I, For One, Welcome Our Mooninite Overlords
VERY IMPORTANT ETA: The BPDNews, which is kind of an electronic feed that anyone can check into, makes note of the 1:02 p.m. simulated pipe bomb that was found in a desk draw at the New England Medical Center that occurred at the height of yesterday's chaos.
The simulated pipe bomb, while not a real pipe bomb, was a legitimate emergency situation ( Read more... )
The simulated pipe bomb, while not a real pipe bomb, was a legitimate emergency situation ( Read more... )
I'm dismayed at the people who are mocking/criticizing city officials for treating the devices as suspicious just because they were decorated with a picture of a cartoon character. (City officials made a lot of mistakes yesterday, but IMHO that wasn't one of them.) These mockers/critics imply that anyone should be able to tell the difference between a real bomb and a fake one. I strongly disagree with that assumption. This incident shows that most people are likely to assume that such devices are not dangerous -- which is a dangerous assumption in itself.
The "Lite Brites" weren't bombs, but they could have been -- or they could have been disguises for containers of poison gas or airborne bacteria (I know, it's unlikely, but it's not impossible). The outside decoration is irrelevant -- what's relevant in this case is that devices with batteries and wires were placed on the underside of bridges leading in and out of the city.
I agree with kaydee23's comment to your post yesterday -- I wonder whether real terrorists are now thinking "hey, let's disguise bombs as advertising -- after the Lite Brite incident in Boston, everyone will ignore them!" And I wonder whether real terrorists are taking note of the lack of action in the other cities, such as Seattle, and marking them as possible future targets.
In my opinion, it was completely appropriate to consider them suspicious and possibly bombs. I'm glad they were treated as suspicious! I'm sorry that so many people were inconvenienced, but the blame lies mostly on the shoulders of the suits at Turner Broadcasting who had the incredibly poor judgment to authorize such a wrongheaded marketing stunt.
I also question the judgment of any official in any city who would allow anyone to attach things that could be mistaken for bombs/terrorist weapons to public structures like bridges, regardless of their intent. (Side thought: And why is commercial advertising being allowed on public/government structures, anyway? I thought there was a law against that. There must be, otherwise every bridge would be covered with ads!)
Reply
I don't have a problem with the early response. I don't even have a problem with the state and city police remaining cautions after they blew up the first Lite Brite. Yes, the one at Sullivan Square was a Lite Brite, but the one on the BU Bridge might not be.
Where I have a problem is that after city officials knew what was going on, they continued to use inflammatory language. They're still using inflammatory language. Now, maybe they're doing it for legal reasons to make sure Turner pays the hell up for the inconvenience (and let me make it clear: Turner should pay restitution and civil fines for the stunt - and given the very early and public apologies issued by the company I suspect they will), but it's the day after.
Honestly? What I'm actually upset about is that the two artists are being charged at all. They were hired to do a job, which they did. They are not responsible for Turner's or the marketing firm's fuck-up and they shouldn't be blamed for it. I think most people rallying to support the artists agree that Turner does need to suck it up and pay the penalties, so I think a lot of the tittering is part relief, part feeling stupid that we were dealing with Lite Brites.
Reply
- What, if anything, is going to be done about the fact that the devices were undetected for a couple of weeks. (Whose job would that be? Police? Dept. of Public Works?)
- Will there be accountability at Turner Broadcasting? Who will get fired?
Reply
Leave a comment