Katrina: Pointing A Finger at the Media
September 07, 2005
Posted by kris at September 7, 2005 01:01 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1070
Since so many in the media have seen fit to point the finger of blame for Katrina at President Bush, I think it's about time for some finger pointing in their direction. I'll leave which specific digit I'm using to your imagination.
I was watching CBS tonight and before Big Brother aired there was a special episode of (I believe) 48 Hours. I wasn't really watching it, only listening to it, but that was still enough to set my bias meter off. The message of most of the stories was that there was simply no federal help to be found for the people of New Orleans. Note the specific emphasis on federal help. During the time I listened I heard no mention of the fact that New Orleans also has state and local government. Funny, isn't it? It's almost like the reporter wanted one specific person to blame for the misery of thousands. I wonder why that is?
Not content with ignoring whatever responsibility the State of Louisiana and City of New Orleans might have towards its own taxpayers, the report also ignored the real and actual contributions of the federal government. For example, I heard no mention of the numerous rescues undertaken by crews from the USS Bataan or of the fact that the President personally called the Governor of Louisiana on Sunday the 28th to urge her to order a mandatory evacuation of the area. That's one hell of a reach down the ladder. But, apparently, that doesn't fit into the story of the idiotic, disorganized and distant President that some members of our press want to paint. If it doesn't fit, you mustn't report it, I guess.
As with most things, however, there's some good with the bad. I saw Cokie Roberts on David Letterman tonight and she was pretty even handed. Letterman lobbed a nice softball to her, but she refused to place the blame solely on either the Bush Administration or the state and local governments. Of course, she did have some harsh words for FEMA (you've gotta point those fingers somewhere).
Her thought was that FEMA was more effective before its inclusion into the Department of Homeland Security. She may have a point. We created this vast new organization and structure in order to improve coordination between departments. But is that the right way to do it? If you want to improve coordination, couldn't you just improve your processes, rather than adding two or three layers of bureaucracy? The fact that everyone reports to the same boss in no way insures that one hand knows what the other one is doing. At least it hasn't in my experience.
I really don't know how good of a point Roberts made, but at least it was some constructive criticism. By examining it we may actually learn something to help us improve our responses to future disasters. Unfortunately, so many other members of the media seem obsessed with reporting "Bush hates blacks" kind of criticisms that offer nothing but another angle on how to "take down" the man the Left has targeted since January of 2001.
It almost makes me physically ill that some people see Katrina not as a storm strong enough to have possibly killed thousands, but as a storm strong enough to kill a Presidency.
Posted by kris at September 7, 2005 01:01 AM
The trackback entry for this page is : http://www.inthehat.com/mt/mt-tb.cgi/1070
| Trackback Entries | |
| Zebrality.com linked with Katrina: Pointing A Finger at the Media | |
| Kilabe's Hive linked with True, the Fed might be slow....... | |
Comments
| # September 7th, 2005 8:24 AM JohnTant |
| Well, pointing fingers at FEMA is all well and good, but I think some of those fingers are unrealistic. There's a certain attitude going around that FEMA should be acting like a first responder, when in fact they aren't. In fact, I think FEMA itself tells a state that they're on their own for five-seven days or whatever until the agency can get organized. And that seems awfully reasonable to me. Requiring FEMA to be a first responder would so increase the size and scope of the agency as to be unwieldy.
