hopelessly devoted to deconstructing popular culture and conventional wisdom, one blog at a time

Behind Boston's "terror scare"

Published Thursday, February 01, 2007 by seanlmccarthy | E-mail this post

There's something more than a little screwy about yesterday's "terror scare" in Boston that paralyzed the city's government and roadways. And I'm not just talking about the scare itself. I'm looking at the media coverage. Yes. We live in Boston. Yes. We live in a post-9/11/2001 climate. Yes. The LED signs should've included some sort of credit signature or link to Turner Broadcasting and Aqua Teen Hunger Force (the Adult Swim cartoon makes its big-screen debut in March). And yes, Turner and its guerilla marketing forces should've obtained city permits to put up the signs -- which would've avoided the citywide panic altogether. All of these factors came into play yesterday.

But let's look at the media coverage. The Herald ran four stories today; the Globe, six. Boston TV stations have broken into regular programming throughout the past 24 hours for "breaking news" developments in the case. They all mention that the artists involved, as well as Turner, could be cited for a law prohibiting hoax devices that prompt panic.

Now then.

What makes the illuminated animated light board a hoax device, exactly?

What prompted the panic?

Why did it take weeks for this panic to ensue in Boston? Why hasn't it ensued in any of the other cities involved in this ad campaign?

Who looked at this and said, um, that's got to be a bomb?
Don't they know anyone under the age of 30?

A Globe sidebar today acknowledged the generation gap in marketing. Why aren't more people in the media asking these questions?

Adult Swim's apology last night:

Since the devices clearly were not bombs, some have looked at how the city responded, and wondered how the city would respond to a real threat.

Of course, we can look to Britain for just that, as the next story on most newscasts in the past day broadcast how authorities in the U.K. diffused an actual terrorist plan to kidnap and behead a British Muslim soldier. We're still talking about harmless Lite-Brites.

What will we be talking about next time? And how will we be talking about it?

On a related tangential note, how funny has it been to watch TV stations and papers blur out the extended middle finger on the signs?

Labels: media