Cartoon Network CEO Resigns Over Aqua Teen Scare

DesertBlade writes "Jim Samples, CEO of Cartoon Network, has resigned over the bomb scare prompted by the Aqua Teen marketing campaign. Turner (CN's parent company) ended up paying over 2 million in restitution to the city of Boston, and a man with a thirteen year record at the company has lost his job. Though many people have been citing this as 'the ultimate successful advertising campaign', there have obviously been real consequences from the incident." By virtue of the consequences of the campaign, was this now officially a bad idea? Or is your opinion that this is all far too much knee-jerking? Have your say in the comments.

Comments

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[agent dero]

Sorry, but your post mentioned the buck at the top of the list and September 11th, and I can't help but draw any subtle lines between the head of the corp and the head of the state...

Anyways, I'm glad he took the fall for it, as he most likely has savings as opposed to the young guys who actually put up signs. Another sacrifice is made to the new State of paranoia.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[c_wraith]

It's highly likely that if this had happened on September 10, 2001, there wouldn't have been this kind of uproar. But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were No, they don't.

Just because it's cartoony doesn't mean it should be taken less seriously. If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails. I'd rather take that chance than be forced to watch continual idiocy perpetrated by those who claim to be protecting us.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Wordplay]

They don't -have- to assume anything. It's not like 9/11 was the kick-off party, and now all the terrorism is going to stream in.

We're spewing hippopotamus repellent and then claiming victory because there are no hippos. All 9/11 opened the door for was paranoia and jingoism.

Stop Spreading Terror!

[Crazy Man on Fire]

I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears.

I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...

But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.

This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective. Should the police have investigated these devices? Well, somebody reported it. Somebody should have probably calmly investigated it before bringing the whole city to a halt. Anybody with any common sense can tell that the thing wasn't a bomb. This marketing campaign hit ten cities. Only Boston freaked out. Even NYC, which has much more reason to be afraid of terrorist attacks than Boston, didn't bat an eyelash. Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe.

Re:Stop Spreading Terror!

[Original Replica]

"This marketing campaign hit ten cities. Only Boston freaked out."

So if Boston leaders are of the same caliber of leader as Jim Samples: They should accept some responsibility, admit they over reacted, and absolve Mr.Samples of this "heat" which has given him reason to step down. The marketing campaign was not at fault, Boston was.

Re:Stop Spreading Terror!

[JWSmythe]

I think it's cool that he is taking responsibility instead of cleaning house. He can afford to go without a salary for a good while, and the rest of his accomplishments as CEO will probably earn him a nice position once the smoke clears.

I couldn't agree more. However, I take serious issue witih the first part of your comment...

But in a post-9/11 U.S.A., the authorities have to assume things like this could be terrorist in nature and respond as if they were.

This kind of attitude is exactly what is wrong with this country right now. Living in fear of LED signs is exactly what the terrorists want. They're called terrorists. They intend to terrorize us. If we can't walk down the street without freaking out when we see some blinking lights, they have achieved their objective. ...

Just because we're in a "Post 9/11 World" doesn't mean that we have to freak out and assume that everything out of the ordinary is a terrorist plot. Keep your wits about you, think critically, and respond accordingly. People running around freaking out is only going to make us less safe. Thank you for saying this.. I've told plenty of people exactly the same thing, but it seems no one listens.

    The government has been playing the game right out of the Cold War Play Book. An enemy attacks us, they obviously have a goal to conquer or destroy.

    Unfortunately, terrorists aren't playing by the same set of rules. Their goal is to destabilize through fear. They launched a single attack almost 6 years ago, and the American response is "Oh my gosh, it's another attack!" We are terrified. We're scared of each other, of the government, and of some vague group on the other side of the world, who don't have the means to stage a traditional war, or even a single battle. ... and I'm sure I'll get some people replying "BUT WE ARE AT WAR! THEY SHOOT AT US ALL THE TIME!" Sorry guys, those aren't the "terrorists". Those are the citizens of two foreign countries that the US Government decided to conqueror, and slaughter a fair percentage of their population (in that order), in the name of stopping a loose knit group of individuals around the world. If another country did that to the US, I'd bet every American able to hold a gun would be shooting back too. Well, maybe not, there's a lot of passive idiots who will take whatever abuse they're given, say "thank you", and ask for more.

    But hey, we're defending ourselves from terrorism, even if it means scaring all of our civilians into believing anything may be the next attack, and reinforcing the idea that the next attack is coming, even though there is no need for a next attack, because the first one is STILL doing it's job.

