posted
Some people are saying that Cartoon Network should be held responsible that Boston closed part of its city because they thought 10 promotional devices were bombs.
I feel that it isn't the network's fault that Boston went haywire. Why on earth would you put lights on your bomb, place it in a very conspicuous place and have it give you the finger? That would seriously not be very smart, although it did take two weeks for Boston to react to a "possible bomb" which makes me wonder what the scenario would've been if it had been a real threat with secluded bombs. My bet is that Boston wouldn't have had a chance.
I can't wait to see the parody episode of this.
quote: Besides, no one would want to blow up Boston. Nothing good ever came from there.
posted
It looked like a lite bright thing, so I don't know how the HELL these people could have thought it was a bomb. There's no way those cubs who thought of the idea should get jail time for these people and their overreacting. It's like smacking a child just because you're having a bad day. But, perhaps the network should pay just to get the city to shut up.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Boston just doesn't like the feeling of being the nations laughing stock so they obviously won't admit that they made a mistake and overreacted.
posted
In LosAngeles during the advertising blitz for MissionImpossibleIII, audio playback machines which were triggered by opening newspaper vending machines caused a similar "It's a bomb!" after mechanical failures left behind just "boxes with dangling wires".
So the guerilla marketing firm responsible for the Boston fiasco was probably well aware that its publicity stunt also would be likely to cause a citywide bomb scare. Quite possibly, they chose their specific stunt in hopes of producing a LosAngeles-like reaction because "There ain't no such thing as bad publicity."
posted
LMAO I think its funny they'll admit the things had been up for weeks, but still claim it was some kinda hoax. Besides I thought the point of a bomb was to not draw attention to it.
Posts: 38 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Frankly I hope that the FederalCommunicationsCommission pulls TurnerBroadcasting's license. And that the Boston District Attorney files the harshest criminal charges possible against everybody who approved of or participated in the advertising campaign. Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction, but facing the possibility of prison plus the time&expense of defending against the charges oughtta scare businesses away from pulling similar pranks in the future.
posted
The boxes didn't light up in daytime, so it wasn't as obvious then. They didn't do anything about them (likely didn't even know about them) until some citizen reported one of them (that was located near/at the subway) as suspicious. Also, being the good doobies that they are with respect to homeland security, the T (Boston's subway system) has had a campaign for months asking passengers to report anything suspicious around the trains, which is COMPLETELY in line with the "stay vigilant" atmosphere cultivated by the federal homeland security.
The problem was the media ran away with the story long after the bomb squads had been informed of the purpose of the boxes... But they still had to be deployed.
You can laugh, and there is blame enough to go around in this case, but if you are a public official in this day and age, and you hear of a couple reports of suspicious items at various public infrastructure locations, how do you react?
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: Frankly I hope that the FederalCommunicationsCommission pulls TurnerBroadcasting's license. And that the Boston District Attorney files the harshest criminal charges possible against everybody who approved of or participated in the advertising campaign. Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction, but facing the possibility of prison plus the time&expense of defending against the charges oughtta scare businesses away from pulling similar pranks in the future.
You're kidding, right? Honestly, are you serious about what you just said?
It was a LIGHTBRITE. It was a bunch of LED lights with batteries. That's it. How do you confuse that with a bomb? This publicity technique was used in several other cities and only Boston thought it was inappropriate. Personally, even though I understand what happened in 9/11 was no laughing matter, I will not fear the terrorists because that is what they want. There is a difference between being cautious to attacks and being utterly paranoid. I refuse to live in fear. And what's up with wanting to get their license pulled? Aren't you exaggerating just one bit? All of this was a mistake and we gotta learn to let it go and laugh it off. The authorities were wrongly calling this a hoax and a "fake bomb". This would be correct if the case had been that Turner decided to scare us intentionally but why in the world would they put themselves at risk this way? This was not a "fake" or a "hoax", this was simply a publicity technique and we need to open up our minds and realize that. Personally, I think the public may be reacting a little immaturely about this matter, but then again a person may be smart but people sure are dumb (especially when they are in a state of panic).