Speaking of pre-DHS FEMA, I lived through the 1994 Northridge Earthquake in California. I lived in Sherman Oaks at the time, which was fairly close to the epicenter of the quake. In fact, the apartment complex two doors down the street was demolished. Where was FEMA? I sure didn't see them. Later on a radio I heard they were handing out water and food in Santa Barbara (wtf?!?), which was quite far removed from any severe quake effects. No way for me or anyone else in my building to get there, as the quake blocked in our parking lot with lots of rubble. Fortunately I had a houseguest that week and had gone to the grocery store the day before the quake. So plenty of food and water for us. However there was no running water (everyone in the apartment had to get buckets of water out of the swimming pool so the toilets would work) and no power. Our first two days we grilled lunch and dinner out on the deck, and shared with people who weren't as lucky as I was. This continued until we all could clear enough rubble to get our cars out of the lot. I and my guest then drove out of the Valley and got into a hotel. My point in this is to show that FEMA wasn't some super-agency back in the day, at least not in my experience. No immediate help from FEMA was available in our area. But then, we didn't expect much either. To my knowledge no government agency came by to survey our area, drop off any kind of supplies, or help with getting our cars on the road so we could evacuate our building. Instead everyone living there pitched in and got the job done. If we had sat around waiting for the government to do it for us, I think we'd still be there. |
| # September 7th, 2005 8:56 AM Daddy |
| Likewise, I lived in Sherman Oaks during Northridge (hi-diddly-ho, neighborino!). The only "aid" I remember was a mobile In & Out Burger trailer around the corner from my (landlord's) house. It was there three days or so?
I had no problems with Northridge. Picked my TV off the floor (it landed sideways), fished all my medicine out of the sink, went to work the next day. Don't remember seeing FEMA anywhere. Finally, heard this on the radio yesterday (ESPN radio? Don't remember): HOW MANY "FEMA" HATS DID YOU SEE AFTER 9/11? HOW COME THERE WERE NO "FEMA" T-SHIRTS FOR SALE AFTER 9/11? |
| # September 9th, 2005 10:08 AM mbrlr |
| The region was hit hard and we knew it was going to be. The poor and the elderly, a vast majority of whom are black in this instance, were left to drown or starve. It was mishandled on all levels, but in an event of this magnitude, the top of the chain --- the guy playing the guitar in that photo --- has to bear the brunt of the responsibility. This isn't a witch hunt; it's an attempt to make sure we find out what steps weren't taken that allowed this hurricane to kill so many and find out just what the hell happened that resulted in this mess.
Do I like George W? In an intentionally understated response, no. See? I left off the "Hell,". That gets me time off of purgatory. Do I wish he and the administration had come through this with flying colors and managed the situation and saved lives? Although I know this probably won't be believed, yes. Just because many don't like the President and his gang doesn't mean we're glad this horror happened and so many have died. Just because you do like the President, and I'll confess I find that beyond understanding, doesn't mean you shouldn't want to see this explored and appropriate measures taken. |
| # September 9th, 2005 10:18 AM Laura |
| I'm perplexed why so many lefties make such emphasis on
>a vast majority of whom are black Are the lives of black people worth more than latino or asian or white? Why the emphasis? Given that the administration of the city of New Orleans is black along with 2/3 of the city, and even though I personally like Nagin I admit this, that was the first line of defense for these poor and elderly black people. Why emphasize race unless you're trying to say that white Repubs are racist? |
| # September 9th, 2005 10:20 AM Laura |
| And I would also like to remind you that Bush tried repeatedly to "manage the situation" and Blanco(D) said thanks but no thanks. |
| # September 9th, 2005 10:50 AM mbrlr |
| If Blanco said no, so what? There are means and mechanisms in which the feds can take action and take control in emergency situations, the hell with being polite. The truth is, though, that even had he done so, there is absolutely nothing to indicate he understood the severity of the situation, what needed to be done, what should be done...oh, the list goes on.
