Time Magazine Says TSA Groping Not A Problem & It's All Blown Out Of Proportion By The Internet

from the thinking-critically-not-required dept

One of the complaints frequently leveled at the mainstream press is that they don't do much critical thinking. All too often, it feels like they've simply turned into scribes, rather than people who will help everyone in the community better understand things. Case in point: Time Magazine's Alex Altman has published quite an article suggesting that the anthropmorphized "internet" is making too big a deal of the TSA's "naked or a grope" security procedures. Of course, the internet itself doesn't have "ephemeral obsessions," as Altman implies: people do. Altman could have a point that people are overreacting but let's look at the evidence he uses to support this position. Amusingly, it's actually two pieces of info that we had already discussed and debunked, which Altman and Time Magazine took at face value. First up:
With furor of the full-body scans and invasive pat-downs reaching critical mass, TSA Administrator John Pistole went before the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science and Transportation Wednesday morning to explain why the new screening measures are a necessary evil.

Pistole was conciliatory but resolute: If you're going to get on a plane, you're either going to be photographed with advanced imaging technology--the "full-body scans" that render all-too-detailed impressions of travelers' physiques--or endure an uncomfortably thorough pat-down.
We already discussed Pistole's testimony and why he's actually lying. Contrary to what Pistole claims (and Altman bought without checking), the vast majority of people getting on planes in US airports are going through neither full body scans or "an uncomfortably thorough pat-down." Most people are still just going through traditional metal detectors. Even in the airports that have the backscatter naked image scanners, most passengers still just go through traditional metal detectors. Claiming that all passengers now go through either the backscatter scans or get a thorough pat-down is a lie.
While you'd never guess it from the hysterical media coverage, most people are...pretty OK with that. The breathless headlines and expert discussion forums provide a distorted picture of public perception. According to a CBS News poll, 81% of Americans approve of the decision to use full-body X-ray machines to weed out terrorist threats. Sometimes the screams of an aggrieved minority drowns out the rest of the public, and this may be one of those cases.
Except, again, this isn't quite accurate. As we discussed in our post about the poll, if you go and look at what the poll actually asked it phrased the question in a way that leaves out all of the concerns people have about the scanners and only implies that the scanners help security. That's obviously not a fair poll and the results should be discounted accordingly. Does Altman bother to check on all of this? Of course not.

Altman may be right that people are overreacting but he didn't help by simply repeating the claims of Pistole and a weak poll, when both have already been proven to be misleading at best and downright false at worst. Perhaps instead of rushing to mock "the internet" and its mythical "ephemeral obsessions," Altman could have taken some time to actually research the issue and to inform people of the details rather than just repeating the misleading claims from the TSA. That's the kind of thing that would actually build up trust in the press, rather than disdain for the press.

Filed Under: alex altman, backscatter, journalism, privacy, scanners, security, time magazine, tsa

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

  1. icon
    Gabriel Tane (profile), 19 Nov 2010 @ 12:53pm

    Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Please don't fly

    ""The terrorists love the fact that are security is so focused on ONE method of terror that they have quite a few alternatives that we haven't locked up yet." Was that you? Correct me if I'm wrong."
    I was referring to alternative methods of attack. Some of which have already been stated in this and many other blogs: such as bombing a mall at holiday shopping madness, a large sporting event (although, would we REALLY mourn the loss of a Nascar event? ;) )

    And, ok you caught my spelling errors that I missed in my spellchecker... but why not point out the three consecutive "thier"'s I had in there? Or my misspelling of "noes"? Or how about where I failed to hyphenate "poorly-structured"? If you're going to nitpick, feel free... but admit that my spelling errors was not corrupting my point. Your error was leading to a potential misunderstanding of your point. I'm a bad speller... I'll admit that. Want to admit to your poor sentence structure?
    "The only way to prove the TSA is ineffective is to quit screening entirely then add up the casualties."
    I almost forgot that you actually replied to the points I was making and not just the spelling errors... altho both seemed quite lacking.

    Actually, you're arguing against yourself there. If we were to stop all screening and watch the body count rise, all we would is how effective they were. To prove how ineffective they are, keep them in place and watch terrorists find other avenues of attack and laugh at us banning our >3oz hair gel bottles, water bottles, and Dr. Scholl's Inserts. All they have to do is blow up a mall and watch as we continue to feel each other up in airport security lines.

    The TSA is ineffective because they are (to use another of your hated cliches) closing the barn door after the horse has already left. But the real problem with that is that they are doing so while saying "Look America, we're winning! We're sorry about your freedoms, but it's all for a good cause!" And they put into place security measures that independent research, testing and experts prove are INEFFECTIVE AT THEIR STATED PURPOUS.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter

Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads


Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.