Needless exaggeration
In today’s NY Post, Jonah Goldberg does a good job (better than I have done) examining the issues of reporting exaggeration and rumor in the heat of crisis in Katrina.
He did not use this deflation of the scale of the horror — as others have — as an opportunity to make it seem as if the disaster and thus the response to it weren’t so bad, after all. No, he leaves all the responsible on the hook, not just media and also local officials but also his guy, Bush:
The president isn’t blameless either. The initial response to Katrina was a mess. We’ll have plenty of time to debate how much of a mess and who was responsible. But it’s a political fact that when the media was hysterical and local leadership behaving abysmally, Bush did not successfully impose order. That’s something he’d have to do in the wake of terrorist attack, and it’s something he should have done with Katrina.Let’s hope lessons were learned all around.
There are, indeed, lessons to be learned all around and that is where we need to keep our focus.
At a media blatherfest I attended yesterday (more on that later), the talk turned, as it inevitably does at such events, to who’s more trustworthy: Big-media folks thinks they’re trustworthy and they hint that bloggers aren’t; bloggers remind big-media types that a huge hunk of their (former) audience does not trust them and they argue that they have a better means of correction. There was also talk about the need for journalism to stop acting as if it is always right and owns the truth when, in fact, there is far more ambiguity and uncertainty and error than they’ve admitted and the public needs to be — if they aren’t already! — attuned to recognizing the mistakes that come in the fog of war.
But in the case of Katrina — and in spite of very good reporting and commentary across media — it’s still true that everybody messed up, everybody (myself included; Goldberg includes himself as well) bought the exaggerations as news.
Some would say that had an impact on the response. It’s also reasonable to say that the response was all the more shocking because it wasn’t more decisive even in the face of all the Armageddon reports. But the truth, at this end of the day, is that the reporting was merely — as we say online — a presentation layer over the reality. And it was flawed.
What I keep trying to say (and I’ll stop now) is that I hope the debate about the coverage of the story — which needs to happen — will get in the way of the real story, of the lessons everyone needs to learn.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:42 am
I’m torn on the MSM, but Jonah Goldberg surely isn’t trustworthy. I never read any article by him that wasn’t distorting the facts, leaving out important details or plain simply presented his prejudices as common knowledge. From time to time, he may post a story that’s looking neutral and moderate, but it’s always a trojan horse, transporting his extreme right wing point of view.
Just look at this: “But it’s a political fact that when the media was hysterical and local leadership behaving abysmally”
Well, imho, and I don’t think I’m alone, the media didn’t act hysterical (hysterical is the Holloway story, ok?), and it’s far from a proven fact that the local leadership was abysmal. Quite to the contrary, under this kind of strain, facing emergencies from all sides and lacking communication means and supplies, it looks as though regional authorities did a good job. There are lots of stories reporting a great ‘can do’ spirit and determinism under pressure. What’s missing are reports that FEMA officials were up to the task. I can’t recall any. While my opinion doesn’t reach the status of fact, it’s at least more substantiated than Goldberg’s assessment. On what evidence is the evaluation of ‘abysmal’ based? He should come forward with his sources or shut up.
I’m totally dumbfounded that you take this partisan hack seriously. Imho, this is raising severe doubts on your sanity and reason.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:44 am
Jeff: You are missing a “not.”
“What I keep trying to say (and I’ll stop now) is that I hope the debate about the coverage of the story — which needs to happen — will get in the way of the real story, of the lessons everyone needs to learn.”
That’s will not get in the way, right?
You can delete this after you fix it.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:51 am
Jeff, I think the problem many of us see is that once the scale of destruction in New Orleans became apparent on Aug. 30, too many in the media who were not in New Orleans began to see this as “Hurricane Andrew II”, recalling the Florida storm in 1992 that helped sink Bush 41’s re-election hopes.
I can understand the problem of the reporters on-site in dealing with rumors — if the mayor of New Orleans tells you there are bodies stacked up in the Superdome or that there are going to be 10,000 dead, well he’s the head of the city, and at the very least, his statements are newsworthy — but the story by those guiding the coverage back in New York and Washington quickly turned into near total absolution at the time for local officials with no effort to follow up their initial cliams and/or actions and inactions, in favor of a simple black-and-white story line that just blamed FEMA and the federal government.
There was no effort at attempting to get the context of the situation as to who was responsible for what relef/rescue efforts, and no one assigned to do background on why Lousiana was so ill-prepared. Instead, you had pompus windbags like Jack Cafferty throwing lightning bolts from Columbus Circle at the federal government, or people like Aaron Broussard going on Meet the Press and trying to gain sympathy with either a horribly mistaken belief or a charge that bordered on blood libel. And for the better part of two weeks, no one at the big media outlets cared enough to do any checking on the accuracy of those stories.
The old newspaper saying was “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” While it’s extremely hard to do immediate fact-checking on a 24/7//365 news cycle, where TV viewers and Internet news site readers expect to find out things fast, the slowness of the media to fact-check their own reporting on Katrina has been embarassing.
September 29th, 2005 at 9:02 am
“the mayor of New Orleans tells you there are bodies stacked up in the Superdome or that there are going to be 10,000 dead”
“And for the better part of two weeks, no one at the big media outlets cared enough to do any checking on the accuracy of those stories.” John
“In New Orleans, Nagin upticked his estimate of the probable death toll in his city from merely thousands, telling NBC’s “Today” show, “It wouldn’t be unreasonable to have 10,000.” ” Foxnews 09/05
” “My guess is that it will start at 10,000, but that is only a guess,” Vitter said, according to Agence France-Presse.” worldnetdaily 09/02
“Alarming predictions of as many as 10,000 dead in New Orleans may have been greatly exaggerated, with authorities saying Friday that the first street-by-street sweep of the swamped city revealed far fewer corpses than feared. ” Yahoo news, 09/09
Hmm, now what was your point, John?
September 29th, 2005 at 9:20 am
wheew….How Gray can say that the local and state pols did a commendable is beyond me. The local and State Pols only caused problems by their whining instead of reacting like people did in Mississippi or Alabama. Did FEMA screw up? Yep! Did Bush screw up? Yep! But the biggest screw up was by the local authorities. Their job was to be ready for this type of disaster. The first response is by them NOT the Federal Goverment and should remain that way.
Lets not forget the Media. The Media flew around in helicopters (how many did they tie up from possible rescue work) and showing people on their roofs waving shirts or towels looking for help. Did they help them, no they flew on while the look on the faces of the people where “what the he..??” Did the media offer those helicopters for rescue work or help in flying in water and food? I would like that question brought up to them. They only seem to want to report on the lack of response by “other” sources. Guess they do not classify themselves as being able to help in an emergency? I just watched CNN report that the media got the story right on Katerina. When asked about the reports of exaggeration by the Media, the reporter stated that “The question is not if we exaggerated but did the Media get it right on how the people wanted to be helped”. Well.. DUH! Sounds like the Media is taking a page from the Politicions. Don’t answer the question, just answer the question you wanted to hear. Just shows a poor response by all responsible groups in the disaster. Lets hope everyone learns from this. Being a cynical type I have my doubts.
September 29th, 2005 at 9:28 am
I think Jonah Goldberg makes it into Buzzmachine to counter thread hysteria from Bush’s extreme defenders, which has filtered through the comments at earlier posts Jeff wrote on the same subject.
They’re not content with claiming that state and local governments share mightily in the blame for the poor response. They don’t feel that a complex picture of divided responsibility provides the President with enough vindication because that vindication isn’t total; and when you’re using propaganda to battle what you see as propaganda, total is what you need. Only the categorical will do. “The president was unfairly treated by a ‘blame Bush’ press…” isn’t even close to enough for them. They’re hard core. Their truth is marching on no matter what.
The need–and I do think it’s a psychological hunger–is for even more innocence for Bush, an even purer record; and the way they get there is to spotlight even greater media bias, a staggeringly dishonest press corps that knows the truth, but won’t report it. Accordingly, and magically, to the extremists there was no federal failure at all, no lapse in leadership whatsoever– a position that even Republican office-holders aren’t taking.
Thus in a previous thread Eileen offers one extreme and categorical statement after another: “The problem many of us see is that the only story the media has told is that Bush and FEMA failed, without providing any factual support for the claim….” “MSM continues to studiously avoid all efforts to investigate or report upon any issues related to local or state actions/inactions…” “…Not only are myths and legends being reported as reality, but the lack of accurate reporting on roles and responsibilities combines to create an utterly false picture about ‘what went wrong’…..” and so on.
Bottom line for those afflicted with total innocence hunger: “I believe most of us would acknowledge federal faults if we’re shown them. So far that hasn’t happened. And until it does - if it does - we’re not going to accept this meme that ‘‘failure occured on all levels, while the MSM continues in its tireless efforts to bring down this administration (as well as its party in the next election) on the back of Katrina.”
Dids you get that? No failure at all levels of government– only failure at “their” levels.
Against all that Jonah Goldberg of National Review–a conservative–is brought in to say:
I think Jeff felt sorry for them, and hoped that someone on “their” side could restore sanity.
September 29th, 2005 at 9:34 am
“How Gray can say that the local and state pols did a commendable is beyond me.” Easy. I’m sticking to what was reported. You say, media did distort the situation. OK. But then you have to show facts supporting your point of view. Where are there reports showing srewing up among regional authorities? Where are the reports about successful FEMA actions? Do we have to rely on your word? Sorry, but I won’t.
