oregon’s drug overdose deaths have been fueled predominately by fentanyl.
• Overdose deaths have increased from 280 in 2019 to 1,250 in 2023.

In Florida, Governor Ron DeSantis has expressed strong opposition to legalizing recreational marijuana, suggesting it would decrease the quality of life in the state and lead to more marijuana smells. This view is not shared by all, with some calling him a "freedom-hating fraud" for his stance on the issue.

In contrast, states like Colorado and Massachusetts have pursued progressive drug reform policies, similar to the one Oregon attempted. In Colorado, the governor appeared at an equity workshop celebrating minority-owned cannabis businesses. In Massachusetts, Governor Maura Healey granted pardons to tens of thousands of residents with misdemeanor marijuana convictions. Some progressive voters believe in the potential for the cannabis industry to promote economic growth and social equity. They also view legalization as a commitment to addressing the historical injustices of drug criminalization.

In Virginia, however, Governor Glenn Youngkin vetoed a bill intended to establish a recreational cannabis market, indicating a more conservative stance on drug reform in line with DeSantis.

These varying responses reflect the ongoing debate over drug decriminalization in the United States. Different states are adopting policies based on a range of economic, social, and political factors. The recriminalization of drugs in Oregon may therefore be seen as part of this broader national conversation, with the state's decision likely to influence and be influenced by developments in other parts of the country.

Recent Border Patrol encounters with Chinese nationals crossing the border illegally shows an alarming increase in the last two years. This news corresponds with American voters’ growing dissatisfaction with border security and threats posed by China. Opinions fall somewhat along party lines, but even Democrats are becoming more distressed about the Biden administration’s border policy.

MIG Reports analysis indicates border and U.S. security issues are a top priority for voters in 2024. These issues are especially critical in swing states where voter opinions promise to weigh heavily on presidential election results this fall.

• Most voters currently blame President Biden for the disastrous border situation and rising threats of Chinese infiltration.
• In swing states, Trump gains higher approval on both border security and China, averaging 47% to Biden’s 41% on the border and 46% to Biden’s 43% on China.

• Nationally, Republican sentiment on the border is slightly lower than Democrat sentiment – and overall sentiment is lower still.
• Sentiment on China nationally is tighter overall and among Democrats and Republicans. But Republicans have a lower average sentiment at 45%.

American Views on China

Republicans are more likely to voice concerns about China when it comes to illegal immigration. This group views China as a significant threat to national security – including the alarming number of Chinese nationals apprehended by Border Patrol.

• According to U.S. Customs and Border Protection data, encounters with Chinese nationals illegally entering the country have jumped to a shocking 22,233 so far in 2024, up from 342 in 2021.

Conservative voters are also concerned about economic pressure from China, intellectual property theft, and the potential for cyber-attacks. Right leaning voters tend to be very worried about the possibility that China is intentionally infiltrating the U.S. border with military aged men. They view China as an antagonistic force that is both physically and digitally attempting to compromise U.S. security.

While many liberal voters also view China as a potential threat, they are more likely to emphasize diplomatic and economic measures to address the issue, rather than military action. They may also be more focused on human rights issues in China, and less concerned about border infiltration.

Another prominent viewpoint in the China discussion is the notion that if authoritarian regimes like Russia and China gain victories, it could strengthen other authoritarian states and promote their aggressive actions.

Political Blame Falls on President Biden

Many voters on both sides of the aisle explicitly link the issue of border control to the failings of the current administration. Most express disapproval for President Biden’s border policies and apparent disregard for an issue that concerns so many Americans. These criticisms also include frustration with the Democratic Party’s handling of the border issue, overall.

• Recent AP polling revealed that 58% of Americans view border security as extremely or very important. This includes 46% of Democrats and 75% of Republicans.

The question of who should be allowed to immigrate to the U.S. is also contentious topic. Some express a preference for immigrants who contribute to the economy, while others prefer to limit or halt immigration completely. Republicans are especially likely to voice objections to single, military aged men, from any country, being admitted to the U.S.

Overall, voters are strongly advocating for stricter enforcement of immigration laws. Some go so far as to call for mass deportation of illegal immigrants.

Resentment About the Border Wall

Although Donald Trump enjoys higher approval among voters regarding border security, there is some criticism for his failure to fully build the border wall during his term. Many Republicans and conservatives point to the border wall as a key campaign promise he did not fulfill.

This criticism is often mentioned with critiques of the Republican Party's handling of border control. Some suggest Trump and Republican failures show the inherent difficulties of securing the border.

At the same time, more liberal voters express skepticism about the feasibility of the border wall, questioning its cost and practicality. Some also propose a wall on the northern border, often in response to potential political changes in Canada.

