churchill103109

On the homepage

Crimefighting

Video advances are a big crime-solving aid

Out There

Mental health

A 'national crisis' of student suicide

Health care

Health care bill stuck on Democrats' infighting

Home | Opinion Exchange | Commentary

Dave Churchill: Airport noise (and I don't mean planes)

Tim Boyle, Newsmakers via Getty Images 2000

To walk through almost any terminal is to be bombarded by amplification.

By DAVE CHURCHILL, Fergus Falls Daily Journal

Last update: October 30, 2009 - 6:59 PM

Print this story

Follow Opinion Exchange on Twitter

More from Commentary

Some people find the booming, repetitious announcements of airport public address systems annoying. Not me. I have passed beyond annoyance to fascination.

It is hard not to laugh when speakers belch out a warning that "the Department of Homeland Security has determined the threat level to be orange." Almost a decade after the color-coded threat system was created, its workings remain so mysterious that the announcement is completely pointless.

Is orange good or bad? Hard to know anymore. Americans already suspect that the threat level is "elevated." But elevated over what? Has orange become the new normal? In any case, it seems like it might be time to reconsider the scary announcements, because this one has lost its impact.

In Atlanta's gigantic airport, the routine announcement is about the carry-on liquid rule. Passengers who have passed through security and are waiting to board their flight are treated to frequent, droning reminders that it's bad -- very bad -- to carry through security a container with more than 3 ounces of liquid. It's great advice -- for passengers who haven't already come through security. So why is it being droned at passengers who already know? Makes about as much sense as any other part of what passes for airport security.

In making travelers' lives miserable via noise, the government has been joined by cable news channels. Over the past few years, gigantic flat-screen televisions endlessly broadcasting CNN and Fox "news" programs have appeared in airport departure lounges. It began with large airports, but the trend has worked its way down even to two-bit places like Fargo's Hector Field.

The volume of these televisions is invariably cranked high so that it can compete with the pointless security announcements and the actually useful sounds of gate agents boarding flights. Add it all together and it is a noise assault worthy of the Metrodome during a Vikings game. With a television around every corner, there is no escape.

Most likely the cable networks have subsidized installation of these televisions to boost their shrinking audience. Of course, no one is actually listening to the noise, because the passengers are all talking on their cell phones, checking their e-mail, writing on laptops and looking at newspapers.

The most ingenious television noise spot is in South Bend, Ind. (which also happens to have the most officious Transportation Security Administration crew in the nation). There, the airport planners -- and I use the term loosely -- have reached new heights in passenger annoyance. Two giant flat-panels face each other across the waiting area. Passengers who can see the television showing CNN's programming are seated directly underneath the Fox TV, and can only clearly hear Fox programming. Those who can hear the CNN set can only see the Fox programs.

I have long admired the South Bend airport's ingenious devotion to annoyance. Passengers who are attempting to exit the airport's security zone must pass through a revolving door that is too small to accommodate roller bags. Plus, the supposedly automatic door almost always stops moving just as a passenger tries to enter, causing many a stumble.

But I would rather smack into a cranky revolving door every day in exchange for an airport where the noise level is tolerable.

Recent Commentary stories

Ezra Klein: The politics of opting out - October 30, 2009

Ezra Klein: The politics of opting out - Andrew Sullivan takes a look at what will happen if the Senate actually does pass an opt-out plan and sees disaster on the horizon for the Republicans. "Imagine Republicans in state legislatures having to argue and posture against an affordable health insurance plan for the folks, as [Bill] O'Reilly calls them, while evil liberals provide it elsewhere," says Sullivan. "Now, of course, if the public option is a disaster in some states, this argument could work in the long run. But in the short run? It's a political nightmare for the right as it is currently constituted. In fact, I can see a public option becoming the equivalent of Medicare in the public psyche if it works as it should. Try running against Medicare." More

Comment on this story | Read all 2 comments | Hide reader comments

New ideas for the public sector

THERE'S NEVER BEEN A BETTER TIME to create a more efficient Minnesota. Facing large budget deficits at the state, county and local levels, Minnesotans are seeing with new clarity that the public sector must adapt to new economic realities. Only the smartest, most strategic reinvention will ensure that our tax dollars are spent on the best programs and services. Read more

About Opinion Exchange

Opinion Exchange is produced by the Editorial Department, which is dedicated to hosting the discussion on a range of issues of interest to Star Tribune readers online and in print. In its new format, it's our hope that Opinion Exhange will create a more dynamic dialogue between Star Tribune readers and the Editorial Board. Many individual posts will be written and signed by members of the Editorial Board and will reflect their own opinions. Daily editorials will continue to represent the institutional voice of the newspaper and be researched and written by the Editorial Department, which is independent of the newsroom.

Subscribe to RSS|Learn more about RSS