“The local and State Pols only caused problems by their whining instead of reacting like people did in Mississippi or Alabama.”
As we all now, with only a few exceptions, the media ignored Mississippi and Alabama. It owuld be right to point out this asymetry in reporting. Still, we have seen coverage of Biloxi, with officials whining about the total lack of support. And what’s wrong with whining? Those locals have to care about their citizen in the first place. If they could accelerated rescue efforts by making a fuzz in the press, that’s perfecly ok.
“But the biggest screw up was by the local authorities. Their job was to be ready for this type of disaster.” Spinmaster latenite, check the DHS national response plan again. It’s their job to prepare for disasters. That’s a proven fact. And I would still like to see any evidence that the locals did screw up. What is the basis of this evaluation?
September 29th, 2005 at 9:48 am
Jay, ok, grudgingly I admit that Goldberg is more balanced in his evaluation than many other hardcore rightwingers. Still , he can’t resist in pointing his finger at the locals. We shouldn’t forget, those people have a lot of other tasks in their poor countries and cities beside preparing for disasters. On the other hand, DHS has a huge budget and FEMA was build solely for the purpose of handling disaster preparation and relief efforts. And if, in hindsight, there are cases where locals didn’t make the right decisions (like the evacuation of NO), where have the feds been that should have provided advice and pointed out those flaws? My sympathy is with the locals, not with the unqualified bureaucrats on this matter. And the reporting supports this view. All Goldberg has to offer for his shifting the blame is an implied misreporting by ‘liberal’ media. Lame old, lame old…
September 29th, 2005 at 10:14 am
My personal opinion is that as former Texas residents, Bush and Brown could not have not known about the systemic corruption and incompetence that is Louisana government — this is the state that gave up the Edwin Edwards vs. David Duke gubernatorial race, remember? — whch is something Brown somewhat sarcastically stated to the congressional committee on Tuesday. But it should have been a factor in FEMA’s initial response, based on New Orleans’ evacuation problems from 2004, when Hurricane Ivan looked as if it would come ashore in that area. Screw-ups like that dates all the way back to the 1927 flood that helped put Huey Long in power, and the feds had warning that the area’s emergency response plans were problematic at best and potentially fatal if a worst-case situation happened.
FEMA also deserves its share of blame for redirecting relief trucks around the area in haphazard fashion and in not ordering a streamlining of paperwork in the inital days following the levy break. But it wasn’t until after Bush’s speech 10 days ago on the possible expanded role of the federal government in dealing with hurricane relief efforts that the media began any serious discussion of what the government under current law could have done in handling Katrina, and what duties were the reposnsibility of state and local officials.
And Gray, I’m puzzled about what point you’re trying to make by pointing out Nagin’s 10,000 death estimate and adding Vitter’s comment. If you read my posts on the earlier Broussard threads, I said the cover-your-ass strategy of the Louisiana pols was bi-partisan, and that aside from Vitter, Republican Bobby Jindal (who was endorsed for Congress in ‘04 by Democrat Broussard) also sought to direct responsbility for the problems completely away from the locals and onto the federal government in an interview on Fox News.
From their point of view, I don’t think it mattered whether or not there was an R or a D in the White House, the goal was to make sure the local voters didn’t put the blame on them, and instead redirected it towards Brown and other faceless FEMA officials. But for a number of people in the media, the White House occupant did make a difference, and steering the blame northeast to Washigton without any sort of anaylsis of the situation by people who were in position to do so was more a case of wish fulfillment than accurate reporting.
Logistically, people like Brian Williams, Anderson Cooper or Shephard Smith couldn’t be expected to report on any more than what they could see around them, while taking the word of local officials, because mobility in New Orelans was so limited. It was the efforts of the big media outlets by people not inside the city itself that was lacking in the days immediately after the levee breaks.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:23 am
“And Gray, I’m puzzled about what point you’re trying to make by pointing out Nagin’s 10,000 death estimate and adding Vitter’s comment. ”
John, this was intended as a direct rebuttal to your claim:
“but the story by those guiding the coverage back in New York and Washington quickly turned into near total absolution at the time for local officials with no effort to follow up their initial cliams and/or actions and inactions”
Plus, I wanted to show that Nagin wasn’t the only one fearing a very high number of deaths. I think it’s unfair that you singled him out.
The Yahoo news quote should show that there has been an effort to follow up on claims (in this example, 10000 deaths). It’s only one of several sources reporting a revised estimate.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:29 am
“From their point of view, I don’t think it mattered whether or not there was an R or a D in the White House, the goal was to make sure the local voters didn’t put the blame on them, and instead redirected it towards Brown and other faceless FEMA officials.”
Hmm, ok, my preuduce is that politicians always think of the next election, too. But this is mindreading, not factually based arguing. We could discuss that Brownie engaged in so many interviews to present himself in a favorable light and keep his job, but that would be mindreading, too. We can’t know this and it will lead us nowhere.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:31 am
The psychology of total innocence hunger is something else, Gary, quite different from the charge of bias and misreporting by the get-Bush MSM. Goldberg’s criticisms may be well supported, poorly-supported or not supported at all, but he recognizes a bridge too far. Even if he sees Bush as largely innocent, and the news media as a corrupt influence, it doesn’t occur to him to try to take it all the way to: they have no facts and no truth, we have all the facts and all the truth. He lets some realism in.
Tom Grey, who is himself a hard core press hater, put it this way in a prior thread: “The real story is that FIRST Dem Nagin failed; then Dem Gov. Blanco failed, and the LA director of HS failed (invisible Gen. L.); THEN later, FEMA failed. (72 hours later?).”
You have to contrast that–a complex picture of shared responsibility–with Ravo in a prior thread: “all the venom directed at Bush, in over three weeks we’ve yet to be shown even ONE clearly defined wrong move on the Katrina disaster Bush that has perpetrated.”
That’s what I’m calling total innocence hunger. There is no bridge that is too far. Realism never has to enter in. Bush made no wrong moves, which is actually more than Bush himself has claimed. I don’t think you can get there with media bias, or Limbaugh-style culture war, or even demonization of Dems.
The need for total innocence goes beyond all that. It’s closer to cult behavior than anything found in politics or media criticism.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:38 am
The need–and I do think it’s a psychological hunger–is for even more innocence for Bush, an even purer record…
Mr. Rosen, no less than 4 individuals told me on the Sunday following the hurricane that Bush was evil, that Bush deliberately let New Orleans flood so that developers* tied to Bush could acquire the rights to the land being vacated by the poor, that if those had been white people on the roofs that Bush would have had the choppers in a heartbeat, and so on.
One of these individuals is a lawyer, the other a paralegal, the other works in advertising at a Gannett newspaper, the other a designer. I, here in Vermont, a registered Democrat, have been tagged as a Bush apologist. So, yes, there is a psychological hunger.
I fully understand the FEMA stumbled and I fully expect they will stumble in the future disaster. As for Bush, I wish he hadn’t been on vacation, I wish General Honore had gotten there sooner and I hope Brownie is not the only departure at FEMA/Dept. of Homeland Security.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:53 am
But it’s a political fact that when the media was hysterical and local leadership behaving abysmally, Bush did not successfully impose order.
(Bush is supposed to impose order on the media?)
Well, there you have it. After a month of asking:
“What exactly should President Bush have done…and exactly when…and exactly what difference would said action have made.”
the above quote is the ONLY and the most detailed answer on the subject I’ve yet seen!
This is so like pulling teeth…..I ask: …. “when the media was hysterical and local leadership behaving abysmally, Bush did not successfully impose order”….
What exactly should President Bush have done…and exactly when…and exactly what difference would said action have made to keep order in the media and among the local government?
He did not have this “chore” with any other local governments.
(I can only see a difference being made, if Bush called the local government inept before the storm, and the feds came in THEN…which of course was against the constitution to do so. If he even tried it…..wow, the resulting charges of racism! As it was Blanco held him off for days during which people suffered and died.)
WHAT exactly was the reason for the two days delay?
Another poster wondered if Blanco was keeping the feds at bay while “negotiating” for more disaster money - a time delay which cost some their lives.
And Mr. Rosen, since when is it cult behavior to believe in someone’s innocence in the absence of even one tangible charge?
September 29th, 2005 at 10:54 am
sorry for the italics. They were supposed to stop after
“What exactly should President Bush have done…and exactly when…and exactly what difference would said action have made.â€
PLEASE, PLEASE, BRING BACK PREVIEW
September 29th, 2005 at 10:56 am
Jay, I guess I see your point. Yup, the hunger for innocence and honesty is coliding with the real world of politics and public relation. But on the other hand, a completely cynical view of the world isn’t much better than a baseless idealism. Imho what’s needed is a middle road. Clinging to the facts with a good measure of scepticism and still calling for a better world.
I’m very uneasy about the growing number of people who adopt an ideological view of the world. Polls and scientistical research show that this blinders prevent humans from percepting facts that would contradict their convictions. History tells us that this is a very dangerous trend.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:57 am
Interesting comments. Were are the reports of exaggeration. Well the Superdome comes to mind. The NO Picayune says that there were 4 deaths in the superdome. Two by natural causes, one by suicide, jumping from a balcony (maybe, could have been thrown from a balcony) and one they have say they cannot tell cause of death. The Picayune may also be wrong but their storyline was about the medias panic coverage of this event. The Picayune also reported on the shooting at helicopters. They could not confirm these shootings either. They are reporting them as being false.
