TPM LiveWire

Govt Agency Takes To Blog, Twitter To Squash 'Baby' Story

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

From the TSA's video. Nic and her son are in the top right corner.

Read More

Bloggers, New Media, TSA

Share

Twitter Facebook Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On Friday, a young mother posted a story to her blog claiming that, while going through security at an airport in Atlanta, government agents took her baby out of her sight for several minutes. The story, as they say, went viral.

"Panic set in. My hands began to shake. My body was sweating. My breath was short and my heart was racing. They had taken my child and not told me. Jackson was out of my eye sight. I could not see my son," wrote the woman, Nic.

Hours later, the Transportation Security Administration's blog posted a video that shows the woman going through security, with her child either in her arms or directly next to her at all times.

The TSA's immediate response, on Twitter and on its blog, squashed an internet meme that had been catching like wildfire -- a meme that had the potential to do serious public relations damage to the agency.

Here's how it happened:

Nic, a freelance writer who blogs at My Bottle's Up, was in the Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta Airport on Thursday. That night, she tweeted that TSA agents had taken her child away for several minutes after his pacifier clip set off the metal detector. Her tweets induced a wave of support from her followers, many of whom urged her to post the entire story online.

After some waffling -- she thought she might try to sell the story instead of posting it to her personal blog -- she posted the story on Friday. The link was re-tweeted far and wide.

At some point, "Blogger Bob," a TSA flack who writes for the agency's blog, caught wind of the story. He posted a video, pulling together clips from several security cameras, of Nic passing through security with her son. In the video, the two are never separated.

"After watching the video footage, you'll see the video clearly shows that this individual was never separated from her baby by TSA," reads the post.

Most strikingly, in her original post, Nic says that while a female security guard was checking her with a metal detector wand, her baby was no where in sight. Nic says she was screaming, crying and begging to know where her baby is.

In the video, her son is sitting in his stroller, directly next to her the entire time she's being searched by the guard.

Nic confirmed on her blog that it is her in TSA's video in a second post. But, she wrote, "In the video, it looks as though my son is playing happily in his stroller while I am being searched with a wand. Obviously this is the big discrepancy with my story, since he was not in my sight at that time, and one that I too am thoroughly looking into."

TSA spread their debunking post via Twitter, sending it directly to people who had re-tweeted Nic's original story. News organizations that had picked up her story, including Consumerist, updated their posts.

The agency also added uncut video from nine different security cameras Sunday night.

Whether Nic's story is a hoax, an exaggeration or something else is hard to explain. However, unless the TSA video has been drastically altered, her story just doesn't hold water.

Either way, the TSA's speed and deftness with new media tools helped stave off what could have been a public image disaster for the agency.

Join the Conversation!

20 comments

Recommend Recommend (0)

October 19, 2009 4:45 PM   

I find it interesting that when someone makes a complaint that is false the security tape suddenly appears all over the internet.

I say from now on, because of the TSA's method in dealing with this situation, we can know for sure that when a complaint is levied against TSA for abuse and a tape is not made available immediately, the TSA is guilty.

Thanks TSA.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:49 PM    in reply to rbeats

exactly

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 7:24 PM    in reply to rbeats

Um, well, that, orrrrrr this woman was guilty of blatant lying that would cause a panic, easily disprovable by tape, while unreleased tapes pertaining to other allegations might not be so clearcut, such that maybe the accuser is actually guilty of more complicated offenses, or would be revealed on the tape to have a medical issue (ex.: craziness) that TSA lawyers have advised not be publicized. Stodgy though I feel, I have to say innocent until proven guilty has to apply to the TSA.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 7:31 PM    in reply to hotspur

*I meant to say also that in other cases where footage has not been released, the accuser might feel unjustly harassed by the TSA, but the TSA might have had a good but not obvious cause for suspicion, and might be employing search methods they don't want on YouTube where these can be painstakingly reviewed by, say, any jerk in a cave.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 4:48 PM   

Sounds like someone just wanted a quick 15 minutes of fame, and maybe a payoff.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 4:49 PM   

The term "flack," was used in this story to describe the TSA's "Blogger Bob." I have never seen this term used with other than pejorative intent.

