A Stream of Hate Mail -- the TSA Story Revisited

Then live up to your Cleveland Park Listserv etiquette. Your original article's first paragraph, written by you, I assume, contains: "This isn't one of those Catch-22 bureaucratic snafus; this isn't about
rules being applied to the letter. This story is mostly about what can
happen simply because the authorities in charge decide that they're
going to exercise their authority because they can, regardless of
whether it's legal or right or makes any sense at all."

So much for the rule against "question[ing] people's motives rather than questioning the facts behind an argument." Much of the criticism I read in comments was leveled against you for editorializing and passing it off as "citizen journalism". Your final paragraph of same article, especially the final 2 sentences, likewise is an indictment of one side, not a reporting of the facts. You didn't bother with the facts. On the Internet (as elsewhere), anyone can claim anything, with no proof. What magically turns this into journalism, when you are taking one person's word and then amplifying it with your own opinions and prejudices?

Mr. Adler - stop backpedalling on your "Nightmare at Reagan National Airport" story and step up to admit your error.  You created this "Nightmare" by reporting it as you did without both sides of the story or the facts.

It's apparent to any reasonable person, looking at this objectively, that Ms. Emmerson misrepresented what happened and you, sir, touting yourself as a "citizen journalist" reported it as something it was not.  Your hope for more video to support these false claims seems a pathetic attempt to justify your actions.

I would term you a citizen journalist only if citizen was defined as non- or false.  Webster's defines a journalist as "a person engaged in journalism" and journalism is defined as "writing characterized by a direct presentation of facts or description of events without an attempt at interpretation".   I don't think you made the cut, Bill.

What on earth is the point of this follow-up follow-up? To martyr yourself?

Sure, there's a lot of inarticulate ugliness in the comments to the last post. But there's a lot of thoughtful commentary as well.  Did you read any of it?  How about quoting and commenting on some of the feedback from smart, skeptical fans of what you're doing here (most of the time) instead?  You don't have to cast your net very far to find a troll.

If you're not going to step up, so be it. But now you're posting just to keep yourself in the story, and that's sad.

"Citizen journalists, almost by definition, aren't always able to get to the bottom of an investigation. We don't have the resources, the access, the institutional support to get all the facts. Our role is sometimes to get a story told, to bring it to the public's attention, where additional scrutiny and investigation can reveal more. "

Yes, citizen journalists don't have the resources to conduct a full investigation. But since when did it take resources to call the TSA public affairs division? Even if you didn't get a response, at elast you could say you tried. And does it take resources to use the words "alleged" or "according to"? Besides when you quote directly from her writing, you report on the incident as if you were actually there. Yes, the internet makes it easy for anonymous jerks to cuss you out. But the internet also makes it easy for reactionaries like you to post stories as fact that you have absolutely no confirmation on.

Hey, Monica Emmerson just accused some Duke lacrosse players of rape.  "Journalistic" gold!  You get on it buddy, you're the only one I trust to deliver the news.

The story is about how easy it is to hurl insults at one another?  What a nice way to divert attention from your irresponsible blog entry.

You continue to overlook the fact that regardless of no sound and an incomplete video - the video matches the report written by the TSA and DOES NOT AT ALL match what Monica Emmerson said happened, which you reported without digging further to get all the facts.  

You definitely have an agenda.  The real story is how irresponsible people like you are in this world and the self importance of some people who blog.  

The more you write about this issue without addressing the mistakes you've made, the deeper you dig your own grave.
Your initial mistake was to take someone's story as fact and then present it to the public as such.
You compounded this first mistake when you didn't retract (or at least clarify) it, when evidence contrary to the initial story surfaced.
Instead, you tried to mitigate your position by stating that the video released by TSA doesn't tell the whole story and that'll we'll never know the truth.
 
While I agree that the TSA video may have been edited and doesn't give the "whole" picture, why are you not giving them equal consideration, considering how you took Ms. Emmerson's story hook, line and sinker? (And believe me, I am no fan of TSA.)
Any reasonable person can see that Ms. Emmerson purposely dumped the water out of the cup, contradicting her victim story of "accidentally spilling it when the big bad TSA men scared the wits out of her".
 
You're ready and willing to espouse one version of the story as gospel, but not willing to redress the issue when TSA's video comes out?
That's just pure nonsense on your part and indicates your lack of judgement and character.
 
While there is no excuse for the abusive language used to denounce your actions, some people are not articulate enough to indicate their disgust at you without using it.
Their words may be inappropriate but their feelings are real, and perhaps you should take some time to reflect on that the next time you want to visit this story, or write something new.