Exactly. A terror attack is not enitrely unlike the man-made equivalent of a natural disaster. The current administration has said time and time again that its main duty is to ensure the safety of Americans, and the inadequate response to Katrina has highlighted just how vulnerable America’s citizens are in the event of a disaster, whether natural or man-made. Apparently, the saying “the best defense is a good offense” was embraced to the point of neglecting actual defense. It now appears that a successful terror attack on american soil would be just as devastating now as it would have been four years ago.
Immediately after 9/11, disaster-response programs should have been implemented nationwide to minimize the damage/aftermath of another terror attack (or natural disaster). Instead of (apparently not in addition to) this, the administration waged wars abroad, one of which has severely damaged worldwide respect for America and caused many thousands of deaths. The war in Iraq, as well as the patriot act, were accepted (or at least tolerated) because they made Americans feel safer. Now it appears that the government has not done everything it should have done to ensure the safety of Americans; they feel as vulnerable as ever, and they’re mad as hell.
The members of the press are angry, too, and have hopefully decided that talking points and other recycled rhetoric simply aren’t good enough anymore. They want the government to do its damned job, and should continue to mercilessly call bullshit on them whenever it doesn’t.
I sincerely hope that the press becomes more aggressive in the wake of this tragedy, and stays that way. In fact, I’d like to see them become downright hostile or abusive toward politicians and officials that appear to be slacking off. If Bush goes on another “working vacation”, I wanna hear a reporter ask “Mr. President, why don’t you put down the barbeque tongs and GET BACK TO WORK?”.
I find it interesting that a not-insignificant percentage of those stories is about the ongoing attempts of the administration and its running dogs to offload guilt onto the local authorities. “Don’t play the blame game” out of one side of their mouths while “finger pointing at the mayor and the governor” out of the… um… other side of the mixed metaphor.
Anyway, I wonder if the talking point will backfire.
So, Scott can’t comment on anything because when he talks everyone trying to rescue and rebuild down on the coast stops what they’re doing and listens to him? How does his answering keep them from doing their jobs? Does he think he’s E.F. Hutton or something?
Seconded. The point I was trying to make when I said we’ll see in a month.
They’ll still be digging out bodies in a month (or more likey, in 79 days when they finally get the water out), but a page 23C story won’t be able to compete with “Britney Spears Sex Video Rumor Shocker!” or something equally inane.
I think the New Orleans “story” will be a lot harder to displace than a lot of people here seem to think, simply because its effects are more tangible and visible to Americans than, for example, the tsunami.
Hundreds of thousands of people are now homeless, and for a long time will have to rely on the rest of America for help. My school is taking in students from Louisiana universities; my neighbors are offering their extra room to any family who can make it up to Portland. None of us are going to forget what happened so quickly and easily, simply because the aftereffects are literally living with us.
Someone find me this newspaper that says “New Orleans Dodged a Bullet” the day after the hurricane. I don’t think it exists (I’ve checked all the major dailies) and, on the off chance that it actually does exist, it will go down as the biggest newspaper fuckup since “Dewey Defeats Truman”.
In support of the “New Orleans Dodged Bullet” claim, Donald Rumsfeld cited three headlines cherry-picked from national news outlets:
This is a steaming load of B.S., too – since it’s predicated on the claim that these three articles were “all the media was reporting,” and that there was nothing beyond the headlines – as if the authorities glanced at the headlines, took a bite of their collective breakfast bagle, shrugged, and turned to the sports section. Especially pathetic is the New York Times headline cited – apparently nobody could even be bothered to read the whole headline: New Orleans: Escaping Feared Knockout Punch, Barely, New Orleans Is One Lucky Big Mess.
Of course, all of these “good news” articles are quite clear about the extensive flooding, and the television and radio news was on top of things from daybreak.
This is probably the weakest excuse ever offered for anything. “We all glanced at the headlines of the early edition of the wrong paper and then stopped up our ears with wax!”
In response to Rumsfeld’s response, here’s a link from Wonkette that I found while trying to see what the headlines were that day. I can’t find a source for “New Orleans Spared From Storm’s Fury;” but “New Orleans Spared Straight Shot” was AP and “New Orleans Escaping Feared Knockout Punch” was NYT. Not that this matters; as Larry Mudd pointed out it just shows they weren’t reading the whole thing then and basing life or death decisions on AP stringers instead of onsite inspections.
See, it is THE MEDIA’s fault. If they’d written more descriptive headlines (Katrina’s Strikes A Glancing Blow That Is Not the Worst But Still Could End Up Really, Really Bad) then we wouldn’t be in this mess. THE MEDIA clearly want the Bush Administration to fail*.
*Why do they hate Amerika?
Personally, I found this to be much more moving. The editorial can be poopoo-ed as partisan yammering, whether or not it actually is. But I really doubt anyone will be stupid enough to tell that guy that he can’t criticize the response.
