I agree with Smith. Jacobsen went looking for boogeymen and she found them. The piece became increasingly untrustworthy. She clearly has both a thin skin and an overactive imagination; she may also be a xenophobe. Worse, I think, is that, as a journalist, she never comes clean; she never says, well, look, I was wrong; she dresses up her fears in a lot of "under different cirucmstances it could have been..."s, and calls in Ann Coulter for back-up. If she wanted to write an essay, fine; as objective journalism, it fails utterly.

The Salon piece is discussed here.

Good link, thanks.

That first "harrowing" story by the woman on the flight was really overblown, and most of us who read it knew that. It was a rant that never should have seen the light of day, almost like saying, "Two black guys were walking behind me last night and I sure thought they were gonna kill me."

We're still in the infancy days of the Internet. Publishing standards are generally lower online, though, of course, few admit or acknowledge that. A lot of people who oversee content on Web sites don't have even the beginning of a clue and more often come from "computer coding" background. Not all, but some.

This kinda stuff is only gonna get worse. The trouble is this: Ensuing generations will have a harder time distinguishing real journalism from that sort of, um, "journalism." The Internet is one big blur, with real news just a click away from pabulum, or, in this case, worse.

>>>She clearly has both a thin skin and an overactive imagination; she may also be a xenophobe.>>>

And Patrick Smith, among others, sounds like one of those naive liberals who spends more time worrying about "xenophobia" and oh-so-harsh, oh-so-mean law enforcement tactics than whether a lot of what Jacobsen observed was strange and suspicious or not. BTW, video shots released today by the 9-11 commission showed several of the terrorists in 2001 getting through the screening process in spite of their setting off metal detectors at the outset.

I'm not even a half-blind liberal and yet prior to Sept 2001 I'd never have thought something as crazy and extreme as NYC on 9-11-01 was possible or realistic. I'd believe such a horror was possible only in the minds of bad Hollywood screenwriters. Now 3 years later, if I place myself in the mind of a fully-blind liberal, I guess it's not unrealistic to assume I'd be any more alert, any less the ideal sitting duck.

The fear the Syrian band caused was without doubt fueled by exactly the emotional math David claims is common sense, i.e., Arabs + airplanes = possible terrorist attack. I am sure, had I been on that flight, this would have occurred to me, as well. But--seeing as they were musicians--I would have been wrong. What good would my assumption have done?

Nancy, you left an element out of the common sense equation. Try: Arabs + airplanes + highly suspicious behavior = possible terrorist attack.

Contrary to Patrick Smith's smugness, the fact that these guys play musical instruments does not mean they aren't terrorists. The jury's still out on that.

I do not trust Jacobsen's assessment of suspicious behavior. More, I will wager that her/her husband/the other passengers predisposed fear/whispering to flight attendants/weeping did more to inspire terror than some guys carrying clarinet cases and bags from McDonald's. As for the link from the Washington Times (not the first place I turn for objective reporting, but whatever): it says nothing but that it could have been a dry run for a terrorist attack. Or, it could not have been.

If she's wrong, she's wrong. So what? But if she's right, a few hundred people die. But, Nancy, et. al., would rather err on the side of political correctness than reality. And, the reality is, while there are millions of innocent, good hearted, law abiding Muslims around, one or two of the bad set could - and would - kill thousands of us. But, hey, why take a chance at offending them? Nancy probably doesn't fly that much anyway.

Maybe it was a band of terrorists on a dry run. Maybe it was a group of innocent oafs who have no idea who to act on a plane. Maybe it was a stunt designed to provoke exactly the response it got now, followed by a politically correct guilt phase that will benefit other Arab terrorists in a future attack. We just don't know.

At this juncture, I think it is dangerous to rule anything out, except maybe the idea of flying on any plane on which Patrick Smith is the pilot.