If I was a city official and I heard of a suspicious object, then I'd have it investigated first before I sent out a Swat team that ended up costing over $700,000 worth of taxpayers money.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
So that's the trick. So "suspicious" is bad, but "obvious" is OK?
I bet if terrorists put a nuclear weapon inside a bright orange steamer trunk with the words "THIS IS A BOMB" written on it in flourescent green, and dropped it on the sidewalk in the middle of town it wouldn't get the level of response that this did.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
So anytime a terrorist wants to plant a bomb, s/he should just place LiteBrite-like packaging around it so people will ignore what should be viewed as a suspicious package? Cuz that is what will happen if stunts similar to those which occurred in LosAngeles and Boston become a part of corporate advertising culture. When was the last time you heard a car alarm go off, and not assume that the person taking off with the car was the owner who had accidentally triggered the alarm? When was the last time that you heard a car alarm go off without an immediate response from the owner, and not think "Somebody oughtta rip off that nuisance"?
Before 9/11, you had better believe that terrorists had probed security to find out what kind of weapons could be brought on board an aircraft without arousing suspicion before the decision was made to use boxcutters with 4inch snap-blades. Wanna another 9/11? 7/7 London? 3/11 Madrid? Well the advertising "genius"es behind the Boston stunt have performed a terrorist probe, have proved that you can leave packages for several weeks at target sites: ie those which are commonly heavily crowded. Set the timers 2+weeks beforehand, and blow up revellers at the eg Michigan vs OhioState post-game party gathering spots.
And "investigated first" how? Have a cop kick a box to see if it explodes? Have the bomb squads work in the middle of large crowds instead of calling in large numbers of police officers to evacuate the areas?
posted
My dear, any item with that description will cause the whole nation to panic. Especially with all the media coverage it would get.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just have to say, given that these things were around for WEEKS before anything was down about them, if they HAD been real bombs, we'd all be screwed. So in that sense, the city really failed it's people.
And why wouldn't they call off all the bomb squads after Turner owned up to what was going on?
Nice link AoD, when the one guy goes off on the "they'd been around for weeks" bit I was dying.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
The things is that it wasn't a "prank" or a "hoax." It is what it is. A creative marketing idea that got out of control. There is no proof that the ad company or Turner knew what would happen, or that they wanted the publicity of a bomb scare. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, but I don't think one should advocate sending them to jail based on a 'possible' or 'might'.
If it could be proved that they knew or expected this reaction, I would support their prosecution. But other than that, maybe they have to pay a fine or something.
Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city. I understand precaution; recently there was a suspicious package at the local airport and it was shut down for and hour or so. But they pretty quickly found out what it was and cancelled the alarm. Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Anyway, to sum up, I think the only law they broke was posting an advertisement without a permit. I don't think they diliberately misled anyone into thinking it was a bomb, though they may have diliberately misled some people into thinking there were Mooninites flicking them the bird. They should be fined however much it cost to illegally post signage multiplied by however many times they posted the ads. Barring further incriminating evidence, I would stop at that.
Posts: 2596 | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Did anyone else see the press conference done by the two who were arrested? It was very funny, they went an about hair styles through the decades. Whenever a reporter tried to ask them a question about he case, the two scolded the reporters and told them to stay on topic.
Though a couple reporters did play along. One asked if the main guy who was talking was afraid that they would cut his hair in prison. Posts: 1901 | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:It was a LIGHTBRITE. It was a bunch of LED lights with batteries. That's it. How do you confuse that with a bomb?
Bombs can look like any damn thing their makers want them to, Alt. They don't even have to be all that big. There would be plenty of room to hide a bomb in a litebrite, and still have it function as an actual litebrite as well.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote: Originally posted by aspectre: Wanna another 9/11? 7/7 London? 3/11 Madrid?
