posted 06-07-2006 11:21 AM               

On edit, more background: I see there was an earlier kerfuffle, with the children suing their father, as reported by the San Francisco Chronicle.

[This message has been edited by collectSPACE Admin (edited June 07, 2006).]

posted 06-07-2006 11:48 AM               

But the papers have been wrong before..

posted 06-07-2006 11:57 AM               

On edit: a simple google search turned up this bit of investigative work on Victoria Scott D'Angelo:
http://www.newsthinking.com/story.cfm?SID=195

A far cry from the fluff piece of writing in People magazine.

posted 06-07-2006 02:24 PM               

He has allowed himself to become estranged from his children and grandchildren and it may well be for this that he is remembered if the media really takes up on this and not his place in aviation history.

posted 06-07-2006 06:04 PM               

In my defense, I'll note that the New York Times says on its masthead "All the News That's Fit to Print," and then made an assumption that such a story would therefore be safe for linking on cS. The SF Chronicle reporting (and the investigative piece I also linked) struck me as eminently responsible and fair.

The Times editors know that the behavior of great men, and those around them, predatory or supportive, litigious or virtuous and wise, is intensely interesting to many, not because we are being prurient, but because we're aghast at the tragedy. And are really, really grateful not to be famous and old and vulnerable.

posted 06-07-2006 07:45 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Robert Pearlman:
As tragic a situation as this may be, it escapes me why this is news or even public information.

---

Personally speaking, it's because the public as a collective whole hold people in the public eye like Yeager to a higher standard. I don't see it as entertainment, rather an extension of what the public sees as their need to know.

I don't see printing the story as a way to make money selling more papers. After all, the money is in the advertising space that's sold, not in the stories that are run. Noting that the story originated with AP, and knowing the hundreds of stories that AP runs, I would venture to say that the story was grabbed to fill a space, and that the story was selected because of the familiar name.

posted 06-07-2006 07:51 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Hart Sastrowardoyo:
After all, the money is in the advertising space that's sold, not in the stories that are run. Noting that the story originated with AP...

---

posted 06-07-2006 10:36 PM               

Yeager trades on his fame, that's a given. But he's famous for being a test pilot. He has never held himself above others to be a model husband, father, accountant, etc., to my knowledge. So if he fails in any area outside of flying planes (and I'm not saying he has or hasn't) why is that news?

posted 06-07-2006 11:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by rjurek349:
No moral judgement on the situation - just surprised that you would find it surprising that this is news.

---

posted 06-08-2006 06:19 AM               

I'm definitely in your corner on this one, Robert. It's not news, it's Hollywood trash for the papers and TV.

And it is personal.

posted 06-08-2006 07:17 AM               

That being said I applaud Jolie & Pitt for donating the $4million to charity for the baby pictures. They were aware that photographs would be taken and decided to do some good with it.

The problem is US. We (known as the general public) feed on this crap. The media pays for the pictures and the stories because they know we will pay to watch and read them. Why else would a barber in Ohio want to sell the First Mans hair?

In todays media world men like Franklin Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy could not be elected because of their sexual appetites. While I find that behavior wrong, it is between the man,his spouse and his God.

Thank you Kris for linking us to the news article. The writer seemed to go out of her way to be fair and support her arguements with facts. But the Yeager Family should be able to settle this without "film at eleven".

Those of us who admire the men and women that fly above the planet, admire them because they fly above the planet. And while I appreciate the fact that Wally Schirra still has his "original wife", I am not interested in the least why others don't. If the astronaut shares that story in his or her autobiography thats one thing, but if I have an opportunity to visit with an astronaut, I'm not going to ask about private personal things, I want to know what it felt like to walk on the Moon, to see the Earth as a ball, what was reentry like.

posted 06-08-2006 08:11 AM               

I spent a complete week-end with Chuck and Victoria Yeager a couple years ago during a visit they made in Switzerland & France.

I wasn't first aware that she was his wife. I found her really nice, not like one of these astro wife I met in Washington 1993, during a Hankow convention, who asked her husband NOT to sign my complete name, as it was too long (he signed anyway with a blink of the eye to me :-)

Well, I was a bit surprised when, later that day, i learned that Victoria was Chuck's wife, but it felt so natural, they were so nice togheter.. I mean.. I'm not a psychologist but frankly they were in love, or if not she deserve the Oscar.
Beside, she's quite pretty, and, if she's here for the money, there are definitely some richer men available. Anyway...

At the end of the day, Chuck told me and a couple of journalists and friends how sad he was with his kids, that he regretted the way THEY treated him especially after receiving from him full rights of his 2 autobiographies. Victoria wasn't even there when he had that moment.

posted 06-08-2006 10:04 AM               

All the elements of sensational news coverage are in place: fame, money, and sex, and estranged children. The burden for responsible journalists is great. And just beginning, too, for I fear the Yeagers' first and early and successful efforts at damage control are beginning to falter.

But that's just my opinion.

posted 06-08-2006 12:15 PM               

I believe the news here is not so much the lawsuit, but, the self destruction of an American hero. The ON GOING self destruction.

Derek and I attend (when we can afford the trip) an event in Lancaster, CA annually (next to Edwards AFB). The stuff the Flight Test Historical Foundation, and the paying guests, have to put up with is outrageous.

Being in contact like I am, and Derek is, with the various test pilots and contemporaries of yeager, we hear much more to the story and frankly I am appalled.

posted 06-08-2006 01:51 PM               

I would not dream of naming names but there are some VERY big named aviation legends and former test pilots who are apalled at what has happened to Chuck over the last 5 or 6 years. Many relationships and friendships have eroded to such a state of decay that some of these gentlemen (and ladies) simply will not have anything more to do with him.

