Florida declares a state of emergency for a hurricane, again

[Johan Larson]

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/09/04/florida_declares_state_of_emergency_as_hurricane_irma_strengthens_to_category.html

Hurricane Irma looks like it might hit Florida soon, and the governor has declared a state of emergency.

Is it just me, or does this happen too damn much down south? It seem to me, declarations of emergency should be reserved for extraordinary situations, events that could not have been anticipated in the course of normal, responsible planning. But hurricanes aren't particularly unusual in Florida. The state gets hit by a major hurricane every couple of years, which means they are severe but normal weather, like serious cold or snowstorms in Minnesota. And that means ordinary measures, planned-for and budgeted, should suffice in most cases, without recourse to emergency provisions.

Florida should be doing more to prepare for hurricanes, and rely less on emergency measures when one hits.

[Johnny1A]

The reason is simple:  Katrina.

In 2006, New Orleans was devastated by the near head-on impact of Hurricane Katrina.  This should not have come as a shock, there had been warnings for years that NO was well-positioned, between the Mississippi and Lake Pontchartrain, for a hurricane that hit at the right angle and speed to flood the place.

But New Orleans was (and is) run by a corrupt political machine, much of the money that should have been spent preparing for the day had been pocketed.  Various 'improvements' had made the city more vulnerable to the storm, too.

But it was immediately politicized.  The Democrats and the news media (which are almost the same thing) accused the Bush Administration of various sins regarding Katrina, and used it to hype public opinion and mobilize their base, and Bush reacted with his trademark response:  "Keep quiet and let it blow over."  That's the standard Bush Family response, and it doesn't work against the sort of politicized news coverage he was facing.

This went on for month after month, ignoring facts on the ground.  The Bush Administration response was not perfect, but it wasn't anything like as bad as the press and the Dems hysterically claimed, either.  A lot of what was put out was simply made up lies, and a lot of facts that revealed that the situation was not as bad as being claimed were ignored.

But careers were destroyed, elections changed, and an example set.  Today, authorities are determined to avoid any chance of a repeat of that hysteria.

Note that Hurricane Harvey, in Texas, was a successful rebuttal.  The press tried to turn it into 'Katrina 2', but Donald Trump is a far more competent PR man and far more media savvy than GWB ever dreamed of being, and the preparations before hand undercut the narrative.

So now the story goes into repeat as Irma approaches Florida.  The news media and the Dems want another Katrina, local authorities and the Trump Admin are determined to deny it to them, so...overreaction.

[Warren Ellis]

How did the news media contribute to problems with Katrina?

Was it the spreading of false rumors they did?

[Johnny1A]

On Thursday, September 7, 2017 at 7:36:15 AM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

How did the news media contribute to problems with Katrina?

Was it the spreading of false rumors they did?

Among other things.  They took an imperfect response to a disaster, one compounded by local malfeasance going back years, and presented it as a massive, unprecedented Federal failure, for political reasons.  IIRC one reporter claimed to have seen bodies floating past the hotel, in fact his hotel was not even in the flooded area.  It became so bad that one official trying to give a press briefing lost his temper with them and accused them all of being "stuck on stupid". 

[Johnny1A]

On Wednesday, September 13, 2017 at 9:39:13 PM UTC-5, Johnny1A wrote:

 IIRC one reporter claimed to have seen bodies floating past the hotel, in fact his hotel was not even in the flooded area.  

LOL.  I looked it up, after posting that, and apparently the reporter in question was Brian Williams. 

[Warren Ellis]

You might like this:

https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2010/08/26/give-the-press-d-minus-on-post-katrina-coverage/

https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2010/09/01/katrina-and-the-myth-of-superlative-reporting/

https://mediamythalert.wordpress.com/2017/09/02/for-the-media-harvey-was-no-katrina-redux-heres-why/

They lay out how bad the Katrina media reporting was.

[Johnny1A]

Oh, yes, excellent!  There's a lot of interesting stuff there!

I had forgotten how bad some of this stuff was.

