USA - Inspect the Passengers, But not the Food Trucks.

[Virgin Bart]

OMG her way of speaking makes me rage.

That music and shouting has made me feel the appropriate amount of outrage!!!!!!!!

It's very difficult to listen to her shouting at us...

 

[Renato1]

Just because they tell you they're fair and balanced doesn't mean they are...

All I can say is watch it.

In their prime type line-up, the Carlson and Ingraham programs routinely have as guests numerous very lefty progressive types, as well as more conservative types on any particular topic. Both get their views across on the two out of the four biggest prime time cable shows in America. Hannity less so.

Fox News even have the Shepard Smith program, who Trump dislikes intensely (among several others there) and keeps asking why he's not working at CNN.

In his Media Watch Dog blog, media comentator Gerard Henderson often points out that there is far more diversity of opinion on Fox News than one finds on our ABC.
Regards.
Renato

 

[get me outta here]

I was under the impression that far from it, during testing, the TSA missed guns, ammo, knives, all sorts of dangerous things that should have been picked up.

When on the subway from JFK to NYC, I could hear about 30 different languages and accents just in one carriage. All these people had luggage. Just an ideal place to create an international incident involving many people.

Many love to bag the TSA, airline/airport security measures, etc, but the authorities seem to be doing an absolutely stellar job in stopping idiots messing with this form of transport.

 

[get me outta here]

Fox trades on scarring people into submission. It is the modern day version of fairy tales. Scare the s**t out of children to get them to behave the way parents think they should otherwise the big bad wolf will eat them all up etc.

 

[juddles]

I was under the impression that far from it, during testing, the TSA missed guns, ammo, knives, all sorts of dangerous things that should have been picked up.
.....

get me outta here, my point was that overall the combination of whoever is doing whatever, seems to be working. I have heard of those specific TSA tests, and agree that they seem to be very inept.

 

[NoName]

All I can say is watch it.

In their prime type line-up, the Carlson and Ingraham programs routinely have as guests numerous very lefty progressive types, as well as more conservative types on any particular topic. Both get their views across on the two out of the four biggest prime time cable shows in America. Hannity less so.

Fox News even have the Shepard Smith program, who Trump dislikes intensely (among several others there) and keeps asking why he's not working at CNN.

In his Media Watch Dog blog, media comentator Gerard Henderson often points out that there is far more diversity of opinion on Fox News than one finds on our ABC.
Regards.
Renato

This is satire right?

If you think Fox News presents a balanced view you have really had the wool pulled over your eyes. They are a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, little more. And there is nothing wrong with that. They are a private business and entitled to present whatever opinion they like.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Forget the food trucks. I understand the bigger issue is the screening of cargo (or not )

 

[Renato1]

This is satire right?

If you think Fox News presents a balanced view you have really had the wool pulled over your eyes. They are a mouthpiece for the Republican Party, little more. And there is nothing wrong with that. They are a private business and entitled to present whatever opinion they like.

I said that Fox News is fair and balanced, pointing out that they routinely present both sides of an issue by having progressive and conservative guests presenting their views on an issue, and also by having presenters who are not all of the same political opinion.

You've made the unsupported assertion that they are not balanced.

You haven't addressed the points I made.
Regards,
Renato

 

[dajop]

About as balanced as, say Q&A, then?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I said that Fox News is fair and balanced, pointing out that they routinely present both sides of an issue by having progressive and conservative guests presenting their views on an issue, and also by having presenters who are not all of the same political opinion.

You've made the unsupported assertion that they are not balanced.

You haven't addressed the points I made.
Regards,
Renato

Yes, but the 'progressives' are often 'fake' progressives. Their purpose is to set up incredulous arguments for the conservatives to knock down. It's all part of the show.

 

[NoName]

Yes, but the 'progressives' are often 'fake' progressives. Their purpose is to set up incredulous arguments for the conservatives to knock down. It's all part of the show.

Exactly! The “progressives” they trot out are typically nobodies who lack the personality to assert their opinion. They are basically on there to be the punching bag of the hosts and other guests and ensure the real point of view is hammered home. I mean having Juan Williams on there is simply for comedy purposes surely? Then previously You had Alan Combes being the hapless sidekick of Hannity for years.

As I said, calling them fair and balanced has to be satire. It’s just totally laughable.

 

[JessicaTam]

[mod hat]
Back to the thread topic please folks.
[/mod hat]

 

[Renato1]

Yes, but the 'progressives' are often 'fake' progressives. Their purpose is to set up incredulous arguments for the conservatives to knock down. It's all part of the show.