Black people aren't worth more than white people, but the health and well-being of whites --- at least those wealthy ones --- seems to weigh on the conscience of this administration a bit more. And, Southerner to Southerner, you really can't be serious if you're arguing that racism isn't a problem now or a factor in the government's response to this disaster. Did New Orleans screw up? Yes. Did Louisiana screw up? Yes. But the entity that screwed up by far the most and could best have dealt with this is...drumroll, please...the federal government. And that is headed by Bush, who was at the top of the chain in a bush league response to this disaster. And all the diversionary tactics, such as Blanco's actions, are interesting but diversionary. Do all bear blame? Yes. But why didn't the feds react sooner? Just see George W with his guitar and that answers that question. I gather there were actually discussions in the White House while George W was off on vacation as to what the federal response should be, and those discussions somehow turned to the political considerations. Imagine that. Look, we differ about our President. I think he's basically a rich kid who got very lucky and doesn't have the brains God gave a turnip, but he does have his good points. He...well, no...he...well, not that, either. Hey! Without him, Chaney would be the President. Never let it be said I think George W doesn't serve a necessary purpose. Joking aside, I'm appalled by this whole bloody mess. Get something in place (not congressional committees) to review our reaction to this as soon as we can and start trying to review what the errors were and how to avoid them in future both in New Orleans and elsewhere. |
| # September 9th, 2005 11:01 AM Laura |
| :-) I don't see the point of any review. You, MoveOn, etc. have already decided that the Feds/Bush Admin are most at fault. People on my side of the fence have already decided that local then state, then feds in that order are culpable.
So why bother? As to the racism charges, if you are actually contending that Bush et al purposely let people die because they are black, please demonstrate any kind of evidence, a pattern of this attitude, *something* to back it up. |
| # September 9th, 2005 1:57 PM BVBigBro |
| On a positive note, the initial body count appears to be far lower than the 10,000 estimate that was thrown out. |
| # September 9th, 2005 2:02 PM mbrlr |
| Policies have been pursued to further enrich the rich and keep the poor exactly where they are or enrich their number with the middle class. Welcome back to the 1890s. As for race, it's a sad fact that a disproportionate number of our black citizens are poor, so those policies have harmed them the most in this tragedy because they had few or no means to leave before the storm struck.
The fact that the parties have already set their positions on this is precisely why a balanced and independent commission needs to be set up by Congress to review all aspects of this. And as far as racism goes, I don't know that I would say anyone "purposely" meant to allow folks to die. I think it was something which is rationalized as benign neglect by those engaged in it, including much of Congress and without doubt the President, but certainly it seems to have an effect that is hard to view as anything other than racist to those on the lower end of the political, social, and economic scale. The failure to fully pursue reconstruction after 1874, then Plessy, and then either benign or not so benign neglect from the federal side allowed many states to go quite wild with the freedom to discriminate. It has been only 50 years since Brown and only 40 years since Johnson's civil rights act and the Little Rock Nine; a statue of the nine was recently set up at the Capitol in Little Rock, btw, and many Arkansans were glad to see their courage honored. In real terms and especially looking at the extent of discrimination and poverty, 40 to 50 years is nothing and a refusal to acknowledge that reality is troubling. The problem of dealing with racism and the poverty that often accompanies it, is not yet done and New Orleans sadly demonstrates that problem. I would agree that the failure extends to all levels of government, but the failure of the federal government to respond adequately and quickly stops at the President's door. If the state didn't seem to grasp the problem to whatever extent --- and we won't agree on that --- the federal government had the means and the mechanisms to overcome that, but it didn't. Back to George W we go. FEMA had worked on a plan, but that plan was underfunded and wasn't able to go anywhere when the disaster struck. And we're still refusing aid from our allies and other countries! Pride goeth before destruction and a haughty spirit goeth before a fall, but stupidity seems to goeth everywhere and roost at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. Do you honestly contend, and I'll limit this to the South although it extends nationwide, that black Southerners aren't subject to racism day in and day out? I'll grant that we've made great progress, in many cases greater than in the North, but I can't believe you'd argue it hasn't been a factor in all this, given our history. We might disagree on the level the factor has played --- I believe that, while the Warren Court had the cojones to reject Plessy and the federal government