As to the DHS National Response plan, I have read it along with taking courses this year in CERT and ICS training. All the training I have taken this year was training that each and every Police, Fire and EMS Department in the U.S. is suppose to have already taken or are in the process of taking. This training shows how to setup and carry out a response to a disaster. Each of these courses are for FIRST RESPONDERS on the local level followed up by State and the Federal takeover if the disaster warrents it. Katerina definitely classifies as a disaster on a Federal scale and FEMA should of been there faster. But it still does not explain why the local responders did not get it right. I do not plan on letting FEMA off the hook with their response (not that they care about my little old opinion) and I expect the Locals to stand up to the same type of scrutiny. Not be excused because they had to much to do. They have been given plenty of money during the past years to prepare for the worst and have trained personnel there on a local level that knew what to do when it happens. The decision to use the Superdome was a good one. But no one there thought to stock up on food and water or make sure the generators could handle the load if they lost electricity in an emergency. Simple planning that should of been done on the local level that would have made a major difference in this storm.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:00 am
Those who think “Bush deliberately let New Orleans flood so that developers tied to Bush could acquire the rights to the land being vacated by the poor,” and those who say “there is no evidence that Federal officials failed at anything…” are members of the same cult of absolutism, but don’t know it. They have more in common with each other than with normal people.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:03 am
“What exactly should President Bush have done…and exactly when…and exactly what difference would said action have made.â€
Hmm, imho Bush made one grave mistake regarding disaster preparation. He shouldn’t have succumbed to the demand to place as many GOP friends as possible at administration posts, especially at FEMA and DHS. It looks like the republicans had their own affirmative action program that was putting party affiliation before qualification. GWB praised Clinton for the choice of James DeWitt for the helm of FEMA, why did he lower the standard when he became president?
September 29th, 2005 at 11:09 am
normal people?
If the normal people are now the people who lie like rugs, “for the greater story”…we are indeed all in deeper doodoo than any of us could ever have imagined.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:14 am
You’re not listening: normal is someone like Jonah Goldberg: “The president isn’t blameless either.”
September 29th, 2005 at 11:25 am
“But it still does not explain why the local responders did not get it right.”
latenite, great to have someone with first hand experience here. There were some reports about disaster exercises and they left the impression that all participants sat at conference tables in climatized buildings. Did the training cope with missing communication means, broken down electricity and water supply? Was the nerve rattling effect of imminent danger and human suffering taken into account, like the military tries to emulate at reality based drills (I have personally witnessed how fog grenades and fake explosions shake your coolness)?
While I have the suspicion that certainly some local disaster experts weren’t up to the task (arrogant Terry Ebbert from NO comes into mind), I think it’s unfair to engage in ‘one size fits all’ arguments like ‘the biggest screw up was by the local authorities’. Accusations should be based on facts.
Btw, what have you been doing after Katrinas impact? Have you been involved?
September 29th, 2005 at 11:27 am
Thank you Latenite…you are correct. FEMA is not a first responder. I believe they are required to be there within 72 hours.
I also believe they were there well within that time frame.
It was Blanco’s decision, or lack of one for two days, that kept them from operating immediately after their arrival. They are merely civilians, rescuers, not allowed to go into unsecured conditions. The areas were not secure due to BLANCO’s ???????????…what was that woman doing?
Remember that interview, by ABC I believe, where they tried to get the victims to lambast the federal response. Unrehearsed…they couldn’t find ONE victim that day to do so…all blamed LOCAL. They KNOW their government.
As for FEMA ….. problems are more about the cesspit that is NOLA, ….and Brown paid.
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16848
September 29th, 2005 at 11:29 am
You’re not listening: normal is someone like Jonah Goldberg: “The president isn’t blameless either.â€
If I said “Jay Rosen isn’t blameless either” you’d need more than that to go on.
I want specifics for Bush as well.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:42 am
Ravo, afaik Jay wasn’t involved in disaster measures, Bush was. And I did point out a specific mistake of GWB. Hello?
September 29th, 2005 at 11:51 am
“I believe they are required to be there within 72 hours.”
Nope. It was the DeWitt agency that was putting up a time schedule. Afaik Republican FEMA didn’t make any promises.
Imho, 72 hours seems to be a bit long, after all, the 82nd airborne can be dislocated at any part of the world in 36 hours and declared to be able to arrive at the disaster area in 18 hours. And even if it really couldn’t be done faster, the clock starting ticking on Saturday afternoon after Bush signed the orders.
“The areas were not secure due to BLANCO’s ???????????…”
Huh??? It took 40000 national guards to secure the area, Blanco had 4000. Are you aware of even the main facts of this case?
September 29th, 2005 at 11:51 am
No Gray, you were just as vague. GW put people he knew in FEMA positions?
I can’t comment on that as I don’t know about that - and it is an extremely vague concept. All politicians do so, - didn’t a former Democratic NJ gov put his foreign gay lover in charge of NJ homeland security?
The question is: were those appointees of GW inept? Then again…we come back to WHERE,HOW,WHY and what effect if any they had on THIS debacle.
As usual, - no specifics.
September 29th, 2005 at 11:53 am
The need for total innocence goes beyond all that. It’s closer to cult behavior than anything found in politics or media criticism.
“Need for total innocence”? I don’t think so. Countering erroneous facts and simplistic conclusions that the MSM simply won’t appears to me what most commentors are attempting.
Here’s one: blaming Bush for FEMA’s failure is just too simple. The knuckleheads in Congress, both Republicans and Democrats, folded FEMA into the Department of Homeland Security behemoth insuring that it would be less nimble and autonomous.
Am I driven by a “psychological hunger” to say that? You bet, but not to defend Bush per se. I point this out because the MSM has failed so badly at in-depth analysis of complex situations.
Although, Bush, in my opinion, is right on the WOT and Iraq he has poorly managed the budget and immigration reform. I think there are a lot of commentors here that are perceived by you as fellow Bush-as-absolute-innocent cultists that will agree readily with me which shreds your whole theory of motives.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:00 pm
“No Gray, you were just as vague. GW put people he knew in FEMA positions?”
Ravo, this isn’t the first time we’re having a discussion here and in every new thread you deny the facts that have been presented in media all over the country. For god’s sake, start watching TV or reading newspapers. It’s not my job to provide you with facts that are common knowledge. Hint: Do a google search like ‘bush allbaugh brown FEMA qualifications’.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:02 pm
If I said “Jay Rosen isn’t blameless either†you’d need more than that to go on. I want specifics for Bush as well.
Yes, of course you would, and I am sorry that reality has been unable to furnish you with those covincing specifics, but if you said “Rosen isn’t blameless,” my instinct would be to agree with you, since Absolute Innocence is to me a rare state in human affairs, in one’s own life, and certainly more so in politics. Whereas it seems to you, Ravo, and others who help put the cult into culture war, that absolute innocence is in fact a rather likely state for George W. Bush to be in after Katrina, (just as murderous evil, according to others in your cult, is likely to be the explanation for Bush’s response during Katrina.) One believes unless shown evidence to the contrary.
Why No Blamelessness for Bush? is a question better asked of Jonath Goldberg. That is my recommendation to you. Ask him.
September 29th, 2005 at 12:05 pm
“One believes unless shown evidence to the contrary.”
Sry, Jay, but for many here that sentence has to be changed to:
“One believes DESPITE shown evidence to the contrary.”
September 29th, 2005 at 12:21 pm
JARVIS:He did not use this deflation of the scale of the horror — as others have — as an opportunity to make it seem as if the disaster and thus the response to it weren’t so bad, after all.
This makes no sense to me at all…
Even though the “facts” were TOTALLY OFF THE MARK we mustn’t take that to mean that they weren’t as bad as it seemed?
All I here from the media (And you and Goldberg ARE the media like it or not) is self-congratulation and now excuses…
First I heard the media talking point that the local officials aren’t our concern cause they are local (Which made it PLAIN that the media coverage was about blaming Bush first and only… We don’t really CARE who’s fault this is or HOW this happened, we are going to blame Bush)
Now we are going to be REQUIRED? to accept that even though it clearly WAS NOT as bad (not even CLOSE to as bad) as we were told that it was still JUST AS BAD AS WE ALL HYPERVENTILATED ABOUT…
You and others weren’t trying to “spread the blame around” until it was found that the media in a frenzy to blame Bush went hyperactive hyperbolic BS…
I guess the truth is a defense doesn’t apply here? Reality doesn’t change anything?
Is this one of the speaking truth to power moments? (IE truth don’t matter we simply have to blame Bush?)
