Hurricane Katrina, Bush, & the Media

[TheeBadOne]

Ill wind may not blow to the Whitehouse

By Newton Emerson

As the full horror of Hurricane Katrina sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if this is the end of George Bush's presidency. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that every copy of the US Constitution was destroyed in the storm. Otherwise President Bush will remain in office until noon on January 20th, 2009, as required by the 20th Amendment, after which he is barred from seeking a third term anyway under the 22nd Amendment.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term will not still be damaged in some terribly satisfying way.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that the entire political agenda of George Bush's second term consists of repealing the 22nd Amendment. Otherwise, with a clear Republican majority in both Houses of Congress, he can carry on doing pretty much whatever he likes.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if the Republican Party itself will now suffer a setback at the congressional mid-term elections next November.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided that people outside the disaster zone punish their local representatives for events elsewhere a year previously, both beyond their control and outside their remit, while people inside the disaster zone reward their local representatives for an ongoing calamity they were supposed to prevent. Otherwise, the Democratic Party will suffer a setback at the next congressional election.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if an official inquiry will shift the blame for poor planning and inadequate flood defences on to the White House. The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody admits that emergency planning is largely the responsibility of city and state agencies, and nobody notices that the main levee which broke was the only levee recently modernised with federal funds. Otherwise, an official inquiry will pin most of the blame on the notoriously corrupt and incompetent local governments of New Orleans and Louisiana.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush contributed to the death toll by sending so many national guard units to Iraq.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody recalls that those same columnists have spent the past two years blaming George Bush for another death toll by not sending enough national guard units to Iraq. Otherwise, people might wonder why they have never previously read a single article advocating large-scale military redeployment during the Caribbean hurricane season.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnist are asking how a civilised city can descend into anarchy.

The answer is that only a civilised city can descend into anarchy.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should be held responsible for the terrible poverty in the southern states revealed by the flooding.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody holds Bill Clinton responsible for making Mississippi the poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as president, or for making Arkansas the second-poorest state in the union throughout his entire term as governor. Otherwise, people might suspect that it is a bit more complicated than that.

As the full horror of this sinks in, thousands of desperate columnists are asking if George Bush should not be concerned by accusations of racism against the federal government.

The answer is almost certainly yes, provided nobody remembers that Jesse Jackson once called New York "Hymietown" and everybody thinks Condoleezza Rice went shopping for shoes when the hurricane struck because she cannot stand black people.

Otherwise sensible Americans of all races will be more concerned by trite, cynical and dangerous political opportunism.

As the full horror of that sinks in, this columnist is simply glad that everybody cares.

link

[Rocky Raab]

LOUD APPLAUSE

Thank you, Newton Emerson. Thank you.

I have personally worked with the media for 15 years. I've been the subject of more than 2,000 TV, radio and newspaper interviews by media all over the world. I was one of two chief spokesmen for the rocket company that built the Challenger boosters. So when I say I know the media, bank on it.

The media (with a very few exceptions) are scum. They are lying, deceitful, malicious, cruel, uncaring, amoral, deeply biased, hypocritical pack of sharks. And those are their good qualities. Bank on it.

[DogYeller]

The media (with a very few exceptions) are scum. They are lying, deceitful, malicious, cruel, uncaring, amoral, deeply biased, hypocritical pack of sharks.

Come on Rocky tell us how you really feel.

[denton]

My introduction to journalistic mendacity was back in about the year 3, when I was in college.

It was spring. The grass was green. Evenings were warm and pleasant. So we had a water balloon fight, thoroughly drenching each other, and, in general having a harmless, fun frolic. A couple of knuckleheads decided to throw rocks, but they were quickly run off.

Headlines the next morning: 800 rock throwing, jeering students rioted last night at BYU.

[fabsroman]

The media industry should be held to a higher standard than the every day Jane or Joe. They should be held responsible for lible and slander regardless of whether any real damages were done to those reported on. If the story is false, they should be responsible for punitive damages to prevent this kind of crap. If they want to say 800 students were throwing rocks, they had better be able to prove that 800 students were throwing rocks.

If I were BYU, I would have sued the media because there is definitely the potential for direct damages (i.e., students might not want to attend an university full of rock throwers).

[Rocky Raab]

Possibly the most exasperating thing about the media is the WAY they lie. They can take100 verifiable facts about an event, and print or air 63 hand-picked ones to make the story come out any way they choose.

If challenged, they can point to those select things and say "every one of those things is true." They're right, but if they had cherry-picked a different set of items, the story would have seemed the opposite.

In Denton's example, here's how they cherry-picked the facts:

800 BYU Students in Rock-Throwing Melee

Completely true. But hardly what happened. Here's the real story:

Handfull of Students Disrupt Water Balloon Party

Drastically different slant, isn't it?

If you ever experience an event that's later reported in the media, I'll bet you have to ask yourself, "Was that reporter at the same event I was?" Because you'll hardly recognize what you saw in the reporter's description. Apply that same disbelief to every news story you see or read. I do.

