A media strategery

A short section in the report from the comission investigating the 9/11 attacks singled out the media for a bit of criticism.

"It is hard now to recapture the conventional wisdom before 9/11. For example, a New York Times article in April 1999 sought to debunk claims that Bin Laden was a terrorist leader, with the headline 'U.S. Hard Put to Find Proof Bin Laden Directed Attacks.'"

Basically, the section criticizes the media for not calling attention to terrorism concerns in the months before 9/11. Of course, these concerns are much better publicised now, due in no small part to the efforts of the Department of Homeland Security to keep the public informed.
I hear a lot of crap from people about how all the announcements from DHS about possible upcoming attacks are part of a "strategy of fear" used by the Bush administration to keep Americans cowed and therefore eager to vote Republican. Would they prefer another surprise attack? If terrorism concerns were not sufficiently publicised, as they weren't before 9/11, how long would it be before we were reading another report like this? Would we even be around to read it next time?
"What, then, are we supposed to do when we hear such an annoucement?" they often follow-up with. I don't know what to do either. But do you think the people on board the flight that crashed in Pennsylvania knew what to do? No, but they shouted, "let's roll" and did something anyway, saving countless lives, and perhaps the lives of a majority of our elected officials, in the process. Annie Jacobsen didn't know what to do, but we know that there is still a very real threat. We're given the comparative luxury of contemplating in advance what actions we could conceivably take, and I think the administration deserves credit for giving us that.