View Full Version : Dangerous Public Transit???
Last night I was visiting someone with a TV and when the news came on they had a scary presentation of the danger to us of using public transit. They said the government couldn't protect us against terrorists attacks on public transit. They said that in the past few years 450 people had been killed on public transit by terrorist acts- worldwide. I waited for the presenters to point out that in the US alone around - what? 40,000? - people are killed in car accidents per year to put the story in perspective but they didn't. Did anyone else see this? What decision did the news organization expect the viewers to make in response to the story? Maybe that kind of reporting will get people out of the subway and onto their bikes?
I bet you heard that on Fox News? If you watched TV more you'd know that this kind of disinformation is par for the course.
The Bush administration is flogging the terrorist threat to divert attention from their massive failures over the last 6 years, especially their botched response to 9/11.
Any analysis I've read shows that public transit is the safest way to travel, including cycling and walking.
I bet you heard that on Fox News? If you watched TV more you'd know that this kind of disinformation is par for the course.
The Bush administration is flogging the terrorist threat to divert attention from their massive failures over the last 6 years, especially their botched response to 9/11.
Any analysis I've read shows that public transit is the safest way to travel, including cycling and walking.
Do you have ESP? It was Fox, the family was watching a singing competition and the advertisement for the news had a local story of interest so they kept it on for the news.
jamesdenver
03-14-07, 11:58 AM
Last night I was visiting someone with a TV and when the news came on they had a scary presentation of the danger to us of using public transit. They said the government couldn't protect us against terrorists attacks on public transit.
Scary news on TV? Surely you jest.
They said that in the past few years 450 people had been killed on public transit by terrorist acts- worldwide.
I wouldn't be worried unless I was catching the Ben Guiran, Tel Aviv central express. Even then I would not live in fear. For christ sakes people in countries WITH heavy terrorism live their daily lives normally, yet when an errant Cessna strays over the pentagon we run into the basement crying like little 5 year olds.
What decision did the news organization expect the viewers to make in response to the story? Maybe that kind of reporting will get people out of the subway and onto their bikes?
Nothing. They expect you to keep watching. Local TV news is garbage. There's no dialogue, balance, or discussion. It's just hastily edited clips of soccer moms worrying about their kids, and the dangers of identity thieves, child molestors, and dangerous washing machines run amock. Turn it off already.
wahoonc
03-14-07, 12:09 PM
Statistics are funny things...but statistically you are safer on public transit than you are in your own shower. As far as Television is concerned the broadcast stations are a waste of public airwaves. Give me History Channel or OLN anyday. I used to watch the evening news, now I don't bother wasting my time, and their websites aren't much better.
Aaron:)
Sir Lunch-a-lot
03-14-07, 12:26 PM
It is my understanding that the American news system is a lot more censored than the Canadian News System. Apparently (or so I have been told), some Americans have come up here to watch CBC to get an idea of what it going on in their own country. That said, I even find CBC to be particularly biased in some areas (Particularly Politics).
In Social 30, our teacher started giving us news clips from the BBC instead, because I guess they have better coverage than CBC even (especially of world events).
Anyway, regardless as to quality of various countries news systems, the news in general does tend to blow things a bit out of proportion. For instance, SARS a few years ago... more people died of Car Accidents in a day than people who died of SARS in the entire epidemic (from what I've heard).
Anywho, just my 2 cents (CDN) worth.
jamesdenver
03-14-07, 12:52 PM
It is my understanding that the American news system is a lot more censored than the Canadian News System. Apparently (or so I have been told), some Americans have come up here to watch CBC to get an idea of what it going on in their own country. That said, I even find CBC to be particularly biased in some areas (Particularly Politics).
In Social 30, our teacher started giving us news clips from the BBC instead, because I guess they have better coverage than CBC even (especially of world events).
Anyway, regardless as to quality of various countries news systems, the news in general does tend to blow things a bit out of proportion. For instance, SARS a few years ago... more people died of Car Accidents in a day than people who died of SARS in the entire epidemic (from what I've heard).
Anywho, just my 2 cents (CDN) worth.
It's not censored, but a company can choose to air whatever story it wants, and put whatever spin on it deemed fit for them.
For example you can have two people discussing an issue. But if the person defending one side is less than educated or an idiot than it automatically makes the other side more powerful. Watch the movie "Outfoxed". Good glimpse into Fox News.
My daily news consists of local newspapers from various cities, BBC, NPR, and scanning Google News or other compilations which pull stories from all papers, TV sites and sources worldwide. I refused to watch any news program where I'm being yelled at, or people are yelling at each other.
BostonFixed
03-14-07, 01:11 PM
They said that in the past few years 450 people had been killed on public transit by terrorist acts- worldwide.
How many people have been killed by terrorists in private automobiles in the last few years?
How many people have been killed by terrorists in private automobiles in the last few years?Not sure what you mean, are you talking about car bombings and such?
jamesdenver
03-14-07, 01:36 PM
Yeah and how many people have been killed by distracted drivers who were looking in the rear view mirror checking for terrorists and hitmen hiding in the back seat?