No. I want people to stop panicking, open up their minds and start using their brains to gather information and form their opinions based on several different sources instead of being spoon fed from your daily news broadcast, which more likely than not is heavily biased politically.
quote: And "investigated first" how? Have a cop kick a box to see if it explodes? Have the bomb squads work in the middle of large crowds instead of calling in large numbers of police officers to evacuate the areas?
Not necesarily have a cop kick it. Have a small team investigate the object without actually making physical contact in order to see if it indeed could be an explosive device (take a good look at it), for a Swat member this should be relatively easy task since they have pretty vast knowledge of explosives. I'd expect that someone who get's paid >70k a year should be able to tell the difference between a real bomb and a lightbrite. Besides, those things had been out there for WEEKS. It could not possible have been a bomb. Why don't you take a look at the second link I posted? I warn you that there is lots of a language, but you should find it informative.
And by the by, who in their right mind would WANT to bomb Boston? Please answer that to me. I'm not trying to put down the city, it's just that there are several other places that had those devices that could've been far more effective bombing sites for a terrorist. Like any city in California (God forbid!).
From my understanding of your logic, anyone could place a call to any city in the U.S. and claim that somewhere there is a bomb. Prank calling would sure be something else if it was.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely..." isn't enough to obtain 'beyond a reasonable doubt' guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors will scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
Posts: 8501 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city.
Like what? If you were in charge of a city and discovered that there were multiple suspicious devices planted in high traffic areas, would you really feel comfortable gambling with your citizen's lives by waiting until you were 100% certain that the objects were bombs before evacuating the area?
quote:Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Sure, they could have. Instead they erred on the side of caution, which was the responsible thing to do.
Posts: 16059 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:From my understanding of your logic, anyone could place a call to any city in the U.S. and claim that somewhere there is a bomb. Prank calling would sure be something else if it was.
Whole schools and government buildings have been evacuated with a mere phone call. Before 9/11, the call was usually ignored or not taken to that level.
Posts: 3486 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by vonk: The things is that it wasn't a "prank" or a "hoax." It is what it is. A creative marketing idea that got out of control. There is no proof that the ad company or Turner knew what would happen, or that they wanted the publicity of a bomb scare. Sure, it's possible, maybe even likely, but I don't think one should advocate sending them to jail based on a 'possible' or 'might'.
If it could be proved that they knew or expected this reaction, I would support their prosecution. But other than that, maybe they have to pay a fine or something.
Also, I think there should definitely be a way for them to tell if it's a bomb or not before shutting down half of the city. I understand precaution; recently there was a suspicious package at the local airport and it was shut down for and hour or so. But they pretty quickly found out what it was and cancelled the alarm. Could the Boston police/bomb squad not have figured out what this one device was before giving the terrorist alarm?
Anyway, to sum up, I think the only law they broke was posting an advertisement without a permit. I don't think they diliberately misled anyone into thinking it was a bomb, though they may have diliberately misled some people into thinking there were Mooninites flicking them the bird. They should be fined however much it cost to illegally post signage multiplied by however many times they posted the ads. Barring further incriminating evidence, I would stop at that.
posted
My initial reaction was that Turner and the Cartoon Network were in the bad. I now think that they should have anticipated that the city officials might inadvertently jump to the conclusion that these were bombs, and that they should ahve told the city what they were going to do. That said, the city and the FBI over reacted. 1) These things were in place for weeks. Someone with the city should have noticed, and likely did, these things much earlier. 2) After they removed the first one and saw that it was just a lighted sign, why continue to escalate the drama. 3) It shouldn't have taken too much effort to see that these things weren't bombs. This drama unfolded during the daytime, and the things weren't that unaccessable. Based on the video of these guy installing the things, it looks like they were no more than six feet above eye level. Boston, invest in a pair of binoculars and provide some vision screening for your cops.
