In the wake of Katrina, most of the media has abandoned the fawning, deferential and sycophantic stance that they'd adopted towards Bush. At first they were inclined to withhold judgement: after all, Bush is known for being slow off the mark. But as one example of cluelessness and insensitivity followed another - the stupidity of the FEMA hack, Bush's awful speech, Condi's Imelda moment, Bush's jokes about Trent Lott's house, his expressions of support for incompetent subordinates - things reached a tipping point. Most of the media joined in the upwelling expression of anger towards Bush:
As Andrew Sullivan points out in the Sunday Times
"The president’s approval ratings were already in the very low 40s. The tracking poll of his response to the crisis showed discontent rising fast. By Friday, 70% were saying the government had not done enough; and a majority disapproved of the president’s handling of the crisis. At times like this, people normally rally round their president. This time, many are turning on him. And my sense is that this is just the beginning. On Friday the Republican Senator Susan Collins announced her intent to launch an investigation into what went wrong. "
But not all of the media has sensed this trend. Case in point: David Broder in the Washington Post, still drifting in Bush's cloud-cuckoo-land:
"The challenges posed by this natural disaster are in some ways even more difficult than those of the terrorist attack, with anger and frustration now being expressed about the response of governments at all levels. But for a president who believes that actions speak louder than words, this is an advantageous setting."
An "advantageous setting"? A fortunate distraction from Iraq and Plamegate? Sorry, David: when even Fox News is turning on the President, things are not "advantageous". Perhaps, like the head of FEMA, you should pay attention to what's going on in the real world...
[UPDATE] Howard Kurtz has a piece in today's Washington Post commenting on the new-found passion of [some of] the journalists covering Katrina. Money quote:
Posted by geoff2 at September 4, 2005 06:42 PMFor once, reporters were acting like concerned citizens, not passive observers. And they were letting their emotions show, whether it was ABC's Robin Roberts choking up while recalling a visit to her mother on the Gulf Coast or CNN's Jeanne Meserve crying as she described the dead and injured she had seen.
Maybe, just maybe, journalism needs to bring more passion to the table -- and not just when cable shows are obsessing on the latest missing white woman.
GEoff, you're way behind the curve on this. As you say, it's worth paying attention to the real world: Bush declared an emergency well before the hurricane hit, urged people to evacuate before it hit, called the Governor to press her to call for mandatory evacuation before it hit; FEMA pre-positioned supplies before it hit, and put people as close as they could be positioned without risking them to the hurricane, again before it hit; and the big levee break didn't happen until after the New York Times had already announced New Orleans had dodged the bullet.
The Mayor didn't follow his own evacuation plan; left his busses in a parking lot instead of either using them to evacuate or moving them to high ground; and then bussed out his own people ahead of the refugees from the Superdome.
The Governor refused to allow the Feds to take control (and then complained they were't running things) and had to be pressured --- by Bush --- into requiring a mandatory evacuation at all.
And then FEMA took two days to open 200 miles of impassible road on the one road into N.O. that survived at all.
You're just blaming the wrong people --- and most of all, you should "blame" the hurricane for simply being bigger than we are.
Posted by: Charlie (Colorado) at September 4, 2005 07:36 PMThe focus of the piece was how people are perceiving Bush's performance, and how it's being presented in the media - the contrast between, say, Andrew Sullivan's analysis and David Broder's "opportunity". Are you saying that I got this wrong, Charlie? Of course there's plenty of blame (and praise) to go around. All the same, some of your comments seem off the mark, and focus on the "before", not the "after".
I recommend the Newsweek article at http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9179587/ which is pretty evenhanded. The comments about FEMA and the National Guard are depressing but not surprising.
Posted by: Geoff Arnold at September 4, 2005 08:52 PMCoincidence time: Charlie posts a comment that suggests I'm blaming the wrong people, and should be criticizing the local government officials. Then Andrew Sullivan blogs a piece (http://www.andrewsullivan.com/index.php?dish_inc=archives/2005_09_04_dish_archive.html#112586173780619930) pointing out that the Bush strategy is to deflect attention by blaming the locals - even if it means lying.
Posted by: Geoff Arnold at September 4, 2005 08:57 PM