> There is no limit to the stupidity of chair
> bound government bureaucrats.
And we won't even talk about the domestic enemy press who
run articles like this to ensure that any terrorists who,
having missed bin Laden's FAX on this topic, are brought
fully up to speed.
Until and unless this SOP changes, the traveling public
can help, by dressing like sky marshalls, and adopting
the sky marshall demeanor. Keep the bad guys guessing.
And we won't even talk about the domestic enemy press who run articles like this to ensure that any terrorists who, having missed bin Laden's FAX on this topic, are brought fully up to speed.
As if the article wasn't suggested by the TSA, or at least ran past the Feds before it was published? The same basic content has shown up all over the news, the basic message being that the "suit and tie" rules are being changed, and "air marshals will now look just like the sheeple".
I'd be the last person to suggest that the feds control editorial content, or have any sort of veto power over what is published.
From what I have seen (and I've seen a lot), for the most part the media is anything but in cahoots with government or politicians; nor do most media companies put pressure on editors and writers to put a particular slant on a story.
One obvious place where it's hard to argue that big media firms put pressure on individual newspapers is in political endorsements. I suspect the one other topic on which the big corps lean on their local outlets is regarding FCC ownership rules, but I can't prove that.
OTOH, editors do select which stories get written, and the Editor In Chief determines what gets printed and where (above the fold, or buried on page 23). Generally these are crusty old conservatives who might not share your sense of "family values", but otherwise have a lot more in common with FReeper than you'd think.
But in the end, it comes down to circulation, revenue, and profit margins.