The narrative around gun violence in mainstream media reports is heavily centered on mass shootings and the politicization of the Second Amendment. The discourse often revolves around debates about gun control, mental health reform, and the responsibility of lawmakers in implementing policies to curb gun violence.

However, there is a glaring lack of attention to the rampant gun violence that plagues inner cities. Meanwhile, there is an abundance of reporting on mass shooting incidents like the one in downtown Indianapolis, which left seven juveniles injured.

Americans largely perceive that media reporting is skewed towards sensationalized mass shootings, often ignoring the daily violence that affects marginalized communities in urban areas while also advocating for illegal immigrants to own guns.

Mainstream narratives rarely include the thousands of gun-related deaths and injuries that occur in, largely blue, urban areas. Stories about daily shootings in places like Chicago, Detroit, and Baltimore rarely make national headlines. This contributes to a perception that these incidents are normal or expected, thereby reducing the urgency to address them.

Online discourse often devolves into partisan debates about gun rights and controls. For instance, some voters accuse Chuck Schumer of using a fallen NYPD officer's death to push for gun control. Many claim Schumer and other Democrats politicize the issue. The Second Amendment is frequently invoked in these discussions, with some arguing gun control measures infringe upon constitutional rights.

The mainstream media's failure to highlight inner-city gun violence seems to perpetuate a skewed understanding of the issue. It often favors sensationalized incidents over the chronic violence affecting specific communities. This can lead to policies that do not adequately address the root causes of most gun violence, such as socio-economic disparities and inadequate policing.

Many Americans believe the mainstream media plays a critical role in shaping public opinion and policymaking regarding gun violence. It crucial for voters to have access to comprehensive and balanced new coverage – especially on issues like guns in America. Honest, unbiased reporting on urban gun violence would not only help raise awareness about the extent of the problem, but also promote more effective strategies to combat it. However, many people feel the media often draws false conclusions from a politicized point of view.

Online discussion among American voters and independent journalists often seems to directly dispute media narratives about gun violence. Some point out that most mass shootings are gang-related and occur in African American neighborhoods. This contrasts with the mainstream media's typical portrayal of mass shootings as random acts of violence committed by white, “lone wolf” perpetrators with extremist manifestos.

Boeing’s PR disaster in recent months over recurring safety complications is not letting up. American voters are feeling overwhelmingly negative about the jet company – expressing fear and criticism. There is a strong sense of frustration and disappointment with the company's handling of the safety issues. One particular issue people bring up is the incident involving the door panel of a Boeing 737 Max plane blowing out mid-flight.

• Boeing sentiment has been hovering in the mid 40% range while online discussion continues to grow more negative.

Safety Concerns for American Travelers

There is a clear concern about how safe Boeing planes are for passengers, particularly the 737 Max. People recurringly mention a near-collision incident involving a Boeing 737 Max and a Boeing 777, which, among other events, is fueling safety concerns. Some Americans question the safety of Boeing aircraft and often express nervousness about traveling in them.

Following the death of Boeing whistleblower John Barnett, more people are discussing their view of a decline in Boeing's quality and the impact of rushing projects. People are relating the problems to poor management and the company's focus on profits over audits and worker wellbeing, and a growing sense of incompetence in modern society.

The disapproval of safety standards at Boeing are not generally partisan, however right leaning Americans are more likely to bring up DEI, criticizing its woke impact on Boeing's operations. They suggest that DEI is partially responsible for the company's difficulties and call for its removal.

Reactions to Boeing CEO’s Resignation

The public seems to believe Boeing's priorities are more focused on production than on safety and quality. Some even go so far as to suggest that all Boeing aircraft should be melted down and started over.

Boeing CEO Dave Calhoun’s resignation is seen by many as a positive step. But there is also skepticism about whether this will lead to any real changes in the company's approach to safety.

American appear to have a generally negative view of Dave Calhoun and his leadership at the company. They also criticize the executive and management levels of leadership broadly.

There is some public relief at the news of Calhoun's resignation, and some suggest the entire company needs a complete overhaul or "start over." Public views on the company’s brand value indicates widespread dissatisfaction with Boeing's current image.

While some see Calhoun’s resignation as an appropriate response to the company's troubles, others question the timing and express cynicism about the executives' motives.

There is also criticism of large exit packages for departing executives, especially in the light of perceived gross negligence in handling safety issues. Some express concerns about the future of Boeing as a leader in the industry given the ongoing crises.

General Criticism of the Company

There are calls for more accountability and transparency from Boeing, with some suggesting that more information should be released about safety incidents and negligence allegations. Some even raise questions about potential criminal charges or ethical investigations related to safety issues and suspicion around John Barnett’s death.

Overall, public sentiment indicates a lack of trust or confidence in Boeing and its leadership, as well as increasing fear of boarding a Boeing jet. The way the company handles this crisis and its commitment to safety and quality moving forward will likely influence public perception and trust in the company.