The Laughing Wolf: The Passion Of The Anne Jacobsen

July 24, 2004

The Passion Of The Anne Jacobsen

Saturday is supposed to be a day for food for thought, happy if at all possible, but given my move and given a lot of what is being slung around, I have decided to add to the day some food for thought that is a bit savory.

The story of Anne Jacobsen has taken some interesting twists and turns of late. Almost from the moment it came out, it has been under attack from various quarters for a variety of reasons. The fact that it was corroborated seems to have just added fuel to the fire for some, who have been steadfast in their attempts to discredit it.

When this story came out, it was eagerly seized upon as proof that not only was Anne wrong, that she was the problem. There is a huge problem with this take, and it deserves to be examined. Let’s look at the story. While it claims multiple sources, it only cites two by name: Cathy Viray and Dave Adams. The most damning portions of the story, which claim that “The lady was overreacting” comes from an unnamed source. In fact, from the writing of the story, it is this single unnamed source that provides all the “juicy” parts. It is interesting to note that from the way it is written, that the source is not an air marshal, just someone alleging to speak for them.

Now, nowhere in the posts I’ve read has any of her detractors taken the time to verify any of the story. Indeed, while it has been demanded that every facet of Anne’s story be verified and cross-checked, none of her major detractors appear to have given this any critical examination. The anonymous source is accepted as a voice on high without question; unlike those who called the spokesmen in Anne’s story to verify that they exist and that they were quoted accurately, no one reports doing so this time; and, the story lede – accepted without question by many – indicates that the air marshals were outed by the Jacobsen’s, yet the final paragraphs of that story indicate that they were not, but that there was concern that they would be: so which is it, did anyone check?

Did anyone ever check the other statements made about the thoroughness of what happened after landing, an important point given the questions about visas and such that has arisen? Did anyone ever even stop to consider that this detailed a laundry list of what was allegedly done also just happens to put governmental efforts into the best possible light, while trashing a person who has caused some very embarrassing questions? Gee, we all know that no governmental agency of any type would ever retaliate against a whistleblower of any type, now don’t we.

Frankly, I am disgusted on several levels by the way this story has been treated. Strip away the $5 words, and a lot of what is being said is “Well, this is just some hysterical female type, and you know how easy it is for the little ladies to panic. Why, heck, it might have even been her time of the month, and you know how they get then.” You who read me or know me know that I am not PC, but the blatant and rampant sexism dripping from many of the posts – no matter how fancy a wrapping is put on it – is reprehensible.

The fact is, we may never know exactly what happened on that flight. The flight crew is apparently barred from speaking; if very many or any of the other passengers are willing to talk after watching the feeding frenzy underway I would be very surprised; and, the air marshals are not supposed to be talking to anyone either. I note again that the deep throat of the story cited above speaks for them, not as them. It has also been acknowledged that the flight was getting special scrutiny because of intelligence and that there were multiple air marshals aboard. It is here that the real kicker lies: there was intelligence about the flight.

The fact that this information came out speaks volumes, for it can blow sources and methods in a heartbeat. It is why I suspect that the full story of this flight, and what happened with the Cenk Kaptanoglu will not be known for quite some time, for we have assets to protect, assets that gave us the intel. Did any of you ever consider that some or even all of the spin on the story was in part to protect sources of information? That we were not supposed to know that extra precautions were being taken?

Did you ever consider that the behavior on the part of the 14 cited by Anne Jacobsen, and confirmed by other sources, was a bit odd? That while innocent of the ability to actually do anything this flight, that they might have been probing for others? That it could have even been a check for leaks within a terrorist organization? If none of this has occurred to you, and you automatically assume that they are completely innocent, you just flunked Analysis 101.

So, for all that so many are eagerly flogging and scourging Anne Jacobsen and her family, consider this:

Do the attacks and attempts at character assassination invalidate any of the concerns raised?

Does such negate the fact that excessive PC and pre-9-11 rules have a strong negative impact on airline and airport security?

Does such mean that there are not still profound problems with the INS and the tracking system?

Does such negate the fact that it is acknowledged that terrorists are probing and testing security at airports and on airplanes?

Does such mean that we should just sit back, keep quiet, and let the government handle everything without question? Why not ask the Citizens on Flight 93?

