by Katie Hudy, SUNY Cortland
Posted in on Monday, Feb 19
“2 Arrested in Boston over Bomb Scare”; “Boston bomb squad detonates packages found in 4 places”. These are just two of the many headlines of web editions of major U.S. papers on February 1, 2007. To read this, one may think that a major threat to security in Boston had occurred. However, when the truth was revealed these “potential bombs” turned out to be nothing more than a marketing and publicity tactic for the Cartoon Network’s popular show “Aqua Teen Hunger Force”. So how could a simple cartoon stir up such controversy?
Since September 11, 2001, the American government and people have been on high alert for anything that may be suspected as a terrorist threat. New rules and regulations have been put in place to stop any chance of another attack on U.S. soil. Still, some feel that the government has gone too far, and too many people are on high alert for no real reason. The “Aqua Teen” promotion was one such example. U.S. coverage of the incident—in The New York Times—made the accused seem like they had actually threatened the country. Coverage of this same incident in the British press however was quite different. The Guardian’s coverage of the incident was seemed to poke fun at the frightened response by the U.S. officials. Alternative web-based Slate analyzed the amount that must be paid for the damages to see if the city is correct in charging $2 million for the fiasco. It seems that each has its own perspective on the event.
The New York Times’ article seems to place blame on the two men who started the hoax. The two are referred to early on as giving “buffoon-like” comments when arrested. The article did, however, point out the public belief that the two men were merely being used as scapegoats for the companies they worked for. It was good of the Times to point this out. It is unclear why the U.S. popular reaction and government are both personally and publicly attacking two men who did nothing more than put up Lite-Brite like boards featuring cartoon characters. Another important point that was brought to light was the fact that Boston was not the only city where this advertising technique had taken place. After 2-3 weeks of advertising in New York City and Los Angeles, no complaints were filed. Still, there is no real defense raised for either the accused men or the companies they represent. It is treated by the Times as if there was an actual threat to the city of Boston and people were actually in danger.
Readers of The Guardian in Britain would most likely laugh at the American coverage of this event. While the article begins with a typical hard news lead, it is soon apparent that the writer feels that the U.S. has overreacted yet again. “With the US more jittery than usual about a possible terrorist attack” the first paragraph sarcastically begins, and it is evident that the writer—along with many British citizens—see America’s high alert for terrorism to be something of a joke and definitely unnecessary. The Guardian also finds it important to point out that the characters in the show—those that were on the advertisements—were a box of French fries, a milkshake, and a meatball. How intimidating! This is again proof that the American people are overreacting; who would be scared of a terrorist attack by junk food?
More importantly, The Guardian offers coverage not given by The New York Times. It is written that when Turner Broadcasting—the owners of the “Aqua Teen” show—became aware of the hysteria that had broken out in Boston, they called in the exact locations of all of the publicity boards. They helped police to locate the ads quicker and more efficiently. Unlike the Times, this version of the incident shows the willingness of the network to assist police and paints them in a much more positive light. The incident is shown as it should be, a publicity stunt gone wrong, rather than a suspected terrorist attack.
The same opinion is taken by Slate.com writer, Kathryn Lewis. She refers to the event as “a guerilla ad campaign that went terribly awry”. She too, notes that this was not a true terrorist plot, so it should not be treated as one. People made a mistake, and no one was hurt. Why then, Lewis asks, is the city of Boston requesting so much money for compensation? Yes, many officials and specialists needed to be called in to deal with the situation and there should be compensation for that. Still, Lewis points out the inaccuracies of the calculations of how much money is actually owed. Different people are asking for amounts based on arbitrary calculations they performed themselves. Some are clean, even numbers (like $50,000) while others are more specific—right down to the cents. Some simply asked for what they felt was “reasonable” (as high as $500,000). How does one determine what is “reasonable” without taking anything of substance into consideration?
Overall, this ‘Boston bomb scare’ (as it has come to be known) is proof of the reaction by American governmental officials and the general public to a suspected terrorist threat. From the opinion of The New York Times, this is something that should be taken with the utmost seriousness, even if it is simply a marketing strategy for a cartoon show. Britain’s Guardian almost pokes fun at the reaction by the people. After all, they see the humor of the situation where the American people are too close to the event to see it in that way. Since all American perspectives are not represented by the Times, alternative magazine Slate offers a more critical view. Is it really necessary to compensate the affected three cities $2 million for what occurred? Was it really that serious? These are the questions that are left as the reporting fades away and the issue becomes a random memory or “remember when…” story. How alert must we be, and when is fear standing in our way of seeing the truth?
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://neovox.cortland.edu/mt/mt-tb.cgi/464