Bottom line, although there were some things that the advertisers should have done as good citizens to prevent this, the city overreacted and is trying to cover its embarrassement by blaming someone else.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Mar 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely... isn't enough to obtain "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
I still believe that your opinions are exaggerated.
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Mig: Bottom line, although there were some things that the advertisers should have done as good citizens to prevent this, the city overreacted and is trying to cover its embarrassement by blaming someone else.
quote:Originally posted by Altáriël of Dorthonion:
quote:Originally posted by aspectre: I said "Probably won't be able to obtain a conviction..." precisely because "...possible, maybe even likely... isn't enough to obtain "beyond a reasonable doubt" guilty verdicts. The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future. Prevention of repeat performances is a good enough reason to "waste the money" on prosecution (attempts).
I still believe that your opinions are exaggerated.
Wait a mintute, did I read this right?
quote: The most that can be expected is that the Boston DistrictAttorney and Federal prosecutors scare the corporate culture enough to prevent such advertising campaigns from occurring in the future.
You mean using fear as a way to get others to do what you want?
ter·ror·ism: noun 1. the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, esp. for political purposes.
Isn't that what we're fighting in the first place?
Whatever happened to freedom of speech, and expression?
And why would I ever go to Baghdad? I'm trying to get away from the dangerous places, that's why I'm thinking of moving to some lost and desolate place that nobody really cares about like Wisconsin...
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree wiht your position AoD, I think it was inappropriate and I'm glad that it was investigated. I also think the kids were dorks to act that way after the ruckus they'd caused. I would love to see them prosecuted just for the complete disregard they had for the trouble they caused.
I would rather have unknown situations over-investigated than not taken seriously and have nothing done, even if it were weeks later. Ideally it would have been discovered sooner, ideally the investigation would have wrapped up a lot sooner and ideally the media wouldn't have gone nuts over it...it's easy to critisize after the fact but I don't see any other choice but to investigate each and every one, to be safe.
Posts: 697 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the city overreacted, but did so somewhat understandably.
I do not agree with the rationalization that the city reacted appropriately because the objects were anomalous in a high traffic area. Check out anomalous objects, sure, but be flexible to the fact that there's going to be safe anomalous objects in the public square.
I don't understand how what these guys did was illegal beyond, maybe, littering.
As Strider rightly points out, the real issue is the fact that the city didn't even react to the devices until weeks later, and when they did react, they overreacted to what was pretty clearly a false positive.
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Here's the thing. Even if you know, and have notified people in the city government (though there is no evidence that the city officials knew anything about these devices), you have to follow the procedures in place since 9/11. No doubt hundreds of citizens did see these things over the last couple of weeks, and thought nothing of it. That said, once one (or more) people report it, with the current political climate it is un-PC not to take the threat completely seriously, evacuate these public areas (which can't be worked around... You can't try and identify a bomb in an area still populated by lots of people without accepting an implied risk for those people).
Also, there were 38 of the devices, across the city, so we aren't talking one or two of the things. And from what I read, after they were notified, the law enforcement folks acted accordingly... It was the MEDIA COVERAGE that continued to stir fears. You can complain that maybe the city should have notified the media outlets, and I think that is probably the only real mistake the city made in this whole deal. --
I hate this climate of fear perpetuated by "security moms", or whoever. However, once the process is set in motion, you can't blame them for doing things the way many people wanted them to do. I, of course, have long thought the terrorist paranoia in some circles is ludicrous, and has been since 9/11. Odds are terrorist attacks will happen again, whether or not we continue our distraction campaign in Iraq, but I'm refusing to live in such a way that liberties I enjoyed pre-9/11 no longer occur.
The city is in a damned if they do, damned if we don't situation, and WE put them there. I am not going to criticize them for faithfully, doggedly following their processes in this incident, in and of itself.
posted
I don't think they should be prosecuted but they should definitely be fined an amount large enough to cover the cost of deploying all that manpower to investigate and take care of the items. I can assure you, that will be a monumental cost, and the size of the fines may work to discourage such tactics in the future.