There are many, many more questions here, but I think you have quite enough to chew on today. Unlike Michelle Malkin, I am not taking respectful issue with some of the characterizations. I am taking strong disagreement with them, though I doubt it will do any good. Those determined to kill the messenger will do so, regardless of cost or other issues, just as those determined to lionize Anne Jacobsen will do the same. Ultimately, it really doesn’t matter if she was a screaming hysteric on that flight or not. What matters is that she did have the courage to step forth and voice her concerns, and in the process has exposed serious issues that need to be addressed. For serving as a forcing function, she has my gratitude, and I sincerely hope that she and her family will not pay too high a price.

BTW, I would be most remiss if I did not link to this excellent post by Teresa at Technicalities.

Posted by wolf1 at July 24, 2004 02:38 PM | TrackBack

Comments

Why thank you very much!!! It's a good thing trackbacks show up on the bottom of my posts where people can see them, because they should certainly come here and read this too! Great job.

Posted by: Teresa at July 24, 2004 05:53 PM

After reading Clinton Taylor's NRO piece explaining who these guys were...I'm sorry, I have to respectfully disagree. I think she was right to be concerned at the time. I think she was wrong, wrong wrong for her words after the fact, the complete lack of research into who they were and what they were doing, and I think Women's Wall Street made a name for themselves with sloppy, irresponsible reporting here.

Did you read the NRO piece? You didn't seem to mention anything about it. These guys seems fairly well-known in their circle of music, such as it is.

They're not terrorists. That's *my* point. Was there a hole in security, and COULD they have been terrorists? Yes, absolutely. But, Jacobsen vilified, and continues to vilify, innocent men in order to safe face on her sloppy reporting and absolutely NO investigation after the fact. She's not a hysterical woman: She's a bad reporter.

Posted by: JimK at July 24, 2004 06:43 PM

No, haven't read the NRO piece, nor am I aware of Ms. Jacobsen vilifying them continuously. I am very aware of some who have vilified her from the start, and am deeply suspicious of the "new" story. And, with respect, what you raise does not change the questions asked above. I would also ask why their management hasn't jumped on this: it is a great way to jobs, free publicity, and free money for being "victims." To my mind, there are still an awful lot of questions here; extreme doubt that we will know the full story anytime soon; and, no doubt that the issues raised need to be addressed.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 24, 2004 07:13 PM

BTW, general question to all: Why is it that if they are musicians they are automatically innocent of all? No offense, but I know some professional musicians who are complete and total assholes, and who probably have broken a lot more than the drug laws. There appears to be a more at work here that needs examination, because if you go in with the assumption that because they are musicians/did play a gig they are innocent, you are as guilty of wrong-think as those who automatically assume they were terrorists no matter what. They may be totally innocent, they may have just "innocently" decided to fuck with people's minds (a very dangerous game, but not at all unlikely), or one or more may have connections that are far less than innocent. The fact remains that we still don't have even a fraction of the answers and may never know the full extent of this story. Nor does all this change the issues/questions I raised above. To me, those are what matter. I am prepared to wait to get info and to see what does come out. I see no point to the vicious personal attacks, and to using that to try to invalidate some very serious questions and concerns, or to push a nanny-state ideal on those of us who fly.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 24, 2004 07:54 PM

Hrmmm. I disagree with AL and the majority of the commenters on his piece at Katzman's. In fact, I tend to lean more towards Spoons: if by some misfortune I find myself needing to fly commercial, I want some other "paranoid" and aware people like Jacobsen in the cabin with me.

Better that than a cabin full of "let Mommy State handle it" types.

Let's review a few of the facts that *have* come out, eh? On a day when there is a heightened sense of alert, over a dozen people with expired passports manage to slip through our security screening - and failed passports are from a region that's *known* to export and support terrorism.

If the plane had augered into the terminal at LAX, and Jacobsen's story had come out via cell phone before impact - as parts of the Flight 93 story did - would she still be being villified by AL and numerous commenters for "being too jumpy"?

Posted by: Ironbear at July 24, 2004 08:17 PM

This is what is bothering me about a lot of people's reaction to this.

