Hacker News Reader

Comment by rayiner | Hacker News Reader

TSA isn't theater so much as it is insurance. Do you want to be the President or political party that disbands TSA? Look at how much flak Hilary Clinton got for a few Americans dying in an actual warzone. What do you think happens when terrorists blow up a flight from Topeka to Minneapolis, whether or not TSA would've stopped it?

As for Mrs. Taxpayer, she does get asked, and she supports the TSA: http://www.gallup.com/poll/156491/americans-views-tsa-positi.... Only 12-13% of people polled think TSA is doing a bad job or isn't effective.

View on HN

Which says more about the media than the merits of the TSA. The majority don't know who edward snowden is either (or as john oliver found out -- think he's the wikileaks guy).

Fact of the matter is that the TSA is doing a bad job and is a colossal waste of time and money. People should be outraged at the misuse of $7.4 billion from the annual budget. The media should be calling out the US government for mismanaging tax dollars.

If the program actually outraged people, taking about it would draw viewership and the media would talk about it. But in the grand scheme of things $7 billion is a drop in the bucket compared to the real hot button issues. Especially considering that TSA is paid for by user fees and not general purpose tax dollars.

But if only 12-13% of people think they're doing a bad job then they are just not informed on the topic and what they think is really of no consequence. The media is to blame for not educating the general population on this. People get outraged talking about single government officials claiming a few thousand dollars of expenses they shouldn't, I think that most people would get somewhat upset if they knew that the TSA by and large was a complete waste of time and money which provided almost zero additional security.

As to the drop of water argument, I don't see that as particularly valid. Either it's a waste of money or it isn't. Wasting money should be cut out whenever possible. Happy to debate the merits of the program being a waste or not, but not going to dive into a conversation about how it's OK to waste money frivolously.

> The media is to blame for not educating the general population on this.

Most of the media exists to sell advertising, and the content provided to consumers exists specifically to attract a particular demographic to the outlet to support advertising sales.

Educating the general population is not part of the media's business model.

No, the media has evolved to become advertising. News corporations definitely should have the responsibility of education, despite what the Murdoch empire would have you believe.

What should be is of really no significance in analyzing causes. What should be is ideology and that has no empirical bearing.

I could also state, that people are dumb for not demanding to be informed truthfully about real important issues. But then at least the following question arises: Who gets to decide, what is important?

Is it American Idol, Dancing with the Stars or is it TSA not working properly?

Most people would root for entertainment I believe yes I know I am a misanthrope).

> No, the media has evolved to become advertising.

If true, it was quite a long time ago -- advertising has been the dominant source of revenue, and media has served that revenue source for a long time. Even in the days when print newspapers were strong, their "paid circulation" wasn't important because it brought in a lot of revenue, it was important because advertisers viewed it as the best indicator of engaged audience.

For-profit businesses serve their owners and generally act to maximize profits; there are exceptions, but expecting something different to be the norm without any structurally-imposed constraints mandating is naïve.

If you want a media whose mission is educating the public, You aren't going to get it from privately-owned, for-profit, media corporations because "educating the public" isn't something they can monetize as well as providing a combination of both a source of distress and the appearance of a salve for that distress for a targeted demographic to get them dependent, and then selling advertising access targeted to that demographic.

This is nothing new, and my comment was made with all of this in mind.

Here's a thought experiment however, ask someone why they watch the news, buy a news paper or visit sites like the new york times. Then re-read your comment and see where the differences are. :)

In a democracy and a free market economy, being "right" isn't what makes your opinion matter. These are citizens and consumers. It's politicians' jobs as well as the media's to give them what they want. If they need to believe that spending $7 billion a year on TSA keeps airliners from blowing up, it's proper for the government to spend that money.

Sorry, but that is not a valid reason for spending $7 billion. Agencies are accountable for not wasting money and oversight should be in place to prevent this sort of abuse.

Also, we aren't in a democracy or free market economy. The people who have the most to profit from the TSA's budget being as large as possible are also the people pulling the strings here. Follow the rabbit hole and find out how much companies like Rapiscan spent on lobbying and tell me again how this is a free market economy.

Most people don't fly more than once every few years... and even then kind of expect it to be a pain in the ass. That's why only 12-13% (probably those that actually fly more than a couple times a year) really dislike the TSA.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com