Securitization theory has not provided a coherent model of failure. Because the Copenhagen School (CS) interprets all successful securitizing moves as a failure of normal politics, the null case – the dog that does not bark – has been under-studied. In the original formulation, securitizing moves can fail because of faults in the grammatical structure of the securitizing move, the inherent characteristics of the issue, or a rejection by the audience (Buzan, Wæver and de Wilde 1998: 25-27; Wæver 2000: 252-53). But, we must understand how the appeal of security is rejected or resisted. Huysmans concludes that politics must be understood both in terms of elite and public discourse and in terms of technocratic practices (2006: 153-55). Analysts and activists alike, regardless of their normative stance, must probe securitizing moves that do not receive audience acceptance. Balzacq speaks of a “confirmation bias” in securitization theory, which he persuasively argues must be overcome as securitization studies matures (Chapter 2, this volume).