You are really unbelievable on this Jeff… There simply is no excuse for getting all hyperbolic in a transparent attack on Pres Bush, congratulating yourselves for the great media reportage then sort of saying “Oh well there is plenty of blame to go around” when it turns out you outraged the American people against Pres Bush…
The situation simply WAS NOT AS BAD as you and others were claiming… There is no espcaping that… And after watching all the “AMERICA OUTRAGED” chin scratching retrospective BS on CNN (Yes I know you don’t represent them) there is very little chin scratching on the unfairness of this to Pres Bush… (And there is no denying that is WAS unfair) I don’t see even a HINT of that in your or goldbergs comments… Spreading the blame around won’t do… Pres Bush holds ZERO responsibility for the irresponsible acts of “reporters” (I use the term loosely in this case)
I wonder how many awards will be handed out for the false coverage of this…
And where does Pres Bush go to get his poll numbers back? (Coming soon a chin scratching retrospective on how oh how did Pres Bush’s poll numbers drop so quickly)
September 29th, 2005 at 12:24 pm
“Need for total innocence� I don’t think so. Countering erroneous facts and simplistic conclusions that the MSM simply won’t appears to me what most commentors are attempting.
But I wasn’t speaking about most commentors, only a thread of absolutism, to which I attached statements and names. Blamelessness for Bush is, in my opinion, an important form of post-Katrina extremism. But it’s just one thread, different from charges of sloppy reporting and anti-Bush bias.
Let me put it to you as a question, penny: why do you think Jonah Goldberg, who counters erroneous facts and simplistic conclusions from the liberal media every day at The Corner, chose to separate himself from Blameless Bush? Any ideas?
September 29th, 2005 at 12:56 pm
I dunno, I consider myself solidly in the Cult of Diminished Expectations for Bush.
The New Yorker had an wonderful article by David Remick on Hurricane Katrina. It retold how President Johnson was cajoled by Senator Long into going to New Orleans after Hurricane Betsy flooded the city. It paints of portrait of President Johnson entering into a darkened elementary school being used as a shelter, flashlights guiding the way, announcing, “This is your President! I’m here to help you!â€
September 29th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
I see we’ve decided to call all those who happened to notice that the press screwed this story up one side and down the other, “extreme Bush defenders,” now. That’s very helpful. It’s also not the point.
All normal people ask is that the press get its fact right. When it doesn’t we expect it to admit it. Instead what we get is spin and more spin.
It’s not the press’s fault they didn’t bother to check even one statement they were given. “The phones were out, the President is a bum, all our readers are racists or they never would have believed us anyway, and by god that Michael Brown! What are we going to do about that damn Michael Brown?! How can we in the press be expected to do our jobs? There is a Michael Brown, for god sakes! You get rid of that Michael Brown and boy we press hounds will straigthen right up.” And we get this crap from both sides of the aisle.
You know, when politicans screw up they change the subject, they spin and they find some one else to blame. When the press screws up it does the exact same thing. Maybe you’re all in the same business…opinion shaping. Maybe facts just don’t have anything to do with your business at all.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:29 pm
Gray, you haven’t shown a shred of direct evidence that would hold water in any court in the land.
ROSEN: Yes, Jay, last I looked
One believes unless shown evidence to the contrary.
Believing in one’s innocence unless shown evidence to the contrary is still the basic for our country and certainly the legal system.
Seems the left is doing their best to destroy that however.
Scary.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:31 pm
As to the training for ICS and CERT’s the initial training is mostly classroom with some hands on courses. Our area has done one drill on a county wide disaster. Pointed out some good and some bad points. As to the nerve rattiling problems that they experienced in NO, it would be hard to setup that kind of training. Still the courses do point out communication problems that you run into and how to cope. Even a simplistic as using runners to communicate. Again, it sets the tone in the first 4 to 6 hours of a disaster on how the locals handle it. But enough bashing. I hope some postive things come out of this.
One problem, communication, has been a know problem since 9/11 and still there is no one answer on how to tackle this problem. Redoing a town/cities communication is costly and since towns/cities can’t spend money on things they are suppose to I do not see this problem going away. But it is still a local/state problem that must be resolved by those Pols. I beleive NYC is still working on getting one type of communication for every first responder group.
As to my volunteer sar group, we have worked with other volunteer EMS to discuss and train them on using the ICS method.
We have been put on response 3 times since Katerina but the OEM in my state sent our first responders (police, fire and paid EMS groups) and asked us to backfill. We elected to backfill because of the problems volunteer groups were having during the first few weeks. Which is another problem.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Ravo, we are not in court here. I don’t have prove facts that most of the readers here have already read online, in newspaper or seen in TV. It’s outright ridiculous that you deny that Michael Brown had no qualification whatever in disaster management. He got a post at FEMA because his buddy Allbaugh was appointed by Bush. Allbaugh has a history as a repub fundraiser. All this is undisputed fact. If you deny this, show us evidence substantiating your opinion.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
Hmmm…’I don’t have to prove facts…’
September 29th, 2005 at 1:40 pm
“Blamelessness for Bush is, in my opinion, an important form of post-Katrina extremism. But it’s just one thread, different from charges of sloppy reporting and anti-Bush bias”
You can equivalize the extreme left-right reactions because they both have little regard for reality (I hear the calls for Bush specifics, and there is a point there, but as the leader of the Federal gov’t he is defacto responsible for the inevitable inefficiencies and poor real-time decisions made that occur in response to every natural disaster). But are the repurcussions from these positions also equivalent? Put differently, if we look at the post impeachment vote Democratic ‘gathering’ on the White House lawn there was quite a bit of wagon circling. I think this diminished the party and had a negative net effect on the country. But was it worse then Republicans that advanced the Vince Foster murder ‘tale’?
I’m not sure but I think the villification of political opponents is somewhat worse for the country, and the respective parties, then the flipside - essentially putting party/party leadership above country. I think my belief is based on that ‘party adulation’ is tempered by the opposition party. There will always be a ‘market’ for negative news - no matter the political affiliation. But the positive stories to debunk villification of leaders is, I believe, less ‘marketable’. So the villification gets lots of exposure with ‘buried’ caveats. The adulation isn’t news at all (and can be dismissed as opinion anyway) - it’s just dog bites man - so for the ‘middle’ the message that makes it into the ‘great middle’ are just the villification stories. I don’t see that as healthy.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:51 pm
Some would say that had an impact on the response.
And some would say that emergency workers probably weren’t watching TV or reading blogs. Some would say that journalists getting away with patting themselves on the back only goes as far as having a monopoly on the information they are reporting, and that when shoddy reporting comes to light people will go right back to not trusting them.
I’m still not sure how blaming or not blaming Bush has anything to do with Russert and correcting the record on a falsified story. Much of this conversation seems to have devolved back into partisan bickering, when the real question seems to be one of journalistic standards and ethics.
September 29th, 2005 at 1:58 pm
latenite, thx for additional info. What’s your opinion, were all participants prepared for their difficult job even when the going got tough?
As for the communication problems, I want to point out that NO based internet service directNIC was online all the time, while the police had no connections at all. It seems that a new approach is what’s needed, taking into account all modern commuication means like VoIP. Also, I’ve read several accounts that there were much too few satellite phones and no generators to reload them. It’s surprising that (functional) generators for admin centers aren’t standard, and it would have helped much if the feds had a stock of satellite phones to deploy in case of national emergency. Imho this is evident by now, I hope there will be some changes in the future.
The locals had to depend on messengers and relaying information, like the situation simulated in ICS exercises. I think that’s one of the major points of failure, you can’t give detailed information about your needs to a bureaucracy if there is no dialog and every communication is delayed.
You say, “it is still a local/state problem that must be resolved by those Pols.”. Hmm, depends on if you tend to give responsibility to the states or to the feds. I seem to remember that the Bush administration promised to solve the communication problems that became evident on 911. Regarding the repub majority, it would have been a no brainer adding provisions for communication improvement in one of the bills for national security. How did Bush want to keep his promise to make the nation safer if he did leave it to the states? What went wrong?
September 29th, 2005 at 2:12 pm
Blamelessness for Bush is, in my opinion, an important form of post-Katrina extremism
Sorry, Jay, it’s nowhere on the scale of matching the past years of unrelenting Bush=Hitler extremism on the left and in lots of the MSM.
Jonah Goldberg’s balance doesn’t surprise me. It has been my experience that conservative writers like Jonah Goldberg are more reasoned and factually correct when measured against far too many liberal shills. Just start adding up the corrections and who disproportionately stands corrected. How many scandals and lame corrections has the WSJ had versus the NYT’s? FOX versus CBS? Anyone versus Krugman? I could keep going.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:15 pm
Perhaps the first lesson we should learn here is that the press should try to make a token effort to be factual in its reporting. Is is okay if we take that as a lesson, Jeff? You and Mr. Rosen seem rather opposed to that lesson being taught.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
Gray asks “what went wrong?”
start here:
“James Lee Witt, Governor Blanco’s Paid Liar,†September 4, found here:
http://newsbusters.org/node/927
September 29th, 2005 at 2:17 pm
The title of Jeff’s post is needless exaggeration. “Bush is Blameless” is an instance of such.
Why does it invalidate criticisms of the news media to point out that “Bush is blameless” doesn’t help matters at all?
corvan: I see we’ve decided to call all those who happened to notice that the press screwed this story up one side and down the other, “extreme Bush defenders,†now.
No. We’ve specifcally decided not to do that. I wrote: “I wasn’t speaking about most commentors, only a thread of absolutism, to which I attached statements and names. Blamelessness for Bush is, in my opinion, an important form of post-Katrina extremism.”
I believe the press screwed up this story, and the interpretation of it’s own performance.
And I think the attempt to hold Bush blameless pus the cult into culture war.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:23 pm
David, I thought you were aware of the people on this list?