Exactly! The “progressives” they trot out are typically nobodies who lack the personality to assert their opinion. They are basically on there to be the punching bag of the hosts and other guests and ensure the real point of view is hammered home. I mean having Juan Williams on there is simply for comedy purposes surely? Then previously You had Alan Combes being the hapless sidekick of Hannity for years.

As I said, calling them fair and balanced has to be satire. It’s just totally laughable.

So far I've posted two threads here from Fox News - specifically the Tucker Carlson program - both pointing out problems with US air safety, namely the application of diversity principles in selecting Air Traffic Controllers, and this one about inadequate checking of what goes into planes. Both of which have had consequences, with the respective authorities having to take action.

Result - bagging of Fox news, instead making claims about Fake Progressives, when they all have either worked for progessive politicians, or are prominent leftist professors, journalists and radio broadcasters - and who are brought on the programs to discuss issues raised by serious Democratic candidates or serious Democrats in power (i.e. not made up incredulous arguments as stated).

Have we seen any of the other networks being as insistent about US air safety?
Not newsworthy enough?
Or was say the diversity issue for air traffic controllers too hot to touch for them?
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Have we seen any of the other networks being as insistent about US air safety?
Not newsworthy enough?
Or was say the diversity issue for air traffic controllers too hot to touch for them?
Regards,
Renato

Or is it that focussing on this issue is a distraction away from other ‘real’ issues facing the Administration? (that is, the issues around air safety divert resources and attention from others).

We discussed the diversity issue at length and there was little, if any, merit to the argument. Sure action might have been taken, but that doesn’t mean it was critical or even necessary. Sometimes you take action to satisfy your critics so you can get on with the real job.

When a network with strong political views (either side, not just to the right) runs a story, it is sometimes worth having a loom a the strategic drivers. Do we actually think Fox has made the aviation industry safer by questioning the security of food trucks? Of course not (although that might just be a consequential benefit). But it’s not likely to prime driver of the story.

 

[Renato1]

Do we actually think Fox has made the aviation industry safer by questioning the security of food trucks? Of course not (although that might just be a consequential benefit). But it’s not likely to prime driver of the story.

Let's see.
They check bags for bombs and little pairs of scissors.
They scan everybody and get good shots of them totally naked under their clothes, in case they are carrying explosives on their body.
They randomly check people with tests for explosives.
They often then check bags again before going in planes.

And on any one given day, some people can load bombs in the food trays of planes across the country, where each bomb only has a 50% chance of being detected.

Why do you think Fox has not made the aviation industry safer?
Regards,
Renato

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Why do you think Fox has not made the aviation industry safer?
Regards,
Renato

As you said in your opening post... if the terrorist didn’t know about it already, they do now.

The fact that Fox is playing this story would mean either (a) there is no ongoing threat (because it’s already been investigated, and current processes are deemed sufficient) or (b) it is a serious issue, which hasn’t been fixed, and now Fox has alerted everyone.

So either on grounds (a) or (b), they have not made the aviation industry any safer.

With the air traffic controllers, likewise, they didn’t make aviation any safer. Every recruit who graduates has to pass the same high level exams on completion in order to get to the control tower. So it doesn’t matter if they took the worst recruits, they will all be at the same high standard by the end of their training. Again, the fox report hasn’t made the industry any safer.

Fox has highlighted issues, but highlighting an issue doesn’t always get results (sometimes because there are no results ‘to get’)

 

[harvyk]

Let's see.
They check bags for bombs and little pairs of scissors.
They scan everybody and get good shots of them totally naked under their clothes, in case they are carrying explosives on their body.
They randomly check people with tests for explosives.
They often then check bags again before going in planes.

And on any one given day, some people can load bombs in the food trays of planes across the country, where each bomb only has a 50% chance of being detected.

Why do you think Fox has not made the aviation industry safer?
Regards,
Renato

As strange as it sounds, just because a risk exists, does not mean that it needs to be plugged. The first step in risk management is about determining the likelihood of an event happening, the likely outcome of if that event comes to fruition.

When determining the likelihood of an event happening, you also need to look at mitigating factors, is there things which prevent the event from happening further up the chain? Is there other things there that would likely reduce the severity of the event should it happen?

There is also a matter of limited resources when determining how to handle risks. In some cases handling removes that risk factor full stop, in other cases that risk factor has mitigation which reduces either the likelihood or severity.

Now to pick on the matter of limited resources and bring it back to this, how does the TSA officer truly know what risk assessments have been done? Unless that officer has been directly involved in the formation of the risk matrix, with the full data available, they can not possibly know the full extent of risks.

