Irresponsible Reporting

Gee, two pit threads in one day!

I’ve been hearing news reports on whether or not the Internet is a viable target for terrorists. I say not bloody likely! Hey, you news organizations, how about being responsible for a change? Of course the 'Net can’t be a viable target, mainly because it doesn’t exist in any centralized location!

What the hell?

I’m glad that I didn’t hear this first thing in the morning. I don’t know if I could deal with it.

But maybe the people who decide what stories to run just don’t know. Today I almost convinced my roommate that I could send him anthrax through his e-mail.

Terrorists destroyed our company’s internet links for most of last week, causing an unpleasant irruption of real work into my lifestyle, which has taken until now to resolve.

Okay… technically, they weren’t terrorists, they were British Telecom engineers carrying out “routine maintenance”. But, believe me, it comes to the same thing.

They’d have to get in line behind the script kiddies.

Sorry to double-post, but I wanted to add more.

What is it with the media that the actual bombings and the actual cases of Anthrax aren’t fucking good enough? “60 Minutes” had a story last week on what we’ll do if Smallpox gets released and how terrible it is.

Hey, what if the terrorists slam an asteroid into Washington DC? Or develop zombie technology? Or, god forbid, get time travel capabilities?

The media has already seriously compromised itself with its unabashed delight in revealing every new possible exposure to anthrax, and yet that still isn’t enough, they still have to throw out every possible doomsday scenario they can think of. And while I doubt any terrorists are taking notes as reporters talk to government people who shudder at the thought of whatever hypothetical plan has been offered up for the viewer, I can’t help but think this is counter-productive.

We don’t need the terrorists to spread terror throughout the country. The media has taken over the job.