I've noticed the same thing. The video with the media personalities' kid screaming is a good example. Did he stage it for ratings? It showed the child only being touched on her lower legs and upper arms, not being molested. The mom was doing nothing at all to try to calm her child down. That's not how mom's usually act when they are not being filmed for what is ironically called "reality TV".

Like Bucco, I don't have all the information but have noticed a "fast food" junk diet of media sensationalism and unsubstantiated personal accounts but little dispassionate actual "journalism," or what used to be considered journalism.

These stories are now being reported by all sides of the media. The "conservative" media was out in front on this story, and now the "liberal" media is catching up.

When does it become journalism in your opinion?

When pertinent questions are asked, all sides are presented, "facts" are investigated and substantiated and issues are presented dispassionately.

well said pt and bucco....gn

Is there a major media source where your requirements for journalism are happening? Who would have to relate a news story to you for you to give it weight?

I've read stories in many major newspapers from around the country, and can link them, if you'd like.

I've read them in conservative leaning papers like the Washington Times and liberal leaning papers like the Los Angeles Times.

I've read stories liked through conservative leaning websites like The Drudge Report and now stories printed on the left leaning website The Daily Kos.

There's thousands of words printed about what we've been discussing.

If the government gave a hoot about security they would secure the borders, profile, etc.
I don't like to fly, anyway, so this is all the excuse I need.

Hi Richie,
I see that you asked me questions in the first paragraph of your post that I'm quoting. I've answered in bold within your text.

Do not believe Dailykos. They are a propaganda arm of the left. They are just trying to stir the pot.

Yoda

I wonder if the posts on this thread and this forum in general would be as vociferous and disrespectful if the posters were stripped of their anonymity.

Question: Unless you fly for a living and are worried about the accumulation of x-rays - Why not submit to the scanner? Certainly beats the pat down in my opinion. Maybe we have to forgo some of our previous freedoms in the name of safety? Given the choice I'll take the scanner. I would bet that 99.99% of TSA agents don't like the pat down either.

I agree with Russ - bring on the scanner. I have nearly two million miles on Delta, and another million or so on American, so I'm spending a lot of time in line waiting for inspection by the the TSA and their brethren throughout the world. I have to say that other than the ridiculous rules about liquids (don't get me started), and the long lines, I've found the security measures to be relatively painless. I admit I've never had an instrusive pat-down inspection, but I have gone through different scanners at many different airports and have no problem with them (although that machine in Detroit that blows air in your face and through your clothes is particularly annoying). People who worry about someone seeing them "naked" in the new scanners need to get a life; and I believe the worries about health issues resulting from x-rays or other technologies are just excuses to complain. Let's use the technologies we have, and make them mandatory. Or you can exercise your freedom of choice, like RichieLion, and not fly. I'm good with that response, and I don't understand why so many people are taking him to task over his opinion on this.

Stirring the pot is good ,,,it brings all the best to the top...

My wife is 72(still lookin pretty good) had a knee replacement 6 yrs ago. We fly frequently in US and Asia. She gets the hand treatment every time and has never thought that the TSA folks were impolite or insensitive, quite to the contrary. Until we get the fail safe technology for this process , we will all need to do our best with a bad situation. The whinning annoys me and many others to whom I have spoken. The press rather than responsibly reporting situations, throws gasoline on the fire for their own benefit.Some knee jerk reactions by the TSA are understandable in light of the risks involved in trying to provide safety and to avoid the ultimate civil rights breach(death). My son is a 747 pilot, his wife is a former flight attendant and my daughter is a retired flight attendant so we have some understanding of the problems airline personnel face.

The scanners only penetrate the first few millimeters of the skin and therefore the entire brunt of the x-ray is confined to this limited area. It might actually be safer if this low dose of terahertz radiation was distributed throughout the body as some scientists are concerned about the long term effects of this targeted exposure. They cite a possible increase in the numbers of basal cell skin cancers, and scientists are examining possible side effects related to damage to the body's dna.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...r-thought.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/027913_fu...nners_DNA.html

There are plenty of people saying the scanners are safe enough, but nobody has any long term studies to know for sure, and thus all who fly, especially those who fly often, are now officially guinea pigs for this study.

The kicker to this whole thing is that the scanners will not detect explosive hidden internally. They will not detect them if they are concealed in a body cavity, (a method reportedly used in an attempt to assassinate a member of the Saudi royal family in August), and they won't detect them if they are surgically concealed.

http://www.miamiherald.com/2010/11/0...ld-saudis.html

Our government is already aware of bombs that can be implanted in a women's breasts which are chemically activated with a simple syringe that a person who is supposed diabetic can carry on board.

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/w...ow/5720333.cms

The fact is that the scanners already are obsolete if the terrorist entity is determined to strike. The sense of security that you are meant to feel is a sham.

Having had melanoma in the past, I'm wary of any scanner, let alone a scanner that is strong enough to see through my clothes. So, for me, using the scanner really wouldn't be an option. The idea of being groped is positively nauseating to me (let's hope I never do something foolish enough to get me arrested). That means a full body search is not something I could easily tolerate. Puts me between a rock and a hard place if I decide to fly somewhere. (Thank goodness I have no plans to do so any time in the near future.)

I'm not convinced these pat downs, searches and scanners protect us in the least. At best, I think they give people a sense of security but little more. I might be convinced if I had heard of even one incident where someone was arrested at the airport for having an explosive device AFTER being scanned or searched. I haven't heard of such an incident.

I dislike the idea of losing a civil liberty simply to give someone else a false sense of security. As much as I dislike the concept of profiling, it really is the best method to protect planes and other public areas. There are some very specific guidelines that can and should be used when looking for suicide bombers (Israel has it down pat and has shared its knowledge). Sadly, they are not because someone might be offended, even though not all are racial (excessive sweating, talking to one's self, muttering under breath, praying are factored in). Common sense has gone out of the window. We not only threw away the water and the baby, we tossed the tub away as well.