That brings me to my second point. There is always limited resources, limited person-power, limited money. Therefore it is important to dedicate those resources to where they will do the most good. A proper risk matrix will tell you where to dedicate resources to reduce or eliminate the highest risks whilst keeping the system still workable.


So as a counter to "scanning of food trucks means we're safer", I would offer the following counter points.

- What if every single employee in the catering company had undergone a proper background check?
- What if in taking resources to scan food trucks it means that baggage scanning is now under-resourced, and thus baggage from the general public is now more likely to be accepted onto a plane without proper security checking?
- What if the training for how to safely scan food to ensure contamination did not occur it redirected resources from programs which actually mitigate proven risk?
- What if the food safety guidelines were not followed, food contamination occurred?


Now yes, there is certainly value in some security theater, if nothing else it stops the crazies and opportunists, but in saying that where do you think the real aircraft security happens? I'll give you a hint, its got very little to do with the officer sitting at the airport.

 

[Renato1]

As strange as it sounds, just because a risk exists, does not mean that it needs to be plugged. The first step in risk management is about determining the likelihood of an event happening, the likely outcome of if that event comes to fruition.

When determining the likelihood of an event happening, you also need to look at mitigating factors, is there things which prevent the event from happening further up the chain? Is there other things there that would likely reduce the severity of the event should it happen?

There is also a matter of limited resources when determining how to handle risks. In some cases handling removes that risk factor full stop, in other cases that risk factor has mitigation which reduces either the likelihood or severity.

Now to pick on the matter of limited resources and bring it back to this, how does the TSA officer truly know what risk assessments have been done? Unless that officer has been directly involved in the formation of the risk matrix, with the full data available, they can not possibly know the full extent of risks.

That brings me to my second point. There is always limited resources, limited person-power, limited money. Therefore it is important to dedicate those resources to where they will do the most good. A proper risk matrix will tell you where to dedicate resources to reduce or eliminate the highest risks whilst keeping the system still workable.


So as a counter to "scanning of food trucks means we're safer", I would offer the following counter points.

- What if every single employee in the catering company had undergone a proper background check?
- What if in taking resources to scan food trucks it means that baggage scanning is now under-resourced, and thus baggage from the general public is now more likely to be accepted onto a plane without proper security checking?
- What if the training for how to safely scan food to ensure contamination did not occur it redirected resources from programs which actually mitigate proven risk?
- What if the food safety guidelines were not followed, food contamination occurred?


Now yes, there is certainly value in some security theater, if nothing else it stops the crazies and opportunists, but in saying that where do you think the real aircraft security happens? I'll give you a hint, its got very little to do with the officer sitting at the airport.

In any risk assessment the main criterion is what will bring the plane down.

Taking lots of little pairs of scissors and nail clippers off passengers does nothing to prevent bringing a plane down. That was a one shot trick that worked at 9/11 - pilots wouldn't open their doors now, and passengers started fighting back against slightly armed terrorists in the fourth plane.

It strikes me that another one shot trick would be food trucks.
Kind of hard to have employees background checked to stop that - are you going to have a muslim or muslim convert ban on who works in those places? Far too many terrorists have a totally clean record - that's who recruiters look for.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Renato1]

As you said in your opening post... if the terrorist didn’t know about it already, they do now.

The fact that Fox is playing this story would mean either (a) there is no ongoing threat (because it’s already been investigated, and current processes are deemed sufficient) or (b) it is a serious issue, which hasn’t been fixed, and now Fox has alerted everyone.

So either on grounds (a) or (b), they have not made the aviation industry any safer.

With the air traffic controllers, likewise, they didn’t make aviation any safer. Every recruit who graduates has to pass the same high level exams on completion in order to get to the control tower. So it doesn’t matter if they took the worst recruits, they will all be at the same high standard by the end of their training. Again, the fox report hasn’t made the industry any safer.

Fox has highlighted issues, but highlighting an issue doesn’t always get results (sometimes because there are no results ‘to get’)

"it is a serious issue, which hasn’t been fixed, and now Fox has alerted everyone."
..... and so, Fox have had it fixed. Again, why do you think Fox has not made the aviation industry safer?

As for air traffic controllers, you seem to assume that everyone who passes the test is the best.
If a score of 85% or 90% qualifies as an A+, and they all get A+s to graduate and become air traffic controllers, you may be satisfied. But others would point out that an even better outcome is people who score 95% or more, had they not been unfairly denied recruitment.
Regards,
Renato

 

[Happy Trails]

The first step in risk management is about determining the likelihood of an event happening, the likely outcome of if that event comes to fruition.

The first steps are establishing the context and identifying the risks.
Then comes the risk analysis.