Are my tax $ paying for this horseshit?

[akarunway 1]

Under Bush, a New Age of Prepackaged TV News
By DAVID BARSTOW and ROBIN STEIN

Published: March 13, 2005


t is the kind of TV news coverage every president covets.

"Thank you, Bush. Thank you, U.S.A.," a jubilant Iraqi-American told a camera crew in Kansas City for a segment about reaction to the fall of Baghdad. A second report told of "another success" in the Bush administration's "drive to strengthen aviation security"; the reporter called it "one of the most remarkable campaigns in aviation history." A third segment, broadcast in January, described the administration's determination to open markets for American farmers.
To a viewer, each report looked like any other 90-second segment on the local news. In fact, the federal government produced all three. The report from Kansas City was made by the State Department. The "reporter" covering airport safety was actually a public relations professional working under a false name for the Transportation Security Administration. The farming segment was done by the Agriculture Department's office of communications.

Under the Bush administration, the federal government has aggressively used a well-established tool of public relations: the prepackaged, ready-to-serve news report that major corporations have long distributed to TV stations to pitch everything from headache remedies to auto insurance. In all, at least 20 federal agencies, including the Defense Department and the Census Bureau, have made and distributed hundreds of television news segments in the past four years, records and interviews show. Many were subsequently broadcast on local stations across the country without any acknowledgement of the government's role in their production.

This winter, Washington has been roiled by revelations that a handful of columnists wrote in support of administration policies without disclosing they had accepted payments from the government. But the administration's efforts to generate positive news coverage have been considerably more pervasive than previously known. At the same time, records and interviews suggest widespread complicity or negligence by television stations, given industry ethics standards that discourage the broadcast of prepackaged news segments from any outside group without revealing the source.

Federal agencies are forthright with broadcasters about the origin of the news segments they distribute. The reports themselves, though, are designed to fit seamlessly into the typical local news broadcast. In most cases, the "reporters" are careful not to state in the segment that they work for the government. Their reports generally avoid overt ideological appeals. Instead, the government's news-making apparatus has produced a quiet drumbeat of broadcasts describing a vigilant and compassionate administration.

Some reports were produced to support the administration's most cherished policy objectives, like regime change in Iraq or Medicare reform. Others focused on less prominent matters, like the administration's efforts to offer free after-school tutoring, its campaign to curb childhood obesity, its initiatives to preserve forests and wetlands, its plans to fight computer viruses, even its attempts to fight holiday drunken driving. They often feature "interviews" with senior administration officials in which questions are scripted and answers rehearsed. Critics, though, are excluded, as are any hints of mismanagement, waste or controversy.

Some of the segments were broadcast in some of nation's largest television markets, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas and Atlanta.

An examination of government-produced news reports offers a look inside a world where the traditional lines between public relations and journalism have become tangled, where local anchors introduce prepackaged segments with "suggested" lead-ins written by public relations experts. It is a world where government-produced reports disappear into a maze of satellite transmissions, Web portals, syndicated news programs and network feeds, only to emerge cleansed on the other side as "independent" journalism.

It is also a world where all participants benefit.

I hold it true, whate'er befall;
I feel it, when I sorrow most;
'Tis better to have loved and lost
Than never to have loved at all.

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Are my tax $ paying for this horseshit?

yep. not surprising though.

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[BikerBabe 0]

Ah, yes, the Bush Administration.

Attacking the First Amendment on three fronts every day! Your tax dollars working for YOU!

Where's Leni Riefenstahl when you need her?

ETA: damn, I really didn't mean to violate Godwin's Law, but really...the similarities are eerie, dontcha think?

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[sfzombie13 314]

godwins law??? is that what i'm thinking about? something about all posts on forums/message boards?

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[SkyDekker 1,155]

Federal government taking control of Media, Patriot Act, Military installations at airports, major increase in military spending, strong division in country with non-followers labeled as unpatriotic, giant debt which is growing tremendously.

You take all those factors and move it to an African or South American country and we all would know where that would lead. The future of the US will be very interesting indeed.

[lawrocket 3]

Hey,

If you think the VNR is something new, think again...

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[Guest]

One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard was a report this morning that quoted some pinhead at the Fed level saying that TSA-style security (paraphrased) "...must be applied to general aviation. There are too many helicopters and light aircraft available for hijacking."

In other words, this jackass was insisting that anybody who wants to fly in a gen aviation a/c (read "us") must be forced to jump through TSA hoops as though at a passenger airport.

I'm guessing this is a desire for "pie in the sky" (heh); as though asking for something completely ridiculous might produce something more substantial than what exists.

The trouble is that it's a good deal harder to steal or hijack a helicopter than it is to hijack an airliner. Anybody can swipe a Cessna, or maybe put a gun to the head of a pilot, but to steal a helo, you have to know how to fly one of those contrary fuckers first.

Light a/c and helos have very limited range in comparison to airliners, so this also runs counter to the purpose of terror, which is to cause havoc on a large, dramatic scale (TW/RIFWs are all about drama, after all), for maximum terror effect.

mh

.

