SUGGESTATION

Septicisle has posted on the start of the liquid explosives trial.

When this case first came to light back in 2006, it was cited as the reason for the restrictions in airports on carrying bottled drinks - restrictions still widely in place today. The mainstream media carried numerous articles on the story, and ‘liquid explosives’ became the new ‘dirty bomb’.

The idea that these liquid explosives are a real threat has been pooh-poohed by some of the more skeptical press. Nevertheless, stories such as this will continue to dominate the headlines. Other, more mundane stories, often go virtually unreported.

As Septicisle quotes:

The prosecutor added that there was no evidence to confirm that the defendants had managed to build a “viable device”.
But he said it was clear that the would-be bombers would eventually have been able to achieve their ultimate aim.

The trial is ongoing, and it is for the court to decide innocence or guilt - if the defendants did try and build a bomb, however small their chance of success, then they are threats to society. Let us be realistic however - if their alleged plan was little more than the hairbrained scheme of a bunch of wannabe jihadists, with a miniscule chance of ever coming to fruition, then the media needs to be very careful in its representation.

The mainstream media uses sensationalism as a tool to increase interest (and ultimately profits), but this must not come at the price of objective reporting. I know. I’m being naïve.

I think Septicisle’s closing sentence says it best.