The NY Times has a an almost gets it right, yet still gets it mostly wrong, pseudo-mea culpa piece today on the Media False Alarm Over the TSA. David Carr, doesn't bury the lede. It is right there as the first sentence in the second paragraph:
It began with a Drudge Report link to a video on Nov. 13 of an intrusive pat-down, and then leapt to social media and the rest of the Web.
[snip]
But then, in the real world, nothing happened.
The author goes on to suggest numerous reasons why the kerfuffle stirred up in the media, yet amounted to nothing, without ever addressing his own first point "it started as a link on Drudge." He didn't bury the lede. He just ignored it.
Here is the real problem though: Many things can be true at once.
Let us review:
- Just because today it is right wingers highlighting it only now that Obama is president, does not mean there are not legitimate privacy issues in how TSA does its screening, from no-fly lists, to body scanners and body pat-downs.
- Just because World Nut Daily is trumpeting it, does not mean there is a not reason to not trust the government when they give assurance regarding radiation risk. Perhaps Congressman Holt can help lead an independent analysis.
- Just because a Beltway consensus says this is the way to do airport security, and Obama is president, does not mean it should not be re-examined for the full range of issues of efficacy, cost-benefit, privacy, etc.
- Just because to the extent that any of the populist uprising against intrusive (or just tiresomely slow; god I hate flying) is real, it is getting this level of publicity because for once it is the elites (business, media and government workers who make a disproportionate number of persons flying) who are being bothered.
Following the kerfuffle between The Nation and Glenn Greenwald over the reporting around John Tyner, here are some other things that are also true:
- When the initial outlet is Drudge, the media should assume that then entire "media" and "public" reaction and movement is probably Astroturf.
- When a self described libertarian goes to airport with a hidden recorder turned on, and then posts that recording publicly, then they really do become a public figure that is legitimately part of any further investigation.
- When there is evidence that the anti-TSA campaign is not a spontaneous popular uprising, but a planned and coordinated case of astroturfing, with specific links to Koch, D.C. Lobbyists and the usual Repuglican-Right wing players engaging in planned media program, it is proper to investigate and report on it.
- It is important to be clear who is, and is not, connected to what specific elements. And it is important to make a limited apology where -- whether due to animus, over-reach or bad writing -- connections were implied but not truly verified. But the ongoing lack of investigation and reporting into the who is paying whom to do what, and what their motivations are (privatization of TSA, more corporate profits for one or another favored companies within the security-industrial state) is the bigger and ongoing issue, that needs more investigation and reporting.
It is naive of Greenwald to underplay the Astroturf game being played here.
It undercuts the legitimate Astroturf investigation to imply linkages where you don't have really them. And helps allow others to ignore the links you do establish.
It is silly of anybody who considers themselves to be progressive and civil libertarians to ignore the full range of implications TSA policies and procedures with regard to privacy, and also actual efficacy and cost-effectiveness.
It is silly to ignore the fact that we do need airport security, and that of course there are terrorists out there.
And of course Obama and the Democrats will get disproportionate blame if anything happens on their watch, compared to Bush's complete failure to protect us.
Many things are true at once.