[8X56MS]

The media, like any other business, have an agenda. That usually is trying to bring in as many advertising dollars as possible. Katrina just showed once again, that yellow journalism sells, and that even the most fanciful treatments of the truth will can be sold to Americans. We have become news junkies, and that is exploited daily.

The other aspect of the media, is that they are very liberal, and have taken partisanship to a new level.

[TheeBadOne]

Originally posted by 8X56MS
The media, like any other business...

That's always been one of my points about the Media. They are a business, and as such they have a product they sell (must sell) to survive. The product sells best when it's interesting.
So, they are not necessarily there to produce a accurate product, but to produce an interesting/attractive product.

[8X56MS]

Bingo!!

[Lilred]

That was great..common sense and truth..whata concept..

[Deerman]

Maybe that explains why Fox News and talk radio are doing so well?

[Steverino]

Jack Kelly: No shame
The federal response to Katrina was not as portrayed
Sunday, September 11, 2005

It is settled wisdom among journalists that the federal response to the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina was unconscionably slow.


Jack Kelly is national security writer for the Post-Gazette and The Blade of Toledo, Ohio (jkelly@post-gazette.com, 412-263-1476).

"Mr. Bush's performance last week will rank as one of the worst ever during a dire national emergency," wrote New York Times columnist Bob Herbert in a somewhat more strident expression of the conventional wisdom.

But the conventional wisdom is the opposite of the truth.

Jason van Steenwyk is a Florida Army National Guardsman who has been mobilized six times for hurricane relief. He notes that:

"The federal government pretty much met its standard time lines, but the volume of support provided during the 72-96 hour was unprecedented. The federal response here was faster than Hugo, faster than Andrew, faster than Iniki, faster than Francine and Jeanne."

For instance, it took five days for National Guard troops to arrive in strength on the scene in Homestead, Fla. after Hurricane Andrew hit in 1992. But after Katrina, there was a significant National Guard presence in the afflicted region in three.

Journalists who are long on opinions and short on knowledge have no idea what is involved in moving hundreds of tons of relief supplies into an area the size of England in which power lines are down, telecommunications are out, no gasoline is available, bridges are damaged, roads and airports are covered with debris, and apparently have little interest in finding out.

So they libel as a "national disgrace" the most monumental and successful disaster relief operation in world history.

I write this column a week and a day after the main levee protecting New Orleans breached. In the course of that week:

More than 32,000 people have been rescued, many plucked from rooftops by Coast Guard helicopters.

The Army Corps of Engineers has all but repaired the breaches and begun pumping water out of New Orleans.

Shelter, food and medical care have been provided to more than 180,000 refugees.

Journalists complain that it took a whole week to do this. A former Air Force logistics officer had some words of advice for us in the Fourth Estate on his blog, Moltenthought:

"We do not yet have teleporter or replicator technology like you saw on 'Star Trek' in college between hookah hits and waiting to pick up your worthless communications degree while the grown-ups actually engaged in the recovery effort were studying engineering.

"The United States military can wipe out the Taliban and the Iraqi Republican Guard far more swiftly than they can bring 3 million Swanson dinners to an underwater city through an area the size of Great Britain which has no power, no working ports or airports, and a devastated and impassable road network.

"You cannot speed recovery and relief efforts up by prepositioning assets (in the affected areas) since the assets are endangered by the very storm which destroyed the region.

"No amount of yelling, crying and mustering of moral indignation will change any of the facts above."

"You cannot just snap your fingers and make the military appear somewhere," van Steenwyk said.

Guardsmen need to receive mobilization orders; report to their armories; draw equipment; receive orders and convoy to the disaster area. Guardsmen driving down from Pennsylvania or Navy ships sailing from Norfolk can't be on the scene immediately.

Relief efforts must be planned. Other than prepositioning supplies near the area likely to be afflicted (which was done quite efficiently), this cannot be done until the hurricane has struck and a damage assessment can be made. There must be a route reconnaissance to determine if roads are open, and bridges along the way can bear the weight of heavily laden trucks.

And federal troops and Guardsmen from other states cannot be sent to a disaster area until their presence has been requested by the governors of the afflicted states.

Exhibit A on the bill of indictment of federal sluggishness is that it took four days before most people were evacuated from the Louisiana Superdome.

The levee broke Tuesday morning. Buses had to be rounded up and driven from Houston to New Orleans across debris-strewn roads. The first ones arrived Wednesday evening. That seems pretty fast to me.

A better question -- which few journalists ask -- is why weren't the roughly 2,000 municipal and school buses in New Orleans utilized to take people out of the city before Katrina struck?



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Correction/Clarification: (Published 9/12/05) -- Hurricane Andrew struck Florida in 1992, not 2002.)


E-mail this story Print this story





Search | Contact Us | Site Map | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Advertise | About Us | Help | Corrections
Copyright ©1997-2005 PG Publishing Co., Inc. All Rights Reserved.