AFTER THE FACT, she vilified them in two reports and there's talk of a third, without finding out who they are. She's a sloppy, lazy reporter who has now become famous and no one is calling her on the terrible job she did.

Meanwhile, I advise everyone to [url=http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp]read the NRO piece[/url] before continuing to accuse these men of potential terrorism. There IS reason to be weirded out and even scared and alert over behavior DURING a flight, but this far after the fact, when their identities are known...there's no excuse for continuing to vilify them to save face.

The security lapses are a separate issue from the identities of the musical act in question.

Posted by: JimK at July 24, 2004 11:33 PM

Boy did I screw that link up.

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/taylor200407211921.asp

Posted by: JimK at July 24, 2004 11:39 PM

Then call her upon it with proper citations, and separate the two issues. Most everything I have read is not calling her on facts, but is simply attacks against her for having dared to say anything. In so doing, the very valid questions raised can be and are being ignored.

Posted by: Laughing Wolf at July 24, 2004 11:48 PM

I'm going to beg to differ with you, Jim. The Security issues raised are the important ones.

Feel free to call her on sloppy reporting after the fact: calling out reporters on sloppy journalism is de rigieur in the blogosphere.

I am going to ask that you don't use that as a pretext to disparage those of us who are a bit more concerned by the security issues that this raises, thank you. They can be treated as two distinct questions, and there's enough background that questions about the efficacy of our post 9/11 state of airline and customs security does not hinge solely on Jacobsen. Her article merely points out yet another questionable incident.

Regarding Jacobsen, as the 'Wolf said: call her on facts - don't just malign her for "overreaction and hysteria". That's the kind of attack journalism that we in blogdom routinely disparage the old media for. Is it ok if we do it, but not when they do?

Posted by: Ironbear at July 25, 2004 09:16 AM

By the way, Jim... I have read the NRO article. And it doesn't seem to indicate that the situation was all hunkydory and Jacobsen should be shot at dawn for paranoia:

"That means that our air-traffic system was expecting trouble. But rather than land the plane in Las Vegas or Omaha, it was allowed to continue on to Los Angeles without interruption, as if everything were hunky-dory on board. It certainly wasn't. If this had been the real thing, and the musicians had instead been terrorists, nothing was stopping them from taking control of the plane or assembling a bomb in the restroom. Given the information they were working with at the time, almost everyone should have reacted differently than they did.

Jacobsen's fear was quite natural under these circumstances, and she has done us a service by pointing out some egregious shortfalls in our airline security. Danke Schoen, Darling. Let's hope the right people are listening." - Taylor

I must be reading impaired. I'm still not seeing a reason to routinely condemn Jacobsen.

Posted by: Ironbear at July 25, 2004 09:24 AM

I'm wondering, did you skipped the part where these men were identified?

Jacobsen still hasn't made it abundantly clear she knows NOW that they are not terrorists.

I'm actually ashamed at some people's willingness to condemn an entire country's people like this. I guess the people criticizing all Americans for the actions of a few soldiers at Abu Ghraib were right, then?

Oh, we all cried foul when that happened. But Arabs? We're right to condemn some Syrian musicians because one sloppy reporter forgot to mention that while she was scared on the plane, it turned out to be nothing...based solely on the fact that they're Syrian?

For shame.

I'll say it again: She was right to be nervous on the plane. She was very wrong in how she reported it after the fact.

Posted by: JimK at July 25, 2004 09:38 AM

"I'm wondering, did you skipped the part where these men were identified?" - JimK

Nope. I'm not seeing it as relevant that they were identified as not being terrorists after the fact. They were behaving oddly on a day when there was a significant terrorist alert, so at the time of the incident the suspicion was justified.

"Jacobsen still hasn't made it abundantly clear she knows NOW that they are not terrorists." - JimK

Reading through everything after the fact, I can't see where the "Authorities" have established conclusively that they weren't. They seem to be more intertested in poo-poohing Jacobsen and drawing attention away from the security questions.

Or does their being musicians somehow magically clear them of any possibility of being connected to organizations less savory than the musicians guild? ;]

"I'm actually ashamed at some people's willingness to condemn an entire country's people like this." - JimK

I'm actually not. Wah.

Posted by: Ironbear at July 26, 2004 02:30 AM

Comments are Closed.