And then there are the every day individuals who have been attacked by Mrs Yeager for no other reason than their failure to agree to her requests. I'm not just talking a few cross words... I'm talking about some very strong and in some cases slanderous language toward certain individuals... and then that quite often turns to threats of legal action against the individual.

posted 06-08-2006 02:09 PM               

The other reason the Yeager matter should be posted is that Collectspace is about celebrity. Why would there be a Sightings Section on the website for locating astronauts at events all over the country? People want to see astronauts and maybe even get an autograph. Why is there an autograph section on the message board?

Chuck Yeager's official website is listed on and linked to Collectspace.

So I ask, why not talk about something that is currently very public on this site. I think the New York Times put it out there, so it is fair game. The attempt to try and say this site rises above the values of the New York Times is a bit presumptious. I enjoy this site. But I know the New York Times, I have a friend at the New York Times and Collectspace is not the New York Times.

So let's talk about how we are watching the self destruction of an American icon over the greed of his new wife. Let's discuss how the Yeager website is attempting to take advantage of collectors who send material in for an autograph. Let's talk about Yeager's comments about the death of Scott Crossfield. If the man is going to pontificate about the judgement of others in public, then he is fair game for the public's comments about his judgements concerning his affairs.

On with the show!

posted 06-08-2006 02:49 PM               

Altogether I posted three newspaper stories on the Yeager matter. The first, of course, was yesterday's NYT account of the Yeagers' lawsuit against the four Yeager children.

I then linked a 2004 story from the San Francisco Chronicle, reporting the first go-round of legal trouble.

The third link contains the entire text of a ca. 2004 L.A. Times feature story, really an investigative piece, but it's nested in a "how-to" account that holds the story up for particular praise as an example of how to research, interview, quote, tape-record, write, vet, and otherwise produce a first-rate piece of journalism on a story fraught with pitfalls for a sloppy journalist.

What's amazing is that this story has been out there for two years or more--especially in the test pilot community--and been judiciously reported (since the first lawsuit) in respectable newspapers doing what they do (report news). And the rest of us are just now catching the drift.

So as an observer, I'm struck not by the spectacle of American prurience and communal schadenfreude, but rather by how circumspect and saddened those in the know have been about the entire mess.

Kris

posted 06-08-2006 04:40 PM            

1. pru·ri·ent (prr-nt)
adj.
Inordinately interested in matters of sex; lascivious.

2. scha·den·freu·de
Pronunciation: 'shä-d&n-"froi-d&

Etymology: German, from Schaden damage + Freude joy
: enjoyment obtained from the troubles of others

[This message has been edited by SCE to AUX (edited June 08, 2006).]

posted 06-08-2006 07:09 PM               

"Responsible journalism" has been mentioned by one cS member to justify continuing with this thread. The responsible thing to do would be to end this intrusion into the personal life of someone for purient interest only. This is not a tabloid in which all personal incidents in someone's life are detailed. I agree that many people may be interested in the failures of celebrities. But they are not appropriate for this website. If you want more information about such matters, you know where to find them on the Internet.

posted 06-08-2006 09:05 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astro Bill:

The excuse of "It appeared in the New York Times" and they print "All the news that's fit to print"

---

Yo! Better than The New York Post! That paper is so bad these days that if Alexander Hamilton came back to life he'd beg Aaron Burr to shoot him again!

My brother was a reporter for them until he got sick. I forgot which section he was in - Gossip, Slander, Innuendo, Racing Forms or Strip Joint Ads - but he was there!

And I can imagine the fun Dunleavy would have had with this.

posted 06-08-2006 11:44 PM               

quote:

---

Originally posted by Larry McGlynn:
But I know the New York Times, I have a friend at the New York Times and Collectspace is not the New York Times.

---

Its interesting though that you should choose Sightings as a justification for celebrity coverage. Sightings only lists events that are intended for the public to attend (or at the least, have the opportunity to do so). If I ran Sightings such as the general media solicits articles about celebrities, then the calendar would be filled with private appearances ranging from favorite restaurants to airport gates, from hotel lobbies to home addresses. Mind you, all these places are public venues — no violation of privacy here!

All sarcasm aside, perhaps Yeager was the wrong individual to use for my example of media exploitation. This case may be in the media because of his or his lawyer's doing.

Afterall, who am I to disagree with the Gray Lady as to what's fit to print?

posted 06-09-2006 07:04 AM               

You don't get off that easy. Sightings is still a place to go to find where the next astronaut encounter is in your local area. You are right that you haven't put in the local restaurants where astros go, but the postings of individuals on this board sometimes do, like trying to find the Outpost.

Now that said, I agree that the private lives of people shouldn't be discussed on this board, but the Yeager situation is no longer private. It's in the New York Times. Now you and I can debate the media's plunge into "National Esquire" type reporting and why, but the story is out and people want to discuss it. It is about space and flight.

There are probably two sides to the story, but in general it is sad to see a very proud man take a dive like this.

As for Blackarrow's comment concerning Scott Carpenter's comments about Yeager. I spent three days with Mr. Carpenter down in Key Largo in April. Scott is a true gentleman. He has nothing but kind words for everybody. So don't expect him to say anything bad about someone to a stranger. Scott is just a really kind man with a lot of dignity about him.

Anyway, back to Yeager, it is tragic about the family situation. I do hope they figure it out and resolve the issue before it is too late for the family.