I guess it depends on whose blood they smell in the water...

I received an e-mail from a regular correspondent of mine that makes what I think is an important point:

Hey there - enjoying your recent posts - very informative. I have a bit of a rant for you, but tell me if you think I am off base on this one. Tell me if you think the magnitude of responses are appropriate.

Situation #1:
A government department identifies a seat belt problem on one of our fleets of aircraft. This seat belt is used by approximately 40 people (believe I am being generous here). They identify a risk mitigation measure (visual confirmation of a lock) and begin work on a fix. The media learns of this issue and coverage is front page, accusatory and scandalized. Opposition party members cry out for accountability and heads to roll. Similarly, this is not a one-day story, with national coverage over a number of days.

Situation #2:
A government department identifies a seat belt problem on a children's car seat. This seat belt is used by approximately 314,000 children. They identify a risk mitigation measure (physical confirmation of a friction lock) and provide the user with a mechanism to acquire a fix. The media learns of this issue, yet coverage is generally confined to back pages and the business section. One national daily - the one that led the accountability charge in situation #1 - does not (to the best of my limited search abilities) deem it necessary to even cover it.

Seems to me our priorities are out of whack a little...

Anything that involves personal safety systems should be a top priority, so I'm not recommending the Snowbirds issue be relegated to the back pages of the business section like the car seat problem was.

But the comparison does serve to illustrate the selective and deliberately torqued outrage that our media outlets exploit in order to sell advertising space.