“Bush pardons W.Va. coal mine bomber”
http://wvgazette.com/section/News/2005092854
Hey, I’m pro unions, I think that WalMart ought to be punished for their active shutting out of unions, but blowing up your company’s assets is just not a way to conduct industrial action. It isn’t legal, it isn’t the ethic thing to do, it’s just a terrorist act. I’m surprised that he just got 25 months for that. OK, that has been 1990, even before Oklahoma. Dunno what the sentence would be today.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:24 pm
I didn’t believe the worst reports to begin with, and now I don’t trust the latest attempts to downplay all the violence that occured. I imagine more on that is going to come out, although the fact that reporters were prohibited from the disaster zone for a while isn’t going to help.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:27 pm
http://www.ieminc.com/Whats_New/Press_Releases/pressrelease060304_Catastrophic.htm
…certainly not appointed by Bush. Where’s the half million? Where’s the executed plan?
September 29th, 2005 at 2:29 pm
Why does it invalidate criticisms of the news media to point out that “Bush is blameless†doesn’t help matters at all?
It shouldn’t and you are right on it not helping matters
I’m interested in your observation of my perception of more accuracy as measured by less corrections/scandals with conservative newspapers and journalism.
I’m not putting that out there as a partisan opinion either. It just seems to be noticable.
September 29th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
Ravo, interesting info about those consultants. As for your questions, why don’t you interview the unnamed FEMA official responsible for the deal? And what does this have to do with Bush appointments?
And, no, thx, for your newsbusters.org link. Firstly, in several attempts the site never opened up completely, stopping after the firsat sentence. Secondly, I found in google cache that the site’s goal is “exposing and combating liberal media bias”. Are you kiddin me? What would you say if I would link to one of the fox watchers as a source? Ridiculous.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:06 pm
More Gray…on what might be “wrong”.
it would have been a no brainer adding provisions for communication improvement in one of the bills for national security.
Gee, I bet 60 million might’ve bought a hellva communications system, hey?
WASHINGTON — Senior officials in Louisiana’s emergency planning agency already were awaiting trial over allegations stemming from a federal investigation into waste, mismanagement and missing funds when Hurricane Katrina struck.
And federal auditors are still trying to track as much as $60 million in unaccounted for funds that were funneled to the state from the Federal Emergency Management Agency dating back to 1998.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-money17sep17,1,5736422.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Darn that Bush…it’s must be his fault poor down and out NO didn’t have a proper communications system……when the 60 million disappeared into a black hole….
I don’t want ONE more effin dollar given to NOLA! We need a grass roots effort to prevent more monies sinking into that corrupt cesspit. I’ll take Bush’s appointees over this corrupt crapola any day.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:34 pm
Thanks for reiterating my words, Jay Rosen, (albeit by adding italics which were never there). Shall I describe to you what your efforts at discrediting those of us who choose to wait for facts, and what your name calling reveals about you?
My favorite part is it is “extreme” to state, “I believe most of us would acknowledge federal faults if we’re shown them. So far that hasn’t happened.” Normal people might disagree with you, Jay. Normal people might actually think it’s *prudent* and *rational* to wait for facts before assigning blame. If Jay Rosen were charged with murder, would he welcome his own conviction without the establishment of any evidence or facts of his guilt? Would he call those who defended his right to receive a fair hearing extremists?
Jay says to Ravo: “…and I am sorry that reality has been unable to furnish you with those covincing specifics…” regarding Bush’s blameworthiness.
Go ahead then, Jay. I invite you to state what your reality and convincing specifices consist of. List them for us here, please. And provide authorities for your take on reality while you’re at it, please.
Goldberg’s comments are more poppycock. He [also] assigns blame without facts. To state there was ‘a mess’ and Bush isn’t blameless because he “didn’t successfully impose order” is an absurdity, particularly when it wasn’t until the end of the third day after the storm hit that authorization to utilize federal troops was even given. And how many national guard troops did Blanco call up when? The good ‘ole Posse Commitatus Act and laws related to state jurisdiction over state National Guard troops just might have come into play.
By the way, Jay, I’m one of those who is also displeased with Bush’s budgetary and immigration policies. Now what?
Is that even more ‘evidence’ of my pure “hysteria/absolutism/total innocence hunger/cultist/extremist/categorical/psychologial hunger” purported afflictions?
I’d like to see a transcript of the Brown grilling the other day. As I was In the background (i.e., not sitting in front of the tv) I believe he stated that FEMA budget requests for communications related equipment had been denied by the DHS. If that is true, that would qualifiy in my book as a federal black eye if it impacted Katrina relief. Did it? We don’t know yet. If you add in Ravo’s last citations, it only adds more questions, not answers.
I’ll continue to wait for facts, thanks.
September 29th, 2005 at 3:42 pm
I can see we are going to agree to disagree on what the local/federal response should have been. I’ll let you have the last word. I only hope that towns and cities across the U.S. now start taking this type of training seriously.
Do I think some responded properly. Sure, again the superdome was a good idea. Just not done properly. As with all disasters. 10% overreact, 10% don’t react and the 80% that do react are never heard about because the MSM only covers the 20% group that I listed.
I am interested in DirectNIC. Since just about all lines go through a Central Office by the local Telco and those building were under water, I would be curious on how they communicated outside the city? Satillite? Not sure what would be a good finale answer for the communication problem. I like the old reliable radio network. Just need everyone to replace their old radios with new ones that carry more frequencies. But everyone gets into a pissing match over this issue.
To your last question of why Bush and the Repub. did not provide for this? I could go on a 2 day rant of how Congress is doing more harm anymore than good. Instead of fixing things, they have to restructure everything. No one gets FIRED in goverment anymore. They spend no time evalutating what went wrong and tweaking the laws and/or Departments to fix the problem. To simple. You can have the last word
September 29th, 2005 at 3:50 pm
Thanks Eileen, …it used to be if “reality has been unable to furnish you with those covincing specifics”, any charges were considered baseless until it could.
How did it ever get otherwise?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:53 pm
test
September 29th, 2005 at 3:56 pm
Ravo, this is just your usual tactic of changing the topic. The Bush administration promised to make the US safer after 911. Billions were spend for DHS, does anybody think the US is prepared for an attack with WMDs against a major city?
September 29th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Ravo,
You’re most welcome.
“How did it ever get otherwise?” The word desperation springs to mind, but without specific facts to back it up, I’ll withdraw that observation until I can provide them. How’s that? Insert smiley.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:00 pm
Mr. Rosen,
No one was discussing Bush until you and Jeff decided to make that side trip. Which you made by way of accusing everyone who is asking reporters to be factual of being “Bush extremists.”
In your rush to protect the lessons that you want learned (none of which have anything to do with press sloppiness and deceit, surprise, surprise) you folks in the media forgot to do your jobs. Now instead of having the decency to say “we screwed up we won’t do it again,” you’ve decided to call everyone who has pointed out your errors extemists.
And for your information. I’m not a Bush extremist. Jeff made me a part of the “Bernie Goldberg hit squad,” a couple of posts back. Keep your perjoratives straight.
Which leads me to the other thing politicians do when they’re obviously wrong. Aside from spinning, spreading the blame and changing the subject they also call people names. Something you and Jeff are doing alot of.
At least politicians have to run for office. Who elected the two of you information czar?
September 29th, 2005 at 4:02 pm
does anybody think the US is prepared for an attack with WMDs against a major city?
Certainly not if the rest of the country used their monies like NOLA did.
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-money17sep17,1,5736422.story?ctrack=1&cset=true
Can any country ever really be ready for WMD’s? I think not.
I think you have to kill the monster at the root.
I too, am dismayed at our national budget. But leaving terror unchecked for eight years has put us into the fight of the ages. Defeating terror in Iraq has larger stakes than WWll and if terror wins there, the resultant spread will make whatever else we discuss here moot.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:04 pm
“How did it ever get otherwise?†The word desperation springs to mind, but without specific facts to back it up, I’ll withdraw that observation until I can provide them. How’s that? Insert smiley. “
Like a breath of fresh air
September 29th, 2005 at 4:10 pm
latenite, you found the directNIC.com link? Great guys. Their blog is interesting, I was checking it every day right after Katrina. There was a story that they lost two out of three connection points of their local Telco (sry, forgot the name) because generators ran out of gas. When the national guard arrived in force, they were able to resupply them and get them up again. I guess the connection must be via underground cable or satelite.
“Congress is doing more harm anymore than good” Hmm, dunno, sure there’s an incredible lot of pork and many provisions serving special interests, but I’m not an expert to decide if it has been better in the past. But one thing is certain, the GOP controls house and senate.
If you see the responsibilty at the states or at the feds, doesn’t matter. There is nothing to be gained by pointing the finger and waiting for the other side to act. The authorities have to get together and solve those problems asap. The next hurricane is waiting round the corner.
September 29th, 2005 at 4:33 pm
The authorities have to get together and solve those problems asap. The next hurricane is waiting round the corner.
True, and now that Blanco was proved totally inept in both Ivan and Katrina, do more people have to die in the next one, while Blanco takes her 24 hours on her “fainting couch?” Can it be assumed Nagin and Blanco are inept once and for all. How many chances to they need?
Perhaps there is a way for Congress to make La the only state in the union that feds can rule over in an emergency without dealing with the Gov first, at least until a new Governor reaches office.
