"TaxSrv" wrote in message ...

If media goes undercover to a used car dealer to show how buyers can
get screwed, you'd probably agree with that. If they go undercover to
an FBO under circumstances which were obviously suspicious, what's the
difference? The targeted auto dealer may be known to be sleazy, but
if the FBO had agreed to the charter, what adjective do they deserve?

Fred F.

Didn't the FBO agree to the charter, which is after all one of their sources
of revenue, until they became suspicious of the passengers? Didn't the FBO
continue with the facad to hold the suspects there until the Police/FBI
arrived? What possible parallel can you draw between the FBO and a crooked
car dealer?

If the media engages in a legal activity, e.g. a customer with a hidden
camera to show a crooked car dealership, that is one thing. When then
engage in an illegal activity, e.g. armed terrorist suspects attempting
to bypass airport security, that is another. Illegal is illegal no matter
what the motive. When you factor in the news media's ratings quest, their
Geobel-esk "the truth is what WE make it", and apparent desire to paint GA
as no good and the root of all Al Caida evil, it is outright criminal. They
should receive the same harsh treatement that the college student recieved
who smuggled boxcutters on a plane to demonstrate lapse airport security.

Gary P.