Why did you use this term?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 7:07 PM    in reply to Rogermac

Flack can be used non-pejoratively. At least in all of the research/work I've done on government public information officers, flack isn't always negative. Perhaps it's been "reclaimed."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 10:36 PM    in reply to howardclh

You may be right, but can you cite an example? I have seen a range of use of this term. At one end of the range the term is dismissive, implying that a person is an insignificant functionary. At the other end of the range it is used to identify a hired liar. I have never seen it used as a compliment, or as an entirely neutral identifier. (I doubt if it ever appears on business cards.)

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

EH

user-pic

October 19, 2009 4:51 PM   

wait, so her point wound up being that since she was looking ahead that the baby was not in her direct line of sight or something?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 4:55 PM   

"Flack" generally means a press agent or someone who handles pubic relations issues. Some find that inherently derogatory but others use it merely as a breezy descriptive, as this use seemed to me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 4:56 PM   

The TSA camera never caught what was going on in the baloon!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:08 PM   

No I think her point wound up being "Whoops, I got caught. Can we all just let this go now?"

I sympathize with being angry about the security procedures at airports. It was probably unnecessary to put her through the wringer the way they did. But if you're going to try to pull off this kind of bogus accusation, at least do it somewhere that you don't have twenty cameras pointed at you at all times. What a maroon.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:18 PM   

It is a really serious, creepy violation of privacy for them to pull up and post security video of a passenger to the Internet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:40 PM    in reply to Metzengerstein

Sorry, it is not as serious or creepy as someone making false accusations. What was the woman's motive? She lost her right to privacy when she went public and published an apparently false account of the events. TSA had every right to set the story straight.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 10:48 PM    in reply to Metzengerstein

What privacy? She was in a public place with dozens of other people!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:25 PM   

LOL at the last two posts (jagriff and Metz-something that was cut off). Much as I dislike TSA and its procedures, she absolutely deserved to be put through the wringer like this. It was basically pure libel what she posted. Twitter and other web communications make it far too easy to spread false memes that cause real damage. When it is possible to clearly prove them wrong, they have to be crushed in order to preserve the credibility of the (I can't believe I am using this word in reference to TSA or TSA agents) victim. This is no different than the woman at my gym who falsely accused a gym employee of sexually harassing her. Cameras proved immediately that it was a false accusation.

Metz? An invasion of privacy? You really want to go there? She dragged these innocent (in this case) agents through the mud for her own self aggrandizement. There is absolutely nothing wrong with publishing the video to prove what happened when it is a point of contention. They didn't publish it gratuitously. She brought it on herself. Now, I do agree with the earliest post that it does indicate that in the future, when TSA won't release a video or videos, it probably indicates guilt.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:34 PM   

TSA had a public dispute over the way Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-UT) treated their officers at the Salt Lake City airport recently, and vice versa. It took weeks for a partial video to be released, showing that Chaffetz did nothing wrong (and probably TSA didn't either).

While I think it's unfair to make false accusations against TSA, and for TSA to make false accusations against the people they are supposed to be serving, it is scary that this agency can publish or withhold video at their sole discretion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:46 PM   

Just another publicity seeker like the bubble boy's father and the women who scratched a backwards b on her cheek and said she had been attacked by Obama supporters. WTF is up with these people?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 19, 2009 5:55 PM   

It's a privacy violation to release a video shot in a public place surounded by dozens, maybe hundreds of people?

Don't think so.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

November 20, 2009 4:28 PM   

I don't think this is a proper use of surveillance video, either. It's not a privacy violation but it's also not there for the TSA to use as part of its PR apparatus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on