Since when did presuming people are innocent before proven guilty become politically corrent? Since when does it not matter whether journalists are wrong or right? I am a journalist, and I can tell you I care very much what I put out there; it has influence, and to pretend it's just so much nothing is either lazy or agenda-driven, to say nothing of unethical. Your assertion, Robert, that I would not care if a few hundred people were blown up is thoughtless and cheap. And as a matter of fact, I am flying overseas tomorrow.

Thanks Nancy, I was just going to say his leap that somebody's being PC here is lame. Sounds like baggage he carries, since it sure had nothing to do with what you said.

I agree with Xrlq: who knows? They might have been terrorists, but the only evidence for that is the woman's semi-hysterical guess. Does she bring any qualifications to that? Not any that I see. Might she be embellishing out of her own fears? Seems like a reasonable thought, based on the leaps she makes. The Washington Times story today adds zilch to what we know, so in the end have we been offered any reason to think they weren't what they said they were? I haven't. I'd disagree with Xrlq that the jury's out; this case never got to the jury for lack of probable cause (if I may mix my legal metaphors).

Nancy: for a self-described journalist, your ignorance about the law is appalling. "Innocent until proven guilty" is a legal presumption that applies when someone stands to be thrown in prison, or worse. It is not good for anything else.

The underlying idea behind innocent until proven guilty is that it is better for 10 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to be wrongly convicted. Do you really want airline security operating on that principle?

>>>I do not trust Jacobsen's assessment of suspicious behavior.>>>

You sound like one of those who'd make a great target for used-car salesmen, tricky auto mechanics or plotting terrorists. When it comes to your own instincts and assessments, I think you should trust them even less.

Kevin, I disagree. The Washington Times story has David Adams of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's Federal Air Marshal Service (FAMS) confirming their suspicious behavior, and has the pilot of Jacobsen's flight confirming the similarity between the behavior she witnessed and that of another incident on a flight to San Juan. That may not be a smoking gun, but it certainly adds something to Jacobsen's account, if only to underscore that it wasn't all in her head.

>>>Might she be embellishing out of her own fears? Seems like a reasonable thought, based on the leaps she makes.>>>

You're kidding, Kevin, right? If you observed this at the end of a flight (among other things) you wouldn't think something weird was going on? My only question is why the attendants, upon seeing the passengers standing up and moving in the plane, didn't bark out, REMAIN SEATED! Perhaps such crew members were worried they'd be seen as racial profiling or infringing on the rights of people with weak bladders?

www.womanswallstreet.com-----> "Finally, the captain announced that the plane was cleared for landing. It had been four hours since we left Detroit. The fasten seat belt light came on and I could see downtown Los Angeles. The flight attendants made one final sweep of the cabin and strapped themselves in for landing. I began to relax. Home was in sight. Suddenly, seven of the men stood up -- in unison -- and walked to the front and back lavatories. One by one, they went into the two lavatories, each spending about four minutes inside. Right in front of us, two men stood up against the emergency exit door, waiting for the lavatory to become available. The men spoke in Arabic among themselves and to the man in the yellow shirt sitting nearby.....Not one of the flight attendants asked them to sit down." 

Xrlq, I was accepting on face value that she saw what she saw. Clearly "suspicious." It's where she goes with it that's light to me, and the WashTimes story doesn't change that. It has (unnamed) people saying that terrorists are probing security and doing dry runs, but again nobody in the know links that behavior to what she saw.

Meanwhile, a guy at National Review calls around and finds out that it was a band and that this cell's Mr. Big is the Syrian Wayne Newton.

I give up. Clearly, the commenters (save for Kevin) believe Jacobsen word-for-word, and that the crisis in our country regarding terrorism will only be impacted by hyper-vigilence and action, not informed reason and (start shaking those sabers, boys), courtesy. And Xlrq, I am not a lawyer, but I am a journalist, just not, I must assume, for publications you read.

Didn't know he was Syrian, but I always figgered that Wayne Newton feller was up to no good...

Nancy- As I have made quite clear in posts in other forums, I ama strong believer in innocence before guilt is proven. Unfortunately, in this case, the way guilt is proven is for a few hundred folks to die. That is too high a price to pay for saving some folks inconvenience and a little embarrassment.