As Campbell notes, a lot of reporters like to remember the Katrina disaster as a time when they 'spoke truth to power'.  That phrase really occupies a lot of their headspace, too many reporters like to imagine themselves as crusading heroes standing up to 'the Man'.  Which is nonsense, of course.  They work for the Man, in various forms and ways.  It's not even properly the job of a reporter to 'speak truth to power', their proper job is to be an accurate channel for accurate information.

But that flattering self-image as crusaders fighting the good fight is central to their egos and twists their coverage enormously. 

[Warren Ellis]

Oh yes. I notice it seems that local news groups are generally the most trustworthy, or at least attempt to be more accurate, regarding news in their areas. Presumably because they aren't parachuted in like most major national news reporterss/news groups.

[Warren Ellis]

Another article you might like: https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.pastemagazine.com/articles/2017/05/three-ways-the-news-media-can-earn-back-some-credi.html

I found this particularly telling:

Stop suggesting that journalism is more important now than it was under Obama

Speaking before Woodward at the correspondents’ dinner was his famous Washington Post colleague, Carl Bernstein. In his speech, Bernstein said, “Our job is to put the best obtainable version of the truth out there. Period.”

I think most journalists, if asked if they agree with Bernstein’s statement, would answer ‘Yes.’ After all, even the most biased of news figures believe in the nobility of their profession, and that they have a responsibility to the public to speak truth to power.

But tellingly, Bernstein followed up that sentence with this qualifier: “Especially now.”

The implication, of course, was that with Donald Trump (a man famous for his casual dishonesty) now in the White House, it’s more important than it used to be to hold our president accountable for his words and actions. Sadly, most journalists would probably agree with Bernstein on that as well.

Doyle McManus of the Los Angeles Times sure seemed to share such a sentiment back in January, when he wrote a piece that hailed the tenacity of journalists who were aggressively challenging the Trump administration on multiple unsubstantiated claims.

“Serious, solid journalism is coming back into fashion,” McManus wrote.

Such a declaration begs an obvious question: Where had serious, solid journalism been over the previous eight years?

[Johnny1A]

On Saturday, September 16, 2017 at 4:17:38 PM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

Oh yes. I notice it seems that local news groups are generally the most trustworthy, or at least attempt to be more accurate, regarding news in their areas. Presumably because they aren't parachuted in like most major national news reporterss/news groups.

Sometimes that's true.  But it's a difference of degree.

In my home town area of Illinois, there was a story that made the local news a couple of years ago.  It seemed that a local female grade school teacher had played in porn movies when she was much younger.  She was fired, and the local TV news 'framed' the story as a debate about how much youthful choices should be counted against someone many years later.  The subtext was that the woman had left that part of her life behind her long since and was it fair to fire her now over it?

Which might be a fair question.  But some people I personally know that were in that immediate area told me that the TV news left some stuff out, stuff involving wild parties to which teenagers were invited, inappropriate behavior in the fairly recent past, that sort of thing.  Now, I don't know how much truth there was in that, but you'd never even know it was a consideration from watching the TV coverage.

Reporters have a hard time resisting a good story...even if the story doesn't match the facts.

[Warren Ellis]

That's unfortunate that the newspapers had left out those bits of information. You know stuff like that is what destroys trust in the news. You can't be a good purveyor of accurate reporting if you decide to leave out critical things like that. Seriously, stuff like that destroys peoples' trust.

[Johnny1A]

On Sunday, September 17, 2017 at 6:43:56 PM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

That's unfortunate that the newspapers had left out those bits of information. You know stuff like that is what destroys trust in the news. You can't be a good purveyor of accurate reporting if you decide to leave out critical things like that. Seriously, stuff like that destroys peoples' trust.

And largely has.  Reporters sometimes complain that the public treats them with disrespect.  Well...yeah.  Increasingly, the news media are detested and distrusted, and it's mostly their own doing, over the course of decades.