BostonFixed
03-14-07, 02:38 PM
Not sure what you mean, are you talking about car bombings and such?
Well, the news report mentioned that 450 people were killed worldwide in terrorist attacks on public transit, I was asking how many were killed in private autos. Probably quite a bit less than 450, if there actually are any.
Either way, comparing the amount of deaths from terrorism on public transit to highway automobile deaths or terrorist attacks on private autos is pretty silly.
A terrorist attack on public transit is indeed a real possiblility, just as any public crowded place is vulnerable, such as sporting event, concert, etc.
when an errant Cessna strays over the pentagon we run into the basement crying like little 5 year olds
... even though terrorism, globally or in the USA, is far, far less dangerous than automobiles
... in terms of how many people are killed or injured, and how many people will be killed for as long as we can reliably figure.
Despite putting you somewhere where you could be a tiny bit vulnerable to terrorism, (but then, automobiles are too, especially on bridges) public transit is incredibly safe. Even if you take into account that public transit goes to dark places at night, and places where poor people live, and even neighborhoods where crazy drug addicts live.
kjohnnytarr
03-14-07, 03:22 PM
Fear is just a tool. Fact is, the powers that be generally just like us better when we're scared:
For the gov't, it's about control
For the media, it sells stories
For lawyers, it keeps us knocking on their doors
For healthcare, it keeps us popping pills we don't need
For retail, it keeps us buying "safer, better" products
In education, it acts as a way to discourage too much creativity
In business, it pumps up competition...
**** that.
It's not censored, but a company can choose to air whatever story it wants, and put whatever spin on it deemed fit for them.
For example you can have two people discussing an issue. But if the person defending one side is less than educated or an idiot than it automatically makes the other side more powerful. Watch the movie "Outfoxed". Good glimpse into Fox News.
My daily news consists of local newspapers from various cities, BBC, NPR, and scanning Google News or other compilations which pull stories from all papers, TV sites and sources worldwide. I refused to watch any news program where I'm being yelled at, or people are yelling at each other.
I believe Fox news is still waiting for news about WMDs in Iraq... but, in general, TV news is not a good way to get information. I notice that CBS news is sponsored by Exxon Mobil and I find their coverage of climate change a little "unique", although I would never challenge their "objectivity". I personally read a couple of newspapers online. NY Times. If you want a real international perspective, read the BBC news.
I think Fox news would just give me high blood pressure.
likeakidagain
03-15-07, 06:12 AM
I thought this thread might have been about safety..Just this week ride on and metrobus colided and had serious injuries in Wheaton MD
HandsomeRyan
03-15-07, 07:46 AM
i would rather get blown up (or otherwise killed) living my life as i see fit (incuding the use of public transportation) than to live forever in fear of what "could" happen.
If you change your life and are afraid to do things becasue of terrorism, they have already won. (hence the word Terrorist, they aren't nesicarily out to kill you they want to control you through fear)
NotAsFat
03-15-07, 09:34 AM
I bet you heard that on Fox News? If you watched TV more you'd know that this kind of disinformation is par for the course.
And the so-called "mainstream" media are any better? Remember Memogate? Rather was still insisting the documents were real, even as security escorted him from the CBS building. :rolleyes:
All news media outlets spin the news according to their biases and prejudices. Fox News will at least present both sides of a story. The rest of the mass media won't even admit there could be a legitimate viewpoint that disagrees with theirs.
The Bush administration is flogging the terrorist threat to divert attention from their massive failures over the last 6 years, especially their botched response to 9/11.
You make it seem like our Government is colluding with a private corporation to engage in psychological warfare against us. The presentation had no conclusion it left me with a feeling of uncertainty as to what they were telling people to do. You work with psychologists don't you? Do you think the segment was meant to create a feeling of unease in viewers to prep them to more readily accept the information in a follow-on segment or a commercial? It didn't make sense to me in isolation.
ryanparrish
03-15-07, 01:59 PM
Terrorists and global warming is like the hold bomb shelters duck and cover! Its the red scare re hashed and repackaged it is mind control for idiots
Fox News will at least present both sides of a story.
Huh!? :eek:
Terrorists and global warming is like the hold bomb shelters duck and cover! Its the red scare re hashed and repackaged it is mind control for idiots
The analogy I would make is communism->terrorism and acid rain->>global warming. That would fit the mold. Doesn't mean there weren't communists or terrorists or acid or global warming.
Dahon.Steve
03-15-07, 09:36 PM
Last night I was visiting someone with a TV and when the news came on they had a scary presentation of the danger to us of using public transit.
Alright that's it. I'm never riding public transit again. I'm scared to death now. Tomorrow I'm buying a Hummer first thing in the morning. Good night! ;-)
How many people have been killed by terrorists in private automobiles in the last few years?
I would say most of them. The Oklahoma City bombing and the first WTC bombing were both carried out by "motorists." Also the two US embassy bombings in Africa. And of course a large number of the bombings in Iraq.
That's why they call them "car bombings," AFAIK. :rolleyes:
Now how many have been killed by terrorists on Bicycles?
