Monday, August 14, 2006
#2: What PR technology is behind the terrorism scare?
For example, the "liquid bomb" scare sounds completely ridiculous if one bothers to ask anyone even remotely knowledgeable in chemistry (I did ask). There is no way to combine two or more household chemicals and create anything truly exploding (as opposed to bubbling). We all tried this as kids, and we know it does not work. Yes, the liquid binary explosives do actually exist (for example, the PLX), but their components are anything but benign or household items.
Similarly, the Wal-Mart terrorists story also fails even a cursory reality check. The three guys supposedly have bought 1,000 cell phones to blow a huge suspension bridge. Press did not bother to ask the experts (or law enforcement) how much explosive material will be necessary to down this bridge (looking at the photos of the bridge I can bet it is in multiple tonnes), where the group stored the said material (as starting the plot with buying the easily available phones is insane) , why did the group need 1,000 phones (as opposed to one or two).
But the questions above are not very interesting. What really tickles me is an ease with which the press is manipulated into uncritical dissemination of the information fed to it by authorities. In short,
What is the delivery mechanism for the obviously hoax terror plot stories into the mainstream press?
It seems that there is much more glory in a "sensational" article showing that the liquid bombs are not easier to make, handle, or smuggle onboard than the conventional ones than there is in parroting the official line. So, what ropes does the US executive branch pull to make the US journalists dance to its tune?