(The emboldened is mine)
http://chronwatch.com/content/contentDisplay.asp?aid=16901
In the past she knew how to roll the buses. When she was running for governor, she got the buses rolling in New Orleans Parish, with signs and Dixieland bands to turn out voters for Blanco. Which is the higher priority–getting votes for Blanco, or saving lives? Hellooo.
Was FEMA “late†in helping New Orleans? Let’s review.
Katrina is the worst hurricane measured by square miles of territory wiped out. The second worst was Hurricane Floyd in 1999. It lingered over North Carolina, wiping out roads, electricity, gas lines, and letting loose millions of gallons of sewage and agricultural waste on the eastern third of that state.
In 1999, the governor did not retire to his fainting couch to “think about it†for 24 hours as Floyd approached. Yet FEMA’s response to Floyd (a smaller destroyed area) was slower than its response to Katrina now. Blanco has to know this, because her hired gun for the political aftermath of Katrina is James Lee Witt, Director of FEMA in 1999. Hellooo.
Asked about her comment which CNN taped that she “should have specifically asked for more troops,” she said:
“BLANCO: Well, that was at a point in time when we were wondering if we were getting any significant federal aid. I guess because of the dynamics of the situation, when I asked for help, then I started getting bombarded with, ‘Did you ask specifically for this, that or the other.’ …. When people ask me for help, I know what kind of help I can get to them, and I can get it to them pretty quickly… Nobody bothered to ask me those questions.â€
September 29th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
In discussing Goldberg’s comments and needless exgaggeration about Bush in a post called “Needless exaggeration” that discusses Goldberg’s comments about Bush….I think I am on topic. You disagree? Okay by me.
Jeff says of Goldberg: “he leaves all [those] responsible on the hook, not just media and also local officials but also his guy, Bush.” I elaborated on his observation. That is not an attempt to change the issue; that is a discussion of a Jarvis post.
“Who elected the two of you information czar?” Our statements only have the authority you give to them, and vice versa. If you divide into czars and little people a comment thread equally open to all, that’s your problem.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
latenite - re:communications. Creating a single-band interoperable first responder system was a Federal commitment following 9/11. DoD initiated a process to develop and provide that - it was zeroed out of their budget last year. Whule paying for implementation should certainly be partly a state/local responsibility, developing a nationally functional interoperable system was determined to be - and initially accepted as - a Federal responsibility.
Grr4y - yeah, directnic has a deeply buried fiber connection.
Eileen - Brown did state that, and as I point out above, we can’t even point directly at DHS, since the project funding was zeroed from the DOD budget. But a Fed responsibility. Perhaps more directly, it appears that a FEMA audit directly addressing some of their issues was rejected by Brown on August 3 as “too negative” msnbc story. The audit was done by the HSD acting Inspector General.
Jay - shhh. You’re disturbing the reverberation of the echo chamber. You can’t do that, lest you be accused of wanting to have Jeff’s love child (yeah, I actually got that one).
Ok, here’s a question on exaggeration and media responsibility, not Katrina related. All DoD estimates of insurgents in Iraq have been in the 20,000 range, at the high end. Members of the Iraqi government have estimated it as higher than 200,000. A private populations-based analysis with transparency in calculations shows a reasonable expectation that the figure is between a best-case of 38,000 and a worst-case of 450,000 insurgents, with a reasonable figure of 150-180,000. All of these conflicting estimates have policy implications. How should the media report this? And what responsibility does the media have for either over or under reporting each estimate?
This isn’t a trivial question, but I think it illustrates the difficulties the media itself has in making decisions of that kind, and how easy it is to second-guess after the fact.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:10 pm
If you divide into czars and little people a comment thread
“Little people” There’s little people here?
September 29th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
How should the media report this? And what responsibility does the media have for either over or under reporting each estimate?
That’s SUPER easy! They should report it exactly like this:
DoD estimates of insurgents in Iraq have been in the 20,000 range, at the high end. Members of the Iraqi government have estimated it as higher than 200,000. A private populations-based analysis with transparency in calculations shows a reasonable expectation that the figure is between a best-case of 38,000 and a worst-case of 450,000 insurgents, with a reasonable figure of 150-180,000.
September 29th, 2005 at 5:23 pm
“Little people†There’s little people here?
Yes, I am garden gnome. Why - are you prejudiced?
September 29th, 2005 at 6:51 pm
The representative from punditville, Jay Rosen (J). Has spoken I am silenced by his ethical and moral superiority. I still wonder, though, if the journalism class insists on acting like politicans, talking like politicians, and presenting information the same way politicians do why should we treat them as anything other than politicians? Why do they deserve more first amendment protection than the rest of us? Why are their sources sacrosanct? Why are their motives always pristine? Why should we listen to anything they say about anything, beyond the fact that we have precious little damned choice.
September 29th, 2005 at 8:06 pm
Journalism majors have the lowest SAT scores of any major except Education. The hubris of the journalistic establishment is simply a consequece of a deep-seated and highly justfied sense of inferiority.
I always know a giggle is coming when the newspapers try and comment on science or anything to do with statisitcs; it’s better than Dilbert.
September 29th, 2005 at 10:42 pm
Garden gnomes unite! Rebel against the czars and their information palaces!
September 29th, 2005 at 11:39 pm
Hrmm…
In a post that starts out with:
No, Jay, I think that we’re pretty spot on topic to ignore the political blame and go straight to criticising the media for making up shit in the guise of reporting. Since that was the leadin graph to Jeff’s post and all that.
And the body of his post also mentioned like, media coverage a bit, too. I can read - I don’t need you to tell me what the topic is.
Yeah, I disagree. So kind of you to give me permission, thank yew. I’m just getting warmed up.
So. Howzabout all them bodies stacked in them freezers, and them alligators eating people and all that? Weather’s a mite carrion on out there in newland, eh wot?
Might shock you and Jeff, Jay, but I see a “larger story” in all of this, and it ain’t FEMA, and it ain’t Bush, and it ain’t Nagin and Blanco.
The larger story is that the media - en toto pretty muchly - took a massive natural disaster and used it as a launching pad to just sit there in print and on national Teebee and just make shit up right and left, and report it as fact without checking or investigating it.
I tracked that damned storm from before it made landfall, Jay. I tracked *all* of the media reports on it that I could get my sweaty little hands and my Google on. I tracked the estimates, I tracked the reports of horrors, of looting, of estimated dead, of governmental failures, of personal failures, and of the rare occassions where it was reported that someone got it right. And I passed them on in links to other people who were watching this thing unfold in horrified curiousity, some of whom who were worried sick about their friends in those areas.
And it turns out that x-amount of those “news” reports were fucking bullshit. Made up goddamned fiction passed off as “hard news”.
And you and Jeff have the fucking nerve to try and tell me that the important things are the “larger narrative” and the “fucking lessons to be learned”. And how many people in comments and blogs and news sites and elsewhere are “making out Bush to be innocent”, or “not keeping a sense of balance” in the analysis.
Fuck you, boy.
The important lesson to be learned here is that when there’s a major situation, we can’t trust you and yours to tell us the fucking truth about it. We can’t trust journalists to do their fucking jobs and investigate and deliver accurate infor-fucking-mation.
And yes, you are/were a Journalism professor: your job is to teach these people how to go out into the real fucking world and do their goddamned jobs properly. So it is “you and yours”. You don’t bloody well wiggle out of this by claiming to be seperate from “the Media”.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:06 am
I agree with Ironbear, but what do I know? I’m a member of the “Bernie Goldberg hit squad,” and one of the “little people” as well.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:59 am
I still don’t feel comfortably laying blame anywhere, and I sure as hell didn’t then. Seeing you supposed media gatekeepers rush to declare people guilty, beyond even rebuttal, has been an eye opener, that’s for sure. No, I’ll wait until the true facts come out - thankfully unlike you corporatists I don’t need to worry about inventing stories for ratings, and can therefore afford to. It has become quite clear we can’t expect anything from you, besides sensationalism and self-congratulating idiocy after the fact.
The sooner you’re knocked off your perch, the better. You can’t even give us the facts, I sure don’t want you egotists giving me “the truth.”
September 30th, 2005 at 1:41 am
Well, Ironbear, I’ve been barking up that tree, lately, too. I suspect it’s a combination of my previously stated opinions that Katrina coverage represents ‘dinosaurs screaming in tarpits’ due to their factfree, agenda driven, over the top mis-reporting, coupled with my insistence on *actual facts* before we fry the Prez [they already fried Brown], which resulted in the gratuitous attack I received from the prof today. I was fried up for breakfast before my first cuppa. [Take heart, corvan.]
I figure if the things I say got him going I must have done something right. Time to [try to] shut me up for rocking the ancient media boat. The best defense is a good offense? Obfuscate…change the channel…and attack.
Why would anyone be afraid of insistence on the facts unless they’re afraid those facts won’t paint the picture they wish to sell? But I go one step beyond what you said, Ironbear. I don’t want ANY recommendations or larger truths to be illustrated or dictated to me by the media/journalists of all stripes and their ‘useful’, unnamed sources. It’s not their job to teach me. And what’s worse, it turns out their ‘larger truths’ are only synonymous with their agendas.
The politicosocial engineering aspect of MSM 101 has got to go, or MSM itself has got to go.