A terrorist attack on public transit is indeed a real possiblility, just as any public crowded place is vulnerable, such as sporting event, concert, etc.
That's true, a terrorist attack on public transit, or against innnocent people in any public place, is indeed a real possibility. And it's completely impossible to make these places impervious to terrorist attack, unless you're willing to give up all of your civil liberties and subject yourself to constant government suveillance. So, you're left with a choice: live with the miniscule risk that some nutcase with a grudge might kill you someday, hide in your house, or move to North Korea.
All news media outlets spin the news according to their biases and prejudices. Fox News will at least present both sides of a story. The rest of the mass media won't even admit there could be a legitimate viewpoint that disagrees with theirs.
Fox News presents both sides of a story??? Since when? Isn't that the channel where Ann Coulter first shared her view that the widows of 911 were actually enjoying their husbands' deaths? Where the words of George and Dick are still repeated in tones of hushed reverence? Where no one ever mentions IPCC? Where every single person who appears on screen, with the possible exception of Geraldo Rivera, that paragon of journalistic integrity, is clearly a WASP? Fox News is a channel that Goebbels would've LOVED.
NotAsFat
03-17-07, 09:03 AM
Where every single person who appears on screen, with the possible exception of Geraldo Rivera, that paragon of journalistic integrity, is clearly a WASP?You do know the definition of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), don't you? Is Juan Williams a WASP? I don't think so. Is Bill O'Reilly a WASP? Not likely. Charles Krauthammer? Uh-uh. Neil Cavuto? I doubt it. Uma Pemmaraju? Get real.
Does Fox have a conservative bias? Certainly. Do the other networks have a liberal bias? Certainly. Do other news outlets keep people around who say or write reprehensible things? Yep, the Washington Post hasn't fired Bill Arkin for writing that our troops are mercenaries. They had Ted Rall on the payroll as a cartoonist for years, and some of his stuff makes Michael Moore sound like Dick Cheney.
The NY Times has repeatedly run stories about American intelligence sources and methods which have given our enemies tips on how to evade us. I find that far more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter has ever said.
You do know the definition of WASP (White Anglo-Saxon Protestant), don't you? Is Juan Williams a WASP? I don't think so. Is Bill O'Reilly a WASP? Not likely. Charles Krauthammer? Uh-uh. Neil Cavuto? I doubt it. Uma Pemmaraju? Get real.
Does Fox have a conservative bias? Certainly. Do the other networks have a liberal bias? Certainly. Do other news outlets keep people around who say or write reprehensible things? Yep, the Washington Post hasn't fired Bill Arkin for writing that our troops are mercenaries. They had Ted Rall on the payroll as a cartoonist for years, and some of his stuff makes Michael Moore sound like Dick Cheney.
The NY Times has repeatedly run stories about American intelligence sources and methods which have given our enemies tips on how to evade us. I find that far more disgusting than anything Ann Coulter has ever said.
If you think Fox News and the Washington Post represent opposite ends of the spectrum, I don't know what to tell you. At any rate, what sets Fox apart is it utter shamelessness. It repeats almost verbatim the party line of the far right wing of the GOP, viciously attacks those who disagree as traitors or immoral, does not shrink from telling outright lies, and then has the nerve to claim it's fair and balanced "news."
And BTW, if terrorists need to read the NYT to find out how to carry out their attacks, we have very little to fear from them.
(I promise I'll stick more to bikes from now on...)
urban rider
03-17-07, 06:29 PM
I often wonder about today's newscaster. How do they feel about scaring the *ell out of folks watching the news. They even make reporting the weather a scary subject. "It's going to be a nice day. . . but for how long?' I am better off not watching the news at all.
Gas, the price of a can of beans.
NotAsFat
03-18-07, 06:57 AM
If you think Fox News and the Washington Post represent opposite ends of the spectrum, I don't know what to tell you.
[snip]
And BTW, if terrorists need to read the NYT to find out how to carry out their attacks, we have very little to fear from them.
(I promise I'll stick more to bikes from now on...)
I don't consider either Fox News or the Washington Post to be anywhere near the extremes of the Right/Left spectrum. If you think Fox News is far Right, you ought to check out worldnetdaily.com (http://worldnetdaily.com/) or frontpagemag.com (http://www.frontpagemag.com) (Coulter has a regular column there). I used the Post as an example of how even moderately Left outlets often associate themselves with slimy creatures.
Anytime you reveal an intelligence source, you destroy the usefulness of that source. This aids the enemy, and in wartime, is arguably treasonous. It doesn't matter how much or little it helps them, aid to an enemy is aid to an enemy, and is despicable.
Anytime you reveal an intelligence source, you destroy the usefulness of that source. This aids the enemy, and in wartime, is arguably treasonous. It doesn't matter how much or little it helps them, aid to an enemy is aid to an enemy, and is despicable.
AFAIK, the only ones who have revealed intelligence sources are the administration, with their outing of Valerie Plame--clearly planned at the highest levels of the White House.
vBulletin® v3.7.3, Copyright ©2000-2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.