FOX does it too?

FOX does it too?

Okay, I have seen enough and I’d really like to hear from a journalist I trust and admire.  Maybe there’s a justification.  Maybe the rationale is there, just hiding behind a veil my eyes refuse to pierce.  Perhaps I simply can’t focus.  Regardless of the reason, I just plainly do not understand.  

I can look the other way when it’s MSM other than FOX.  I can even justify it when FOX is reprinting an AP or Reuters story.  But when FOX uses its own byline, I have to ask:

“Why is it O.K. to publicly report something that the officials-in-charge clearly do not want reported?”

Below, are 5 partial paragraphs excerpted from an article posted on the FOXNews.com website.  (All text enhancements are mine.)

British Officials Identify 19 Suspects in Mid-Air Terror Attack Plot
Friday, August 11, 2006
FOX News

The bombs were to be assembled on the aircraft, apparently with peroxide-based solution and everyday carry-on items such as a disposable camera or a music player, two American law enforcement officials told The Associated Press.  The officials spoke on condition of anonymity because Britain asked that no information be released.  

Ok, then – If Britain (the country, not some individual, not an organization, not a political party, but the COUNTRY of Britain!) “…asked that no information be released.”  - Why did FOX print it?  Was it to declare that …”two American law enforcement officials…” didn’t feel compelled to abide by Britain’s wishes?  Or was it an indication that FOX News believes the AP should be outed?  Maybe, FOX thought since the AP had already revealed the information that it was now OK to keep spreading the word.  Was it one of those, …” the people have a right to know…” lines of bullshit the “other guys” like to hide behind?

The arrests were made in the eastern city of Lahore and in Karachi, the official said on condition of anonymity because he did not have the authority to speak formally on the issue.

If the “official” did not have the authority to speak, what gave you’all the knowledge that he even was an “official”?  So he was really an “un-official”?

A U.S. congressman briefed by intelligence officials, who did not want to be identified because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said U.S. intelligence had intercepted terrorist chatter.

This one’s another justification as to why congress should NOT be briefed!  If the investigation was/is sensitive, why say anything?!!?!?  

The test run was designed to see whether the plotters would be able to smuggle the needed materials aboard the planes, the officials said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

We see this one so often that its now un-questioned.  Why do we accept the word of individuals who won’t identify themselves?  Where is any accountability?  Putting an identity to a statement does not guarantee truth, but it’s certainly a tad more reliable than an anonymous quote, isn’t it?

A British police official, speaking on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the investigation, said the suspects were "homegrown," though it was not immediately clear if all were British citizens.

Was this one thrown in just to prove our congressmen aren’t the only ones who disregard the sensitivity of an undercover investigation into terrorism?





A whole new way to make us fear
(image placeholder)Posted by Clare Duffy, NBC News Producer (09:37 am ET, 08/10/06)
Editor's note: Clare was on her way to Burbank, Calif., from New York Thursday morning for a Nightly News assignment in Los Angeles. She writes this missive about her airport experience from her Blackberry Wireless Handheld.
Even in this post-9/11 world, the scene that greeted bleary-eyed travelers in the morning darkness at JFK International Airport was surreal: "No liquids or gels of any kind" read hastily printed signs taped to the check-in desks.
Those who noticed them hastily shoved mouthwash, toothpaste and sunblock into their luggage, but most did not, unaware of what was playing out at security. Air travel, an Ironman-worthy test of endurance on the best of days, today will stretch every passenger and airline worker to the limit. 
At the security line, the usual suspicious objects -- laptops, iPods, killer sneakers -- were all but forgotten as TSA workers shouted at people to throw away eyedrops, lotions, lip gloss, bottled water, anything at all.
One young woman chucked an entire Mario Badescu skincare kit into the trash, looking simultaneously bewildered, enraged and tearful. As a beauty product junkie myself, I felt her pain.  I made a show out of jettisoning a small tube of Neosporin so they might not take the half-full tube of $50 sunscreen in my bag. All the while, bits and pieces of the story were bruited about in a strange game of "telephone":  "I heard it was nuclear weapons!"
Epic screaming matches broke out over baby formula, with the dueling agendas of protective parents and those protecting us from terrorism locked in steely combat. The hapless woman who runs the day spa at the Jetblue terminal found herself and her stock the subject of intense scrutiny.  Who knew what lurked within the colorful jars of pomegranate face cream?
On board the plane now, a member of the flight crew is relating how even they were forced to throw away their lunches. There's no water on board, and we weren't allowed to bring any on board. This should be a fun six hours.
"The TSA, they don't know what they're doing," the crew member fumed to no one in particular.   
Someone knows what they're doing, though -- those who have found a whole new way to make us fear flying, and wonder about that mini tube of toothpaste in the bag of the guy in 35F.

Why did I hide my sunscreen?
(image placeholder)Posted by Clare Duffy, NBC News Producer (09:59 pm ET, 08/10/06)
It's been an eventful day -- both in the air and, it would seem, here in the blogosphere, as my morning observations have triggered some interesting responses. I can't address them all, but for those who believe I am whining or worse, helping the terrorists, a few thoughts. My experience at JFK transpired very early this morning, before much was known about the new luggage restrictions. The frustration I and many others witnessed at security grew out of the fact that by the time most people were apprised of the restriction, it was too late to put the problematic items in their checked luggage. As the morning wore on, it became far more efficient, and I'm guessing, there ceased to be battles over such things as baby formula. But that is indeed what was happening early this morning, as passengers and security officials alike got a grip on this new reality. And a note about your blogger -- I fly for work often, and understand and appreciate the work that goes into getting all of us where we need to go safely. But having had a piece of checked luggage stolen very recently, I'm also well aware of the many pitfalls of air travel. The thought of losing still more of my belongings at an airport was difficult to take, I realize perhaps not in the grand scheme of things, but nevertheless, that's why I tried to hide the sunscreen. In any case, this situation is our collective new reality.