Give us the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth; that is to say, just the FACTS.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:44 am
Why would anyone be afraid of insistence on the facts unless they’re afraid those facts won’t paint the picture they wish to sell?
EXACTLY!
September 30th, 2005 at 7:50 am
[...] : The tone has changed. There is no dismissive huffing from the big guys about blogs. There is still that argument about who’s trustworthy (see the note here). Old hat. But there is an acknowledgment that the change is gigantic and has only begun. [...]
September 30th, 2005 at 8:48 am
I keep reading about lessons that need to be learned and I don’t see the media having learned theirs. Is the media willing to admit that their lies may have resulted in the deaths of victims?? Did Jeff and Jay help? What lesson did you guys learn? A story laced with lies is not a story–just a lie with a spattering of facts. Should some reporters lose their jobs?
http://online.wsj.com/public/article/0,,SB112804420733656428-sXfs3cYAWalpJUfAvdRtcvjzt4A_20060930,00.html?mod=blogs
September 30th, 2005 at 10:17 am
Says Jay Rosen: “The need–and I do think it’s a psychological hunger–is for even more innocence for Bush, an even purer record; and the way they get there is to spotlight even greater media bias.”
Wrong diagnosis of what ills “they”.
As if some of us have been calmly reading Jeff for years (”uh, huh - great point…yep, nicely put, Jeff…oof! not that old theme again from the benchmark “Entertainment Weekly” days, but let that pass, why not…”).
Then SUDDENLY we’ve apparently all been gripped by psychological hunger pains, and started shrieking hysterically for our Bush-is-innocent sugar before tipping into diabetic denial?
On the contrary, Jay Rosen. It’s being magesterially instructed to view Broussard as Katrina’s wise fool that has left me mildly unhinged.
This has now nudged me far closer to the faintly ludicrous position described by the “Katrina Coverage” commenter (in addition to Penny) above: “I didn’t believe the worst reports to begin with, and now I don’t trust the latest attempts to downplay all the violence that occured.”
And although I’d put myself far, far to the left of Ravo, I’m now keeping my beady eyes on the bobbing story he’s noticed: “Another poster wondered if Blanco was keeping the feds at bay while “negotiating†for more disaster money - a time delay which cost some their lives.”
I’m not a naive media watcher (ex Fleet Street hack) by any means. I think Jeff’s taken leave of his senses over journalist ethics and accountability on this one.
I’d also add it’s becoming bloody exhausting trying to keep upright against the spin on Katrina. I’m increasingly having to self medicate with two doses from the blog right, to two from the blog left plus MSM “as required but never more than 4 times in 24 hours”…
September 30th, 2005 at 10:30 am
I am not The Media. I don’t take messages for The Media. I am not a spokesman for The Media. And I have never worked in The Media. The Media didn’t check with me before it reported rapes at the Superdome without having reliable information. If The Media had checked with me, I would have said, “don’t report rapes at the Superdome unless you have reliable information.” When you decide The Media has failed, don’t expect me to defend or explain “it.” Nor do I answer for the latest crime The Media has committed in your rolling indictment. I don’t learn lessons on behalf of The Media, either. What The Media admits and doesn’t admit is not up to me. If your story about The Media is that The Media lies and makes stuff up, please, go tell it to The Media.
September 30th, 2005 at 10:47 am
Ravo
I heard on the news this morning that the death toll for Rita was now 100, 60 of which were killed during the evacuation. This is precisely why, in an earlier thread, I stated that to try to get every person out of an area that’s being threatened by a hurricane within a relatively short period of time (24-48 hr window) is logistically impossible.
You keep trying to make the argument (because you have no other rational one) that Nagin was at fault because he didn’t use 500 school buses to get every soul out of NO before Katrina hit. 80% of NO population got out of town during an evacuation process that worked reasonably well. You didn’t have 100 mile long traffic jams, you didn’t have masses of people running out of gas on the road. I haven’t heard of one person that died during the evacuation. People didn’t die on their way to the Superdome, they didn’t die during the hurricane, they didn’t even die by drowning there the next day. The unforgivable part of the NO fiasco occurred a couple of days later when DHS and Fema failed to show up.
The NO evaculation process worked, as opposed to Rita, which didn’t. But to have tried to put an additional 500 buses out on the road could have easily made the Katrina evacuation as chaotic and dangerous as Rita turned out to be.
FYI, school buses are a really lousy method of transporting people over long distances anyway. They lack bathrooms.
September 30th, 2005 at 11:01 am
Mr. Rosen, it’s interesting how your reponses have morphed during the course of this post. At first you seemd to support Jeff’s thesis that the actual facts reported did not matter so much as the lessons reporters felt we “the little” people should take from the reporting. (If you think that’s not Jeff’s thesis read his prior posts.)
Then you decided that any one who expected the press to be forthright about its failures, without spreading the blame to various branches of the government (state, local and federal) and it readers wasn’t normal. “Normal” like you and Jeff and Jonah Goldberg, which is a special sort of normal, I guess, that only includes members of the journalist caste.
Now you claim that you aren’t the media. Despite what you do for a living. Despite your numerous appearances on Hugh Hewitt’s show commenting on the media, despite your revered presence at Jeff’s “look at us media types ain’t we special,” conference.
What you seem to be saying, and correct me if I’m wrong, is, “Don’t blame, me I wasn’t even there, and besides all you people are crazy anyway. And not only that, even if you weren’t all certifiably insane, I couldn’t help you anyway. I just train people to be journalists. It’s not like I have anything to do with it.”
Is it little wonder that the profession that claims to be journalism is so monsterously screwed up?
September 30th, 2005 at 11:12 am
It’s true. I do go to confabs and lunches with The Media. If you have a message for me to pass on next time I see The Media, by all means, I can do that.
September 30th, 2005 at 11:16 am
Fema failed to show up.
Fema was there Linda. It couldn’t go to work.(rescue) It needed soldiers to secure each area before the FEMA (unarmed civilian workers) leaders would send their rescuers in.
What FEMA needed had already been sent, and was already standing by on the US Baton which had literally sailed right in on the heels of Katrina.
Who held up permission for their deployment to protect FEMA?
September 30th, 2005 at 11:18 am
“And I have never worked in The Media.”
From Jan Rosen’s bio at PressThink:
“A native of Buffalo, NY, Rosen had a very brief career in journalism at the Buffalo Courier-Express before beginning graduate study.”…
“When you decide The Media has failed, don’t expect me to defend or explain “it.â€
Again, from his bio:
“As a press critic and reviewer, he has appeared in numerous magazines and national newspapers, including The Nation, Columbia Journalism Review, the Chronicle of Higher Education, the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Los Angeles Times, Newsday and others.”…
“From 1993 to 1997 he was the director of the Project on Public Life and the Press, funded by the Knight Foundation.”…
“In 1994 he was a fellow at the Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy at Harvard University, and in 1990-91 he held a fellowship at the Gannett Center for Media Studies at Columbia University.”…
Jay Rosen doesn’t have anything to do with the media? Journalism doesn’t have anything to do with the media?
Isn’t Jay Rosen in a particularly good position to “go tell it to The Media?”
Yes, Jay, please on our messages at your next lunch.
September 30th, 2005 at 11:24 am
When you decide The Media has failed, don’t expect me to defend or explain “it.†Nor do I answer for the latest crime
When you’ve shared it’s falsehoods and helped to heap blame at the feet of those who are least to blame…you’ve shared in what they’ve done.
September 30th, 2005 at 11:28 am
I’ll skip the message passing for now and ask a couple questions, Mr. Rosen. Do you agree with Jeff’s prior posts? Is the lesson the reporter wishes his consumers to take from the report actually more important than the facts on the ground? Was Tim Russet a dirty so and so and a crappy journalist for actually pointing out that Aaron Brousard was playing fast and loose with the truth?
You might also want to change your bio, delete everything you have in it at the moment and replace it with, “I AM NOT THE MEDIA!”
September 30th, 2005 at 11:47 am
I’m not. I think it’s funny that you would tell a blogger who’s a press critic and works for a university, and who has never had a full time job in the news industry, “you’re the media.” I mean that is an amusing thing.
You’re the media, answer for what went on in New Orleans!
Don’t try to change the subject!
You mean to say you have nothing to do with media?
A likely story, answer the question!
In all seriousness, folks, I will be seeing The Media (yes, again) in a few weeks. So fold your notes the way they do at the Western Wall in Jerusalem, and I will make sure–I swear–they will be passed along. The Media is usually very good about that.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:01 pm
From Hugh Hewitt’s “Reporting Katrina” in yesterday’s Weekly Standard:
“Of course it didn’t take long for the media to praise itself for the wonderful job it had done. NYU professor Jay Rosen collected the self-congratulatory links at his PressThink blog, in a September 9 post titled “From Deference to Outrage: Katrina and the Press.” http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/006/137flvhf.asp?pg=2
I guess this is what it means to be a ‘media critic’ these days.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:09 pm
You didn’t answer the questions Mr. Rosen. Do you agree with Jeff? Is the message the reporter is trying to sell more important than the facts? Should Tim Russert have pointed out that Aaron Broussard wasn’t telling the truth? From the level of dodginess in all your replies one might surmise that though not the media itself, you are the perfect media representative.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:12 pm
From the level of dodginess in all your replies one might surmise that though not the media itself, you are the perfect media representative.