America Is Officially Retarded

[copponex]

That's right kids - we're one step away from failing to have the ability to sort by color and shape. How did it come to pass that Lite Brites shut down the city of Boston?

The government has been very successful in scaring the public into thinking that the terrorism threat is real. The fact is, more people have died from lightning strikes in the past fifty years than from terrorist acts on American soil. This is fueled by the new status of new media as entertainment rather than information, which creates a sea of idiotic speculation before any facts are actually discovered. Witness the media trial of the man accused of Jon Benet's murder, or any of the number of bomb scares that have turned out to be simple security breaches.

There's no simple solution, but I think we as a society need to admit first that we have a problem.

Doin' a heck of a job, Bean Town

[bgspence]

At least the city of Boston found the weapons of mass deception.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Mr. Flibble]

To me, the fact that he took the fall for it is an ironic sign of good leadership. Not many at the top would allow themselves to be taken out over an incident like this. It probably means that he is a good leader, and understands responsiblity, and stepped up to take the heat.

The irony is that this is just the sort of person you actually want at the top, and now he is gone.

It happened because it's Boston

[Anonymous Coward]

It's because it's Boston, and that's the only reason why this happened. Don't forget, what part did Boston play in 9/11? Boston's the city whose security was so fucked up, they let the terrorists onto the planes. Boston is the city that caused 9/11. Not surprisingly, after being the primary cause of the worst terrorist attack on United States soil, Boston is a little jumpy about terrorism.

But other than causing 9/11, what else is Boston known for?

Well, there's always wasting billions of federal tax dollars to bury a highway to improve the city skyline, which lead to
crushing a woman when three-ton ceiling tiles that had been glued to the ceiling fell.

Apparently Boston wasted billions of federal dollars, only to glue three-ton concrete ceiling tiles to their tunnel.

If you want to look at government waste and horrible mismanagement, look no further than Boston. The only reason this happened is because Boston is run by incompetent idiots. The part 9/11 had with this is that 9/11 is Boston's most well known failure, one that they're not eager to repeat.

This is what is meant by the expression...

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

..."the terrorists have won".

No

[dsanfte]

If real attacks come, they'll be like Madrid. You won't know it until it happens, it'll be in a crowded place, during rushhour, and there won't be any ambiguity or warning. Boom, and it's done, and lots of people will be dead. And there's little chance of stopping it. That's life, and it fucking sucks, but here's what I can tell you for sure:

They won't be leaving fucking light-brites at the side of the road.

Some things just aren't plausible.

Re:No

[professionalfurryele]

You request to tyranny that it furnish you with it's version of security is being granted as we speak. Your son may grow up safe from terrorists, although those who you plead with for his life could hardly care less, and can do little to protect it. The security you seek is a figment of your imagination. The protection you seek is from an enemy that is hardly a threat. It remains to be asked however, where will you plead to when your son is threatened by the very tyranny you invite?

It would be a grave error in judgement to confuse those of us who fear extremists in our governments more than we fear extremists a thousand miles away as merely narcissistic.

Re:No

[inviolet]

I've got a kid. And if a little overreaction means the difference between drawing flowers with him and placing flowers on his grave, then I'm all for a little overreaction.

Having a child is the best reason to be cavalier about this. The world is full of risks, and this particular risk (terrorist litebrite bombs) is well on the "might as well worry about being hit by a meteorite" end of the risk spectrum. Yet, tour child is watching your reactions and noting your opinions in order to develop his or her own sense of reasonable.

Furthermore, your child will eventually be living under the heel of the authorities -- the same authorities who are subconsciously but quickly realizing how much control they can take due to incidents like this... and how much fun it is to control others.

So take care when you are tempted to demand a padded world for your child. That kind of safety, at that price, is not a blessing, will not make them usefully safer, and will not cause them to develop fortitude and strength of character.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Anonymous Coward]

On the plus side, terrorists now have an easy way to shut down a city, just for the price of a few batteries and wires.

Praise Allah, the batteries were not even connected and the infidels shrieked as if they were set afire with fuel.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[SirSlud]

If we took that attitude, next thing you know, you'd be getting shredded by a Hello Kitty full of C4 and nails.

I was never suspicious of a Hello Kitty doll, but now that I've chosen to be suspicious of it, I'm doing my part! In fact, cars explode on the streets of Iraq every day, so now I call 911 everytime I see a parked car. Yet, for some reason, I'm being blamed with clogging the system full of rhetoric and empty false alarms. I just don't get it. Cars explode way more often than Hello Kitty dolls, but my vigilent attitude is not being appreciated!