"The mouse does not know life until it is in the mouth of the cat."

[billvon 2,476]

>One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard was a report this
> morning that quoted some pinhead at the Fed level saying that
>TSA-style security (paraphrased) "...must be applied to general aviation.
>There are too many helicopters and light aircraft available for hijacking."

Ridiculous, perhaps, but I have a feeling it will come to be. A jump pilot accidentally took an aircraft right over the white house while ferrying it in IFR; he didn't know it was a problem until he was intercepted 20 minutes later. Eventually such issues will be used as a reason to increase security yet again.

>Light a/c and helos have very limited range in comparison to airliners,

A King Air has both the range and the payload capability to do some very serious damage, and there are a lot of them around. You could easily take down a refinery, or a bridge, or even do serious damage to a nuclear power plant with one.

[rushmc 18]

One persons horse shit is another persons fertilizer

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[ChasingBlueSky 0]

Tonight's top news stories: The Administration says you had a good day but feel a little tired. In local news, police discovered a van parked outside a shopping mall believed to belong to a renegade media-lord. Inside the van police discovered close to 45lbs of unshredded immoral media trash thought to be valued at $65,000 on the street. Police also believe that the last known copy of the book "1984" has finally been found. The One God Police officials used a portable incinerator to dispose of the filth.

I don't know what is worse - the fact that this administration is seeding the news or that the media is running these stories.

Quote

One of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard was a report this morning that quoted some pinhead at the Fed level saying that TSA-style security (paraphrased) "...must be applied to general aviation. There are too many helicopters and light aircraft available for hijacking."
.

They ran that story all over the news this AM. We fought down similar things in '01 and '02. Not sure how long we can keep fighting the paranoia this administration loves to spread.

_________________________________________
you can burn the land and boil the sea, but you can't take the sky from me....
I WILL fly again.....

[DrunkMonkey 0]

Quote

A King Air has both the range and the payload capability to do some very serious damage, and there are a lot of them around. You could easily take down a refinery, or a bridge, or even do serious damage to a nuclear power plant with one.

In developmental testing of the reinforced concrete used in Nuke plants, the govt smashed an F-4 against a representative wall, at speeds far exceeding what a King Air could get up to.

The wall held.

Unless you've got something much bigger, I doubt the kamikaze scenario is realistic.

[billvon 2,476]

>In developmental testing of the reinforced concrete used in Nuke plants,
> the govt smashed an F-4 against a representative wall, at speeds far
> exceeding what a King Air could get up to.

>The wall held.

You're talking the containment building. That's proof against most conceivable impacts, and contains the core. In the case of a BWR, an impact/explosion to the turbine building would likely rupture the primary coolant loop, releasing tons of (slightly) radioactive steam. The plant would likely shut down safely IF all the emergency systems within the containment building worked.

Now, that's a lot more than was released at TMI, and look at the panic that caused. You'd have a loud boom, a spectacular release of a lot of steam, and then a fire. Officials would say "some radioactivity has been released, but we'd like to emphasize that it's not that dangerous in small amounts, and we think the reactor has been automatically shut down." Experts would say "we call that a LOCA, the worst possible accident in a nuclear power plant." How many people would the ensuing panic kill?

Keep in mind that terrorists don't destroy military targets; they create terror. A spectacular explosion at a nuclear power plant would do that pretty handily.

[MC208B 0]

Just my opinion but I don't think the "terrorists" will be doing another aircraft attack. I'm much more concerned about a container entering the US on a ship. Of course, the asshats at the TSA have to do something to protect their regime, so making GA a target (boogyman) for the public at large is a good place for them to go. After all, they are losing their edge with the public by confiscating scissors and making folks take their shoes off

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"Keep in mind that terrorists don't destroy military targets; they create terror. A spectacular explosion at a nuclear power plant would do that pretty handily."

If you can pack the King Air/Skyvan full of 'dirty material', you wouldn't even need to hit the power plant, any decent sized downtown would suffice......

If one wanted to bring a grid down, lock up a city, close a port, etc, there are easier and more effective means available than dropping aircraft onto things....

Just because they used aircraft before, doesn't mean they will use them again.

















Are you scared yet?

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[billvon 2,476]

>Just because they used aircraft before, doesn't mean they will use them again.

I agree. But modern light aircraft are ideal for delivery tools, because a) they are often not tracked in the US, b) they can reach anywhere in the US, and c) you can take off, set the autopilot and bail out and the autopilot will do the rest of the work. A boat would also work in the same way, but now you're limited to seaside targets.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

>Just because they used aircraft before, doesn't mean they will use them again.

I agree. But modern light aircraft are ideal for delivery tools, because a) they are often not tracked in the US, b) they can reach anywhere in the US, and c) you can take off, set the autopilot and bail out and the autopilot will do the rest of the work. A boat would also work in the same way, but now you're limited to seaside targets.

Can any light plane autopilot be programmed to hit a specific coordinate in three dimensions? Mine can't.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>Can any light plane autopilot be programmed to hit a specific
>coordinate in three dimensions? Mine can't.