in 1964 and 1965 took some steps to deal with our baggage from the past that hurts black people, the government has retreated from that on almost all fronts except for the judiciary and it is in trouble even there. I imagine your view would be a bit different, but while everyone has been damaged here --- you included to my great sorrow --- the aftereffects have primarily hit the poor and the poor have been black, to our shame, and we need to confront that and deal with it. The effects of benign neglect aren't benign and to those affected, they certainly seem malicious. All issues of race aside, I believe you've said it --- many of us have decided that the federal government fell down on the job while others disagree and place the blame elsewhere. Where the bulk of the country, the middle, comes down on this is still in flux. BTW, the FEMA head is now not the FEMA head. |
| # September 9th, 2005 2:05 PM mbrlr |
| Keep your fingers crossed and pray that the body count trend holds. |
| # September 9th, 2005 2:39 PM BrianH |
| mbrlr,
One of the things that bothers me most about the response is that the Red Cross was across the river with food and water and was not allowed to take it to the SuperDome. The Red Cross didn’t enter New Orleans at the request of the LA State officials. That wasn't a federal issue. http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html “Hurricane Katrina: Why is the Red Cross not in New Orleans? Acess to New Orleans is controlled by the National Guard and local authorities and while we are in constant contact with them, we simply cannot enter New Orleans against their orders. The state Homeland Security Department had requested–and continues to request–that the American Red Cross not come back into New Orleans following the hurricane. Our presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city. “ Also, there is a law known as the Stafford Act that specifies that a Governor has to ask the federal government to provide specific assistance. According to Nagin, Bush asked Governor Blanco to let him take control. Blanco asked for 24 hours to think about it. |
| # September 9th, 2005 3:13 PM JohnTant |
| I'm just amazed that the same quarter that routinely excoriates President Bush for shredding the Constitution and acting like a dictator is now excoriating him for not shredding the Constitution and not acting like a dictator... |
| # September 10th, 2005 10:08 AM mbrlr |
| Speaking from the quarter (more than one/half, it now seems) you've mentioned and the authority concerning federalizing the NG in extraordinary situations, I'll just mention one date: 1957
|
| # September 10th, 2005 5:00 PM JohnTant |
| And speaking from the quarter pointing out the hypocrisy, I'll just say "irrelevant." It's comparing apples to Carrot Top's butt crack. :) |
| # September 10th, 2005 7:49 PM mbrlr |
| That's odd. In my less generous moments, I tend to think I'm pointing out the hypocrisy I sometimes see in y'all, but then I back off and just view this as an exchange of political and social viewpoints between reasonable people. My mama raised me right, you know, before I turned left. *rimshot*
And it's not comparing apples to that gentleman's continental divide. It's comparing apples to apples in that this is a national emergency which affects the entire nation, not simply the gulf coast states. In 1957 the Central High crisis was deemed a national emergency and Eisenhower brought the Arkansas Guard under federal control. I'm aware of the later Stafford Act and its provisions, but for all its talk about consultation and whatnot with the Governor of the state, it's not as clear a bow to state authority as it's been painted. In a state of national emergency, it really doesn't take away the authority of the President to act to protect the national interest and safety, courtesy be damned, and no court's going to hold that it does --- although it should be said that it doesn't really authorize dictatorial powers, but the authority of the President and the feds to help deal with the situation and then go back to his ranch and fiddle with the cows or horses or however he gets his thrills. Anyway, the President's fiddling with the animals aside, that's where the 1957 analogy comes in and Bush goes out. This didn't just affect the gulf coast. Check your gas prices, check the thousands of folks who lost homes and are pouring into other states, check the unknown number of fatalities, check the foreign aid we've finally had the brains to accept, and just use common sense. George Bush has met the enemy and it is him, although he's trying very hard to persuade us the enemy's name is "Blanco". Good God, man. At least deal with the problem and not try to throw it off on anyone else. Next thing you know, we'll hear it was all those poor people's fault! "They shouldn't have been poor and it was predetermined that they would be there, after all." (I'm thinking some sort of Calvinist theme will show up before it's all done with) An independent commission should try to determine what went wrong in dealing with all this, how it went wrong, who was part of its going wrong, and what Congress might consider to ensure that this sort of mess that has no business happening in a first world nation never happen again. |
| # September 12th, 2005 7:43 AM JohnTant |
| Sorry, mbrlr, but with this thread you've officially jumped the shark.