I love Americans, truely, but this is one particular case wher I am absolutely thrilled that I live in a country in which you can't score political points for making a mountain out of a mole hill. Its getting to the point where you can make yourself look good by selling creative, tangential, and obtuse terrorist threats rather than workmanlike every day global occurances that kill and maim dozens to hundreds of people at a time.

You really have to give the 9/11 atrocity commiters some credit. Crash a few planes, and inspire scenarios of exploding C4-laden Hello Kitty dolls. I mean what the fuck, even domestic bombers know that letters, pipes, and cars is really all you need to be successful. If you want to kill lots of people, creativity is the domain of comic books, not reality.

Re:They should've given police a heads-up

[BillX]

In this post-9/11 world...

In a post-Hitler world, should we allow just any idiot with a radical idea to speak freely?

YTMND as always --

[RoutedToNull]

I think this says it best... http://bostonbombsquadtraining.ytmnd.com/

I agree

[Xenographic]

I, for one, find it incredibly disturbing that authorities could mistake this for a bomb. That, to me, shows that they are ill-prepared. I've heard many times how they "still had to take it seriously" but they didn't. Anyone *competent* should've known several reasons why it wasn't a bomb:

* No source of shrapnel, that plus the odd placing makes them incredibly ineffective as anti-personnel weapons.

* They're WAY too small to cause structural damage, even if the batteries were supposed to be shaped charges. I'm sorry, but I don't see an explosive that size as being able to even scratch a bridge like that.

* No payload -- batteries don't explode (Sony's catch on fire, at most) and even if they did, and even if they were shaped charges, they're oriented completely wrong on the device, so I don't see how they were supposed to cause anti-personnel damage.

* You do NOT call attention to a device like that with blinking lights. SOME of us would know it was a bomb even if it had a cartoon on it and others would assume it was one anyhow. Now, it's true that the IRA used to do something somewhat similar, but what they did was have a small explosion to attract rescue workers & such, then a larger one to kill them. You don't attract people with blinking lights, you'd never be able to properly time the explosion unless you were standing there, waiting to get caught.

So what have we learned here? Hopefully that a terrorist's purpose is to cause terror.
Every time you panic, the terrorists win.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[anagama]

The biggest idiocy perpetrated in this incident was by the people who didn't think far enough ahead to anticipate that this was going to happen

That's just paranoid raving BS -- see a neurologist about that reflexive knee jerk. People should not be expected to forsee ridiculous over-reaction. Fact is, those in charge in Boston are the sole idiots here (though some at the Cartoon Network people who appologized, paid money or quit are also idiots for caving in so easily). See for example: Cartoon Network publicity stunt sparks panic in Boston -- but not here

From the Seattle PI article:

"To us, they're so obviously not suspicious," said King County sheriff's spokesman John Urquhart. "They're not suspicious devices or packages. We don't consider them dangerous."

The Associated Press reported that road workers in Woodinville found the figures, which are an advertising gimmick for a late-night TV show on the Cartoon Network. Urquhart could not confirm where the obscene-gestured whatsits were found.

"I haven't actually seen them; I don't know how many there are or where they were found," Urquhart said. "I just know they're lighted cartoon figures. This is a joke. I really don't know the promotional point."

Which one? Bizarro World? :]

[Xenographic]

> COME ON! It's a huge pile of electronics with a display that's giving you the finger! What retard would possibly not know it's a bomb?

The kind who knows that real bombs have payloads. The kind that knows that a device that small isn't going to cause structural damage to something like a bridge even if it was 100% high explosive. The kind who knows that they were very, very poorly placed as anti-personnel devices, called unnecessary attention to themselves, and probably wouldn't have been able to kill anyone at all, unless that person had been standing right next to them.

You know, the kind of person who might be found on a bomb squad :] Well, a competent bomb squad, like those found in all the other cities...

--
Every time you panic, the terrorists win.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[ResidntGeek]

Why does anyone have to take a fall for it? It was idiocy by government officials that was the problem.

Re:Which one? Bizarro World? :]

[Garse Janacek]

Mod parent up.

I live in Boston. The city screwed up, badly. Pretty much everyone I know thinks city officials made us look completely ridiculous. This was not a case of reasonable precautions, even, as they say, in a post-9/11 world.

All these people keep saying "But it could have been a bomb, you don't know!" or "Well if it had been a bomb, you'd be glad they responded the way they did!"

No. I agree wholeheartedly with the parent here. It couldn't have been a bomb. Literally, physically, something that looks like those devices could not possibly be an explosive device of any serious power, nothing that poses any danger to any structure or even any human who wasn't essentially holding them in his hands.