Heck yeah. There are plenty of three axis autopilots out there. You don't even need authority over power to do that.

[kallend 1,683]

Quote

>Can any light plane autopilot be programmed to hit a specific
>coordinate in three dimensions? Mine can't.

Heck yeah. There are plenty of three axis autopilots out there. You don't even need authority over power to do that.

The three axis systems I've seen (admittedly all low end of the price range) allow control of climb/descent rates and to target altitudes, but not to hit that target altitude exactly at a specific geographical location. Hitting a ground target involves getting to all three coordinates simultaneously, don't want to reach 0'agl a mile before or after unless the target is city sized..

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 2,476]

>The three axis systems I've seen (admittedly all low end of the price
> range) allow control of climb/descent rates and to target altitudes, but not
>to hit that target altitude exactly at a specific geographical location. Hitting
> a ground target involves getting to all three coordinates simultaneously. . .

Right. So choose a 500' tall building. Program a cruise at 5000 feet, then a descent to 300 feet ten miles out. Then have it continue on course for the building. 300 feet will also keep it off most radars (unless the course comes near a radar installation.)

Alternatively, have it cruise over a park at 500 feet and detonate the bomb by remote control or by a second GPS programmed to recognize a waypoint there.

[penniless 0]

Quote

>The three axis systems I've seen (admittedly all low end of the price
> range) allow control of climb/descent rates and to target altitudes, but not
>to hit that target altitude exactly at a specific geographical location. Hitting
> a ground target involves getting to all three coordinates simultaneously. . .

Right. So choose a 500' tall building. Program a cruise at 5000 feet, then a descent to 300 feet ten miles out. Then have it continue on course for the building. 300 feet will also keep it off most radars (unless the course comes near a radar installation.)

Alternatively, have it cruise over a park at 500 feet and detonate the bomb by remote control or by a second GPS programmed to recognize a waypoint there.

I'm not familiar with aviation, but that seems like a lot of work to set up. The Timothy McVeigh method seems rather easier to carry off for a park or skyscraper, and a truck can carry a lot more bang than a light aircraft.

[billvon 2,476]

>I'm not familiar with aviation, but that seems like a lot of work to set up.

Not at all. It's a procedure familiar to most pilots, and all the required equipment is already installed. The only additional thing you have to do is put the explosives inside with a detonator, and you have to do that whether it's a truck or an airplane.

Indeed, there are a lot of benefits to doing it in this way. If McVeigh had chosen this method, and had bailed out 100 miles away over a forest, it's unlikely he would have been caught. Driving a truck up to a building requires you to be in the truck when it's at the building, which means you will probably be seen.

>and a truck can carry a lot more bang than a light aircraft.

Even a C207 (quite small) can carry 2000 lbs, and would likely get off the ground with an extra 1000 lbs. That's a lot of explosives in a relatively small aircraft.

[Botellines 0]

Do not forget that islamist terrorist do not mind at all if they die, so they would, most likely, prefer to fly the plane themselves and make sure it reaches their objetive.

[billvon 2,476]

>Do not forget that islamist terrorist do not mind at all if they die, so
> they would, most likely, prefer to fly the plane themselves and
> make sure it reaches their objetive.

There are more terrorists in the world than Islamic (I know, hard to believe.) This sort of delivery system is an option for people who _don't_ want to die, which is bad in a way. At least with suicide bombers, there's one less terrorist after every attack.

[nacmacfeegle 0]

"This sort of delivery system is an option for people who _don't_ want to die,"

I was kinda driving at the suicidal elements as well, also my posting was coincidental with the other thread about SAM batteries in Washington. I was sort of bemused by all of this.

Looking at some of the other bombings that we in Europe have had to put up with.
Brighton bombing for example, the bombers mined the Hotel where Thatcher was going to be staying months in advance of her visit.
The Madrid bombings were pretty well co-ordinated so that separate bombs 'arrived' at the same place more or less at the same time.
Omagh and Manchester were car bombs, etc, etc, I can appreciate that we have to be aware of the airborne threat, but lets not blind ourselves to the more common forms of bomb delivery.

"At least with suicide bombers, there's one less terrorist after every attack."

Problem is, there's no shortage of willing replacements. I'm not sure how to approach this threat, its relatively easy to deal with an organisation like the IRA, Red Brigades, ETA, etc, the problem the US faces now is that you are not against a single organistaion, your up against an idea, or philosophy if you like, which is difficult to suppress. I can't help feeling that if AQ were crushed more quickly the seeds of Jihad may have fallen on fallow ground.

--------------------

He who receives an idea from me, receives instruction himself without lessening mine; as he who lights his taper at mine, receives light without darkening me. Thomas Jefferson

[Botellines 0]

Quote

At least with suicide bombers, there's one less terrorist after every attack.

That is the only good thing about it. But unfortunately i think that doesn´t make up for how succesful they are when they strike. ETA and IRA are not nearly as succesful due to the fact that those cowards don´t want to risk that much (fortunately).

There was some rumors of ETA associating wih AlQuaeda. I really hope it was just that, rumors.