Seeing is not necessarily Believing

Marvin Gaye, in his sixties hit "Heard it Through the Grapevine" sang....

"People say believe half of what you see, son, and none of what you hear..."

In the recent reporting on Hurricane Katrina and the Anti-America (oops, I meant Anti-War) movement, I think believing half would be generous...

Take a look at this photo essay from the protest march in San Francisco last Saturday.












Here's a shot similar to the one published by the San Francisco Chronicle.

As you will see in the essay, there was a lot more going on at the actual scene than The Chronicle depicted.

This is another striking example of media bias. Not only do they select what we read about the event, they selectively shape what we see....and images are very powerful.

Days later, no one sees or cares about any measly 'correction' that may be run on a back page somewhere.

How do we begin to hold the media accountable and responsible for some semblance of integrity? And if we can't (or won't), what will happen when we lose all trust of the Fourth Estate?

The Latest Oxymoron....'Investigative Reporting'

Mayor Nagin is in the wrong job. He should be in Hollywood. Witness his Oscar-winning performance in this video of the Oprah Winfrey interview. (hat tip: Gateway Pundit)

Only problem? Most of what he said was categorically untrue. And since he was there on the ground from the beginning (as he humbly reminds us), he has no excuse. He is either a liar or incompetent.

He claims that people were in the Superdome (where HE sent them, by the way) watching hoodlums kill and rape each other. Only problem? That didn't happen. (And, by the way, if it had happened, it was his responsibility as mayor to stop it.)

This man is a piece of work. And Oprah is falling all over him--instead of asking any serious questions, like, say, "How do you know that people are being killed?" Or the tougher one, "Well, you're the Mayor, what are you doing about it?"

Okay, so we don't expect 'tough reporting' from Oprah. But, now that the hysteria is over, it turns out that there are a lot of things that were reported that just were not true.

Powerline calls for a Congressional Investigation to ask the mainstream media some tough questions--questions they should be asking themselves, in order to restore any shred of credibility that they may still possess.

It's time for some accountability here. The conventional wisdom is that no one performed particularly well in the aftermath of Katrina--not local, state or federal authorities, and not considerable numbers of private citizens. But it now appears clear that the worst performance of all was turned in by the mainstream media. Congress should promptly investigate, and try to get to the bottom of the following questions:

* How did so many false rumors come to be reported as fact?
* Do news outlets have any procedures in place to avoid this kind of mis-reporting? If so, why did their procedures fail so miserably?
* To what extent were the false rumors honest mistakes, and to what extent were they deliberate fabrications?
* To the extent that the false reports were deliberate, did the press pass them on through sheer negligence, or did some reporters participate in deliberate fabrication?
* Did the widespread breakdown in accurate reporting stem only from a failure to follow proper journalistic standards, or did it also reflect a deliberate effort to damage the Bush administration by passing on unconfirmed rumors as fact?
* In deciding what stories to report, did the news media consider the likelihood that passing on false rumors would damage the rescue effort?

It is vitally important to get to the bottom of these questions, so that future natural disasters are not similarly mis-reported.

Check out great stuff at Michelle Malkin on this topic.

I nominate the term 'investigative reporting' as the newest oxymoron.

UPDATE: Read Jonah Goldberg's post on this topic.

Cindy Sheehan and the 'New' Media

In the 'old' media, we would only be exposed to this type of reporting from the Associated Press about the 'Anti-War' protest this weekend in Washington, D.C.

But, in the new media, we can read this excellent analysis by Jeff Goldstein.

In the 'old' media, the press could deftly edit Cindy Sheehan's speech to highlight a few coherent statements (a real editing challenge, when dealing with Cindy).

In the 'new' media, we can hear and see Cindy's unedited remarks (posted by The Political Teen). Here are some excerpts from her brief remarks at the rally.

"We have to do our jobs as Americans. … We’ll be the checks and balances on this out of control criminal government. This government that condones torture."

This out of control criminal government that condones torture? Trust me, Cindy, if this government were criminal and out of control, you would not be parading around the square, criticizing them at the top of your lungs. If I'm not mistaken, I'm sure the protest organizers had to get a 'parade' permit from the 'criminal out of control government' to allow them to hold their protest. Criminal out of control governments do not allow people to hold protest rallies criticizing them and their policies. They torture and kill those people to shut them up and to intimidate anyone else from following suit.

And, since her son was a volunteer (a fact that no one seems to want to remind her), then I guess he was part of the criminal out of control government who condones torture. Is she saying that her son was a criminal? Out of control? A torturer?