Corvan…I agree 100%
September 30th, 2005 at 12:16 pm
Actually Corvan…It’s academia which has led the way on agenda and is even worse than the media!
September 30th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
Oh please, Ravo. I am absolutely certain that no left wing agendas or ‘greater truth’ telling is ever fostered at programs such as “Press, Politics and Public Policy” at Harvard University, e.g.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:30 pm
I had no strong objections to what Tim Russert did. In a prior comment thread, I told Jeff that I thought it was unwise to say, “anyone can get facts,” as if that were a detail. I said I didn’t think he put that very well.
I did not buy the story coming out of New Orleans after the first week to ten days, saying the press had “recovered its spine” because it got angry in the Gulf. (Click my name for the post.) Getting angry, I said, is no substitute for being able to think about things like divided responsibilities and the effects of past decisions on events today. I did not see Katrina as a “breakthrough” moment for the news media, but a temporary jolt of authority that came because public authority seemed to be missing.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:41 pm
But to have tried to put an additional 500 buses out on the road could have easily made the Katrina evacuation as chaotic and dangerous as Rita turned out to be.
Please. Traffick wasn’t heading single file on a one lane dirt road out of NO. 500 school buses wouldn’t have bogged things down that significantly. Thousands of them are in traffick with us in major cities twice a day during the school year.
FYI, school buses are a really lousy method of transporting people over long distances anyway. They lack bathrooms.
Neither does my car.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:42 pm
It appears from that Jeff said exactly what he meant to say. Do you disagree with it? Or is it just unwise to say it? Would you have said something different or just put it better? And I’ll ask the question again since you have studiously avoided it. Do you believe that the message a reporter wants his audience to learn is more important than the actual facts?
Answering questions that weren’t asked of you as opposed to the quetion that was, in fact asked, is a politician’s trick.
September 30th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
“You didn’t answer the questions Mr. Rosen…” I love that. You do Master Inquisitor so well. With Darkness at Noon flair. You need not worry. When you guys finally win the C war and get to open your liberal media re-education camps, hundreds–maybe thousands–of good soliders will be submit my name to the authorities as someone to schedule for pick up, and straightening out.
If you don’t know about the camps for “processing” the liberal media people, Chris Satullo of the Philly Inquirer wrote a harrowing–but unflinching–account of being sent there. Check into it. Starts like this…
It’s been fun visiting with you…. See you down the road.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:10 pm
bye bye, as Jay flies away on the cape of ambiguity.
September 30th, 2005 at 1:12 pm
Not only a politician’s trick, but a bad politician’s trick. Are you going to answer the questions or not? This is the third time I’ve been forced to refer you to them. And yet you’ve avoided them each time. I’m not an inquisitor. I can’t force you to answer anything. But I hope I’m able to point out the questions you refuse to answer. Am I allowed that? I realize that I’m one of the little people, and a member of the “Bernie Goldberg hit squad.” Now i find that I am commandant of my very onw re-education camp, and quite probabaly a dangerous fascist. All becuase I assumed I was entitled the common courtesy of a reply.
Listen, I’m not trying to educate you. I’m trying to get you to educate me. Tell me what you really believe. Not the best way of saying it, but what you truly think. Not the wise way of putting something. Is the message a reporter is selling more important than the actual facts on the ground? I don’t understand why you work so hard to avoid this question. I truly don’t.
Though I wonder, if this was your own blog would you have closed comments, again?
September 30th, 2005 at 2:34 pm
How dare you ask a professor to answer the question you asked, and what he thinks! People on hear are just so unreasonable! (BTW, dripping with sarcasm)
September 30th, 2005 at 3:01 pm
Still scratching my head.
Jay says “The need for total innocence goes beyond all that. It’s closer to cult behavior than anything found in politics or media criticism.”
Oh, really. You seem to be offended by being grouped into The Media since you consider yourself a critic. I think the statement you issued above describes what some of us feel about The Media Critics. They put out a mild criticism of The Media, and then they start tearing apart all those searching for “total innocence”. So how are the ones searching for that “total innocence” suppose to know the difference? I see this behavior in almost every Media Critic. Look at FOX’s Newswatch. They have 5 beagle eyes. Pink-a mild mannered, funny man that leans to the Right. Cal-a mild mannered, extremely respectful, polite man that whispers Right views. Jane-the nice professor that expresses and I assume teaches all Lefty. Neale-that growling, shrill attack dog for the left. And the Leader-nice man that leads it and leaves it on the left. And they say FOX is a Righty and this is what they pass off as The Media Critics.
I say The Media Critics do not do their jobs, otherwise The Media would have changed by now. My biggest bitch is the omissions. By their total Silence, they are shaping the news as they see fit. Most of their attacks are the Silences. These are the most damning and the War.
Oh yes, I am so far into the cult that I believe in my delusional mind that The Media are waging a war. It would be helpful if The Media Critics would address my psychological hungers and explain why The Media Critics never address my hungers. Katrina was a natural disaster that was not only reported by The Media, but was used as another campaign by The Media. You call it my need for total innocense for Bush. I call it a war being waged to get Bush. You explain The Silence in The Media reporting of Katrina and I might “open my mind” a smigen of a crack.
Believe this is the point that Rosen would shut down comments as Corvan noted above. Corvan also even named the war The Media has been waging…….”opinion shaping”. Yup but it’s only called that for us nuts.
September 30th, 2005 at 3:11 pm
The media has followed Cindy Sheehan’s every fart.
Yet, has it written about this any where at all?
(After all, it was President Bush and the American Red Cross Cindy Sheehan and the VFP say are incompetent and dishonest)
Cindy’s “Katrina Relief†Spends $17K For Media, $0 For Katrina Victims
http://www.sweetness-light.com/archive/vfp-17-for-media-0-for-katrina-victims/
September 30th, 2005 at 4:32 pm
Penny,
“Neither does my car. ”
I see. You can carry 66 people in your car. All with different bodily function requirements, and never have to make a stop.
Yes, 500 buses would muck up an evacuation effort significantly. NO is surrounded by water on three sides, so your number of available roads out of the city are limited. Not to mention, you have to have 500 drivers available, which there were not. School bus drivers aren’t first responders. So when they evacuation order came, they left.
September 30th, 2005 at 5:04 pm
Might consider asking if anyone in the Dome can drive? You know, instead of starvation for babies. Or if anyone in the Gov’s office ever managed that skill.
September 30th, 2005 at 6:21 pm
So, squalor in the Super Dome was a better choice than bus evacuation? But, buses would be a bother because people would have to go to the potty in transit. Is that what you are saying?
Do you have any idea what it must have been like using the few restrooms in the Super Dome? And the public health implications?
NO is surrounded by water on three sides, so your number of available roads out of the city are limited
The Florida Keys are surrounded by water on all sides and they make it to safety. Water has nothing to do with it. The number of roads means nothing without factoring in the number of lanes available when heading out of an area in an evacuation. And all lanes are designated out then.
Sorry, Linda, there were alternatives to the squalor in the Super Dome if anyone more than a knucklehead had used some problem solving skills.
October 1st, 2005 at 1:19 am
A billet doux for Jay Rosen.
Roundup of unanswered questions:
Journalism professors don’t have anything to do with the media according to Jay Rosen. He’s not The Media, so that’s the end of it, and he certainly bears no responsibility for anything to do with The Media. As a result, certainly there is no need to deign to answer the basic question: “Is relating a ‘greater truth’ more important to a journalist/THE MEDIA than reporting accurate facts on the ground?
The professor has left the building.
And then there’s this ‘other’ major question unanswered, although it was THE thesis for Jay lobbing many Molotoffs to the supposed ‘pure innocence hungry’ crew:
“Jay says to Ravo: “…and I am sorry that reality has been unable to furnish you with those covincing specifics…†regarding Bush’s blameworthiness.
Go ahead then, Jay. I invite you to state what your reality and convincing specifices consist of. List them for us here, please. And provide authorities for your take on reality while you’re at it, please.”
I didn’t see any responses to these very ‘basic’ questions.
It’s been fun for you, Jay? Not for me. You are the sad epitome of what JOURNALISM/THE MEDIA (and yes you ARE the same) now represents. You are Agenda Machines. You are attack dogs/anti-Bush War machinery gunning against those who don’t agree with your opinion shaping efforts.
Worse: you have no ethics. Why? Because you could give a rat’s patoot about reporting facts. You are only intent upon oiling your own propaganda machine without any basis in reality. You cannot even provide any facts to define your own.
October 1st, 2005 at 3:24 pm
You can carry 66 people in your car.
Erm, I think that’s the whole point, Linda? Moving lots of people at one time?
Oooh… here comes a storm. I’m either going to have to risk dying horrifically, or suffer some bladder discomfort while I escape on a bus. I choooose… dying horrifically!
I guess it’s FEMA’s fault because they don’t keep several special emergency jumbo jets lined up in every airfield in the country. Or maybe it’s Bush’s fault because of his bible-thumping opposition to matter transporter development. Maybe it’s Brown’s fault for not issuing a directive that all buses be equipped with toilets!
Seriously, Linda, what are you proposing to be used in place of buses during evacuations, especially for poor people with no ready transportation? Hand gliders? Horizontal bungee cords? If the evacuation during Rita seemed chaotic, it was because everybody evacuated instead of sitt