An ordinary person off the street might not know this. That's fine. But a bomb squad member damn well better know this, and it terrifies me that the bomb squad members in our city apparently don't. What the hell are they going to do if there is a real bomb, and they have to try and disable it without blowing up anything important? If they don't even have the basic grasp required to know there should be a payload, what exactly do they know about the construction of bombs? Seriously, I'm not nearly as bothered by the possibility of some terrorists planting a bomb as I am knowing that if there is a bomb, our trained professionals whose job it is to handle that sort of thing won't be able to do anything about it, even if they know where the bomb is and have plenty of extra time. What the hell is the bomb squad for?

Utter failure of threat assessment

[RonBurk]

Anybody who's ever been stuck in traffic can understand the knee-jerk "those bozos should pay" response.

But anybody who cares about national security and terrorism should be sobered by what happened in this case: an utter failure of threat assessment. Our ability to survive terrorism is not just reliant on the ability to detect and respond to threats: it's crucial to be able to detect the lack of threats and not respond to them.

What Boston demonstrated is that they are ripe for terrorism. After all, terrorism is about creating terror, not about inflicting actual damage. Boston showed you can terrorize them with some children's toys and no explosives at all.

Of course, the knee-jerk conservative reaction will also include the phrase "abundance of caution" and "we can't take any chances". The problem is if you have an abundance of caution and can't take any chances, then a real terrorist action can have you dancing all over the place trying to respond to decoy threats and missing the real action.

Correctly assessing situations that are not threatening is just as important to security as correctly assessing situations that are.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Taevin]

That's the part about this that pisses me off the most. Okay, sure, the Lite-Brights are out of the ordinary (at least for being hung up about the city). I can even see how such a device could be seen as a threat to some self important official with a stick up his ass, and would not entirely blame them for doing something about it. The fact that they went completely over the top with this and started trying to prosecute people is not understandable. Why is it so hard for them to admit they were wrong? If they had just said "Oops, yeah, these things are pretty harmless. We apologize for the scare." there would be no problems and no media circus.

I don't quite remember where they were all placed but even if they were placed around an airport, I still personally think it's an overreaction simply on technical grounds. Given the size of the devices, they would have to be attached to a plane or be within several dozen feet to cause any noteworthy damage, even if they were pure C4. Since none of them were placed on airport grounds, they posed absolutely no threat to aircraft.

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[anagama]

Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause burns.
A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that pouring boiling water on a person will cause an earthquake in Uganda.
A. No.
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will get taken down and a fine sent to the party who put it up w/o permission?
A. Yes
Q. Is it forseeable that a lite-brite advertisement placed w/o permission will cause an entire city to "duck and cover".
A. No

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Anonymous Coward]

New York also had these devices, and and managed not to flip out like a pack of morons. And you might see why they're even more touchy about 9/11 since, you know...

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[Grym]

Please, don't provide any encouragement or validation to this flawed line of reasoning. As a free and open society with limited resources, we have to be prepared to accept a certain amount of risk. "Erring on the side of caution," (i.e. maximum panic-mode) for such an obviously low-risk situation is irresponsible, expensive, and counterproductive.

Rather than live in a fantasy world where Bostonians are applauded as heroes because they disarm lite brites filled with imaginary explosives, we need to rationally think about this. Otherwise, there's no end to this madness.

Anything could be a bomb. Can you ever rule out the possibility of "the terrorists" surgically implanting bombs within their abdominal cavities? Or what if evil terrorist surgeons implanted bombs into unknowing patients? In which case... maybe YOU could be a bomb! Maybe I'm a bomb! What if they've been at work since we were all born. Maybe... we're all bombs! So, in light of this, what should we do now? Surgically operate on everyone--just to be sure? My God! We'd be heroes, the saviors of a very thankful nation if we were right!

So, the question is then: why should we discard my obviously silly possibility but still consider the similarly ridiculous killer lite-brite scenario?

-Grym

Re:Buck Stops At The Top

[omeomi]

Comedy Central should have taken it to court. Aside from small fines from littering laws, is it really even illegal to leave random stuff around a city? Just because it has a little LED guy on it shouldn't make it illegal. And seriously, why in the world would a terrorist mark their bombs with light-up cartoon characters? What sense does that even make? Not everything is a potential terrorist action. Just because the police over-reacted instead of having a bomb squad guy take a look at it and say, "no, this is more like a Lite Bright than a bomb", doesn't make it Comedy Central's responsibility to pay for everything.