[Warren Ellis]

I found some respect for a local news company, I think it was in Chicago, that actually made a correction to a story. They first reported incorrect information and as later developments occurred, they issued another report where they correctex their original misinformation. And they did it without having to be massively pressured by the public or anything. Actually made me feel respect for the local affiliate.

[Johnny1A]

On Monday, September 18, 2017 at 3:45:44 PM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

I found some respect for a local news company, I think it was in Chicago, that actually made a correction to a story. They first reported incorrect information and as later developments occurred, they issued another report where they correctex their original misinformation. And they did it without having to be massively pressured by the public or anything. Actually made me feel respect for the local affiliate.

Yeah, there are still responsible reporters and responsible editors.  No question about it.  But the bad behavior (and the unconscious bias, we should keep in mind that a lot of the problem is that) has done incredible damage to the industry as a whole.  The national press just keeps re-offending, too. 

[Warren Ellis]

Apparently the federal response to Puerti Rico is having issues. Hopefully the media is actually reporting this correctly and not shitting the bed like it did with the Katrina reporting and New Orleans.

[Johnny1A]

On Saturday, September 30, 2017 at 12:16:45 AM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

Apparently the federal response to Puerti Rico is having issues. Hopefully the media is actually reporting this correctly and not shitting the bed like it did with the Katrina reporting and New Orleans.

:lol:

They're already trying to recast Puerto Rico into 'Trump's Katrina', even that phrase has been used.  They tried it with Irma and Harvey and it fell flat, so now they're pushing the narrative for Puerto Rico, right down to the 'it's racial!'.

But I don't think it's taking, partly because it's ten years later and the public is more jaded about them, and partly because Trump fights back where GWB just took it silently.

[Warren Ellis]

Honestly when an 8-year old tells you to stop tweeting and start helping, it doesn't help your image much. Something is wrong with the relief in Puerto Rico.

Still, I do hope the press isn't pulling another round of Katrina-level reporting. Looking back on it, much of it was complete garbage.

[Warren Ellis]

You know I have to ask but are you a Trump admirer? I just wonder.

[Johnny1A]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 3:12:16 AM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

Honestly when an 8-year old tells you to stop tweeting and start helping, it doesn't help your image much. Something is wrong with the relief in Puerto Rico.

Is it?  That's a serious question.  What, exactly, has gone wrong with the relief effort in Puerto Rico as opposed to other hurricane relief efforts?

[Johnny1A]

On Monday, October 2, 2017 at 3:15:46 AM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

You know I have to ask but are you a Trump admirer? I just wonder.

If you're asking me, the answer is 'yes and no'.  I consider Trump vastly preferable to either Jeb Bush or Hillary Clinton, and Trump did his nation a service by knocking both would-be pseudo-royal dynasties off-track, at least for a while.

I quite like some things about Trump, I intensely dislike other aspects.  I definitely do approve of his understanding that the news media, in general, are his active, intentional enemy.  This is a realization that other Republicans either haven't been able to get their minds around, or have no idea how to cope with.  Trump fights back, and usually wins when he follows his instincts.

The tweeting, contrary to the narrative that it's a weakness, has been one of the weapons that have kept him a step ahead of the press.  If he starts trying to channel the Bush vibe and act like a 'standard issue Republican President', he's probably toast.

[Warren Ellis]

I get annoyed when he seems to constantly tweet even when the situation doesn't call for it.

There are times I feel he needs to just shut up.

[Johnny1A]

On Tuesday, October 3, 2017 at 8:22:38 PM UTC-5, Warren Ellis wrote:

I get annoyed when he seems to constantly tweet even when the situation doesn't call for it.

There are times I feel he needs to just shut up.

Occasionally I do too.  But then I recall the Bush/Business Wing Republican Technique for dealing with hostile press, Democratic Party attacks, assaults from  Hollywood, etc., which could  be summed up as "Shut up and rise above it."

I've watched the technique fail, and fail, and fail, and fail, and fail, all the way back to 1988.

In light of that, my overall attitude is 'tweet on, Donald'.