And honestly, since the tv show is getting publicity out of it, the money might even be considered well spent.
I have a husband who has been trained on all this first responder stuff, he IS a first responder and I can assure you, their training hammers home the idea that you must take everything seriously, even if you are 99.9% sure in your heart of hearts that the scare is ludicrous and nothing to worry about, that 0.1% chance you're wrong could still mean people get killed.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm with Synesthesia. I can't imagine why anybody would think a Lite-Brite was a bomb, and the incredible stupidity of authorities is really the authorities' fault. (Also explains why they want to nail somebody else for it.)
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought the guys arraigned yesterday were actually quite funny during their press conference. Personally I don't care so much if they get punished (that would have no real useful point) but getting their employers to cough up some cash would be okay by me.
I'll watch it as soon as class goes on break, love.
It's great!
Theses guys are hilarous. It's the first time the news, especially FOX, makes me laugh this much. Seriously the ONLY THING they talk about is hair styles while the images on the other pannel are depicting what is going on with the swat and whatnot. XD
EDIT: "That's also not a hair question!" HAHAHAHA
Posts: 3389 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
If this was a response to a real bomb, there would be blood in the streets. This is the city fathers trying to cover up for the fact that they are inept and incompetent. Not to mention the cities and the media trying to whip this into 'manufactured' news, and media hype. This is a classic example of non-news being whipped into a national crisis.
-Turner told them it was an advertising campaign. What more did the need?
-They were up and in place for weeks. Fast reactions on the part of the city there.
posted
Turner told them only after the suspicious items were reported to the police. They didn't tell them weeks ago. At least, that is how it appears right now.
posted
Seattle authorities found the devices in their city too, and said they were "obviously not suspicious" according to Wikipedia. Only Boston freaked out.
Posts: 454 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Seattle found them after Turner notified all the cities, I believe. When Boston found out about them, it was through a regular citizen (subway employee who had no doubt been trained to report anything suspicious, to be consistent with the MBTA safety campaign) report of suspicious items. Turner didn't issue any official statement until 4:30pm, the first device was found at around 9AM. Even if Turner told the city (actually a few separate cities: Boston, Cambridge, and presumably Brookline) earlier than that, the process was already set in motion.
posted
Perhaps Turner, or anyone who decides to do something liket his in the future should include a disclamer- This is not a bomb, it will not explode. Then folks will put stuff like that on bombs and you just won't be able to win. But, I think they all need to CHILL. There has to be middle ground between indifference and panicing and evaculating a whole building everytime someone leaves their walkman on a bench.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
The simple solution, of course, would be to notify the authorities before you randomly scatter blinking electronics around town. Or, on the government's end, provide some protocol for doing so.
--j_k
[ February 02, 2007, 04:12 PM: Message edited by: James Tiberius Kirk ]
Posts: 3617 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Is there a law saying that Turner has to notify the police department or the city in some way when they put up that kind of advertising?
If there's no law, then I don't think it's Turner's fault at all. It might have been a bad idea to do this without giving some sort of shout at all to authorities, but I don't think this was a bad idea all by itself. I don't really fault the authorities for reacting to this in such a manner. We're acting on a general "better to be safe than sorry" principle, and that's fine with me.
There should be a statute defining what sort of notification this sort of advertising needs to have. Turner shouldn't pay that much of a price. If anything Boston should thank them for a chance to test their readiness. If this had been a real attack, they'd have failed miserably.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the ads were placed on property that Turner did not own and did not get permission to use, then their actions were illegal regardless of if they notified the city or not. Other companies, including Microsoft and I believe Coke, have gotten fined heavily for littering and/or vandalism for graffiti style advertisments in various cities, including chalked ads on sidewalks. You can't just go throwing advertisments up anywhere you want.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Kiss]](graemlins/kiss.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
