I don’t have cable television at home, a doleful economic fact that has often been a source of sadness for me. But, on a day like this, when the cable news stations parade rank speculation as sure knowledge, I’m more than willing to live without my MTV.
Fate is cruel, however, and so I spent part of my morning in the waiting room of a medical office, watching CNN anchors who seemed to have spent entirely too much time looking up synonyms for terror. When a nurse finally called my name, I fairly jumped at whatever private terrors the good doctor had in store for me — they could not have been more painful than the mind-numbing broadcasts I had just witnessed.
As I sat in that waiting room, my reaction to the news of the latest threat to our collective safety was not one of fear, anxiety, or dread; instead, I felt skeptical and angry: skeptical that this latest terror bonanza would turn out to be any less fake than the last one, and angry to see the television networks again fanning the flames of fear with so much enthusiasm.
I’m far from alone in having that that reaction. And how could I be, considering the number of times the Bush Administration has cried wolf on terror?
No, as sad as it is to say so, I and many others greet terror warnings, and news of alleged terror plots, with distrust. That’s because, as Buzzflash notes, when it comes to such warnings, the Bush Administration and its allies have precision timing:
We certainly can’t deny that there may have indeed been plans to commit these acts. But the timings of the arrest announcements are awfully suspicious. All three were still in the works and had been monitored for several months by very capable intelligence agencies. While the exact nature of today’s arrests is still unclear, none of the plans seemed to have been immediate or imminent threats. The decision of when to intervene has been arbitrary, making the coincidental timings pretty convenient. (And the question of whether some of them are “real threats,” such as the Liberty City “Insane Clown Posse” remain to be seen.)

The accumulated evidence has made it clear that the Bush Administration uses terror warnings politically, in the most cynical way possible. But, even so, a worried CNN viewer might counter, aren’t we safer knowing about these threats?
That is exactly question addressed in a new report, A False Sense of Insecurity (pdf), that the Cato Institute released on Monday. A old friend of mine pointed it out to me; he had found the link on Boing Boing. There, Cory Doctorow introduced the report with these words:
The bottom line is, terrorism doesn’t kill many people. Even in Israel, you’re four times more likely to die in a car wreck than as a result of a terrorist attack. In the USA, you need to be more worried about lightning strikes than terrorism. The point of terrorism is to create terror, and by cynically convincing us that our very countries are at risk from terrorism, our politicians have delivered utter victory to the terrorists: we are terrified.
One need only turn on the television today to see the truth of that last statement.
The Cato report (pdf) is definitely worth a read; here are a few excerpts:
[. . .]
HYPERBOLIC OVERREACTION For example, there is at present a great and understandable concern about what would happen if terrorists were to shoot down an American airliner or two, perhaps with shoulder-fired missiles. Obviously, that would be a major tragedy. But the ensuing public reaction to it, many fear, could come close to destroying the industry. Accordingly, it would seem to be reasonable for those in charge of our safety to inform the public about how many airliners would have to crash before flying becomes as dangerous as driving the same distance in an automobile. It turns out that someone has made that calculation: University of Michigan transportation researches Michael Sivak and Michael Flannegan, in an article last year in American Scientist wrote that they determined there would have to be one set of September 11 crashes a month for the risks to balance out. More generally, they calculate than an American’s chance of being killed in one nonstop airline flight is about one in 13 million (even taking the September 11 crashes into account). To reach that same level of risk when driving on America’s safest roads — rural interstate highways — one would have to travel a mere 11.2 miles.
So: yes, let’s hear about those terror plots, but let’s put them into a realistic context, and treat them with the same sense of bravery we find within ourselves when we get in the car for a Sunday drive, dig into a bowl of peanuts, or wander outside during a thunderstorm. Perhaps, then, we will find it within ourselves to temper our fear with bravery, if not indifference.




10 Comments on "The Wages of Fear"
CW:
A very well written article. I also find the overreaction to the arrest disturbing.
Madison Guy:
The terror alert wouldn’t be political, would it? — Joe Lieberman takes refuge in the last resort of scoundrels:
“If we just pick up like Ned Lamont wants us to do, get out by a date certain, it will be taken as a tremendous victory by the same people who wanted to blow up these planes in this plot hatched in England,β Mr. Lieberman said at a campaign event at lunchtime in Waterbury, Conn. βIt will strengthen them and they will strike again.β
Looks like Karl Rove really is running his campaign … You say Bojinka, I say BOHICA!
Mikhail:
This exactly the sort of thing the BBC’s remarkable documentary series The Power of Nightmares addresses. It’s available for free from archive.org. Here’s the link.
Matt:
CW, Madison Guy: Thanks for visiting. Madison Guy, you may be interested in this post by Philadelphia Inquirer reporter and blogger Daniel Rubin.
Mikhail: Wow — I hadn’t heard about that documentary. Many thanks for the link. . . I’m downloading and watching it now.
Eli:
Crass manipulation just seems so… out of character for the Republicans.
Rod:
I’m sure all of this is right on, but we shouldn’t forget either that the Cato Institute is, in general, populated by crackpots who don’t believe, for instance, in global warming. But I’ll give them this one.
Jane:
So what did the doctor say?
Matt:
So what did the doctor say?
“Sir, please deposit liquids in this transparent container.”
Suzy Shedd:
Hey, Matt — just was at TPMuckraker, and you’ll never guess what…they quote an NBC report saying the Bush administration pushed the Brits to make the arrest a week or so before they had planned to:
But of course, that wouldn’t have anything to do with politics or anything like that, would it? I mean, SURELY our Preznit wouldn’t want to compromise an important investigation into terrorist activity?
Suzy Shedd:
Um…apologies. I must not know how to use the link button properly — I was trying to put in the link to the article. Let’s try it the old-fashioned way:
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/001331.php
Comments