Your logic chain seems to be that if the President can federalize the Guard in one situation, he can federalize them in all situations. And that isn't the case. Here, Blanco was not refusing to enforce a federal law, nor was she instructing the Guard to prevent its enforcement. Hence, it's not analogous or even relevent to your cite. The facts are these: First, the legal authority for the President to federalize troops in this instance didn't exist. Sorry, but the Insurrection Act doesn't apply to looting. Second, Blanco specifically refused to allow Bush to federalize the NG. In fact, she refused to allow FEMA to direct aid into NO. And this was despite Bush's request that the Feds be allowed to direct the situation. In fact, this was despite a compromise offer that there be a joint command structure...yep, Blanco refused that too. Hell, she didn't even evacuate the area until Bush called her up. So with that, your preferred course of action would have been to allow the POTUS to forcibly remove the duly elected governor of a state from her constitutional authority, all the while throwing posse comitatus out the window. Frankly, your declared high-mindedness aside, I have no doubt that had he done so you'd be here screaming about "Imperial Bush." |
| # September 12th, 2005 9:15 AM BrianH |
| mbrlr
“§ 5170. PROCEDURE FOR DECLARATION {Sec. 401} All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary. As part of such request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, the Governor shall take appropriate response action under State law and direct execution of the State’s emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information on the nature and amount of State and local resources which have been or will be committed to alleviating the results of the disaster, and shall certify that, for the current disaster, State and local government obligations and expenditures (of which State commitments must be a significant proportion) will comply with all applicable cost-sharing requirements of this Act. Based on the request of a Governor under this section, the President may declare under this Act that a major disaster or emergency exists. (Pub. L. 93-288, title IV, § 401, as added Pub. L. 100-707, title I, § 106(a)(3), Nov. 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4696.) ” http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm#sec101 It looks pretty clear that the Federal Government only has authority to act when the Governor of the state requests that help. Who ordered the NG to keep food and water out of the SuperDome? Answer that question first and then start looking for other problems... |
| # September 13th, 2005 3:22 PM mbrlr |
| You're wrong. I wouldn't be screaming anything of the sort. I still wouldn't vote for the SOB (witness her comments in Houston recently), but I would have applauded the response just as I believe his immediate post-9/11 actions were good until ruined by later zealotry within the administration and within him.
As for the Stafford act, you'll note that I specified its application to be unclear in what would be termed not merely a local situation, but deemed a national emergency. I believe no court would hold it is contrary to presidential authority to utilize the means and methods in the act, even sans a Governor's request, especially if the administration believes the effects of the emergency extended beyond the bounds of the state. It was clear from the beginning that this was such a circumstance. Although the language cited attempts to set out the Governor's responsibility and specifics of the federal response, it does not prevent federal aid or the President's stepping in if the President feels it constitutes a national emergency --- and this is certainly true of the case such as New Orleans which involves a port which was quite important to national commerce. The potential was there for a complete breakdown socially and otherwise and much of that did occur and could have been prevented and it did and will continue to have an effect nationally. I don't believe this application has been argued or raised before primarily because we haven't had anything along these lines. If the boundaries needed to be pushed here, and I believe the argument has merit, why on earth didn't he? Well, see that picture with the guitar and you'll have your answer. I'd take this to court and I believe the argument has merit. And to say once more, I can't abide the man but I do respect his initial response to 9/11. My attitude on this issue would be exactly the same if Bill Clinton had failed so grieviously. I doubt that will be believed, but it's so. |
Log in here
or Get an Account here.