Nancy- As I have made quite clear in posts in other forums, I ama strong believer in innocence before guilt is proven. Unfortunately, in this case, the way guilt is proven is for a few hundred folks to die. That is too high a price to pay for saving some folks inconvenience and a little embarrassment.

Robbing someone of his or her basic freedoms is an "inconvenience"?

So let me guess ... you were probably in favor of Japanese internment during WWII, right? Be honest.

This string began with a look at Jacobsen's piece as journalism -- a reasonable approach for a blog focused on L.A. media. Pretty soon, however, it was hijacked by the usual ad hominems and liberal-bashing. A number of the commenters don't seem very interested in the practice of journalism. Their primary focus seems to be whether this or that journalist or journalistic entity sees things their way.

People can post what they want, of course, but all the "instant response" ranting has become very tiresome. We seem to be shouting past one another.

This story appears consistent with the view that Jacobsen overreacted, and that other passengers' reactions may have been in response to her reaction and her husband's. It also suggests the marshalls feared her reaction was a ruse to create a disturbance and blow their cover.

I guess we're headed to the point where everyone fears that everyone else is a terrorist. Sigh.

I didn't see that coming.

Thanks for the link, Xrlq.

Hey...I don't blame her, as a black guy who lived in OKC when Mc Veigh bombed the Murrah building, I am VERY careful when I go into any federal building and see more than 3 young white males. Also having a parent that grew up in Birmingham AL during Bull Conner's hey day, I know what the Klan and others are capable of, so I also pay special attention to any white male with a rope anywhere near his body. This has kept me from going to Home Depot for the most part.

I guess we can see what we wish to see in any type of situation.

Someone mentioned the internment of the Japanese-Americans in 1942. For generations of liberals that event defines World War 11 and not the fact that the US was fighting for its life. I remind them only that a liberal president, supported by a liberal Felix Frankfurter who approved the move, supported by a liberal pundit, Walter Lippmann who publicly approved the move, made the incarceration possible. Franklin Roosevelt signed the executive order of internment. Finally, the decision of the Supreme Court which approved its legality was written by the great liberal icon, Hugo Black. Oh,how easy itwould be to run a country sixty years after all the danger is past.

Now Michelle Malkin thinks the marshalls are being jerks for attacking Jacobson for even mentioning her concern to the stewardesses. It's hard not to disagree; if you are a passenger and see something you think is suspicious, what are you supposed to do? Feel guilty, shut your mouth and hope for the best?

I know, I've flipped and flopped on this issue too many times. I'm done having an opinion on it.

With the seat-belt light on, seven men stood up in unison and the flight attendants said nothing?

This sounds fishy to me -- fishy, as in making me question Jacobsen's credibility. Who the hell is she? Why should we believe her account? Maybe she left out the part about one of the suspected terrorists carrying a case in the shape of a trumpet, and talking to the women next to him about the gig they were en route to.

If the out-of-their-seats-with-the-seatbelt-light-on incident really did happen, shouldn't the flight attendants be subjected to some kind of discipline? Aren't they required by federal regs to enforce just such rules?

"Someone mentioned the internment of the Japanese-Americans in 1942. For generations of liberals that event defines World War 11 and not the fact that the US was fighting for its life."

The US was not fighting for its life in World War II. There were never plans by the Axis powers to invade the US. Germany sought influence over Europe/Africa and Japan over Asia/Australia, leaving the US as the third world power over the Americas and turning the world into a tripolar power structure.

The Pearl Harbor attack was intended only to cripple the Pacific fleet of the US Navy so that Japan can bypass the US embargo and also gain access to raw materials in the Phillipines, not to invade this country. In fact both Japan and the US knew that a war between the 2 countries was inevitable and it was only a question of who would attack first and when. Which is why many conspiracy theorists always claim the Roosevelt administration allowed the attack to happen so that they would have an excuse to enter the war and gain support from the public.