She goes on...(you really need to watch the video, so you can hear her tone of voice here. She makes the Howard Dean screech speech sound like a symphony. Since I couldn't find a transcript, I had to play it over and over to capture her exact remarks. Gives a new meaning to the word 'torture'.)

"We don’t torture, we’re human beings. We don’t torture other human beings. We have to reclaim our humanity."

If someone can explain to me what she is talking about, I would appreciate it. "We don't torture, we're human beings?" Who is she suggesting DOES torture? Aliens?

"We have to show the world that Americans don’t torture and its not okay for anybody to torture another human being."

Yes, well, Cindy, I think that is exactly one of the things we showed the world by removing Saddam Hussein, one of the world's most evil dictators. Saddam, his sons and his followers institutionalized torture to keep his people under his control. Saddam led a criminal, out of control government (just in case you needed one for comparison to OUR criminal, out of control government). How did we show the world that we don't torture and its not okay for anybody to torture? We removed him. He is in jail and his sons are dead.

That lesson was not lost on Moammar Qaddafi, who suddenly became very anxious to cooperate with Bush and Blair. Note that he did not make his overtures to the U.N.

But, Cindy, please tell us, what are Americans to do in the face of criminal out of control goverments who kill, torture and abuse their citizens?

"Americans don’t invade countries and occupy other countries pre-emptively that are no threat to our country. And it's not okay for other countries to do that, either."

Actually, this time I agree with Cindy. We DON'T invade countries that are no threat to our country. That's why we are in Iraq and are not in, say, Cuba.

According to Cindy, we don't torture and we don't condone torture, but we sure as heck are not going to do anything about it when another country does so (unless it is a country like, say, Israel). I know! We'll send Cindy Sheehan over there to tell them that it's not okay for them to do it EITHER. That'll stop 'em in their tracks.

The very best part about the 'new 'media is that it preserves the testimony of people like Cindy Sheehan. We can hear her words from her own lips and evaluate her credibility for ourselves, not from some glamorized, edited version from the media.



UPDATE: I can't believe it. Thank you to Katherine M. Skiba of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel for proving my point. After finishing this original post, I picked up the Sunday Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and read the Katherine Skiba piece on the Anti-War rally. I could not have manufactured a better illustration of my point. Let me share with you what Ms. Skiba decided to report about Cindy's speech:

NOTE: IF YOU HAVEN'T WATCHED THE VIDEO YET, STOP AND DO IT NOW BEFORE YOU READ ON....see if you are as struck as I was about the 'tone' depicted by Skiba's article vs. the reality of the video.

"Cindy Sheehan, whose son Casey, was killed in Iraq last year, was the event's leading lady. Her vigil at President Bush's ranch may be over, but her celebrity in Washington seemed only to grow."

Gosh, Katherine, could you gush just a little bit more? I don't think we all got it.

"'We're not going home till every last one of our troops are home,' the California woman told an exultant crowd Saturday, the first of three days of planned protests.

'We mean business, George Bush,' she said. 'We're going to Congress and we're going to ask them "How many more of other people's children are you willing to sacrifice?'"

So...did Cindy say this? Yes. But, as you can see for yourself, she also said a lot of other things, none of which Katherine thought worth reporting. I wonder why not? Perhaps because that didn't support her view of Cindy as the event's 'leading lady'.

I swear, Cindy Sheehan could advocate eating small children for breakfast, but those who rely on the old media would never know.

Katherine does not limit her glowing prose to Cindy. She describes the crowd as...

"...a colorful sea of humanity: college students and lawyers, nuns and veterans, federal workers and farm wives."

To see what today's college students, lawyers, nuns, veterans, federal workers and farm wives look like, check out the photoblogs from Michelle Malkin and Mudville Gazette

Hmmmm, do you think the protester carrying the "Convict and Castrate Cheney" sign is a nun or a farm wife? The guy with the "F*** the War" t-shirt a veteran...or a federal worker (probably not a nun, but in today's world....who knows???)?

This is one more example of why people are turning to the blogosphere for their news. (And it's free!)

UPDATE 2: Just found this link to the MJS article. Check it out for yourself.

The new slogan for the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel.... "We report. We decide."

Who'da Thought????

In today's MJS (Milwaukee Journal Sentinel)....

After a surge during the first half of summer, killings in Milwaukee slowed over the past month, giving activists, police and others hope that their efforts to stem violence are paying off.

The start of school, cooler weather and other factors are being cited for the slowdown.

Wait a minute....these people are killing each other because they're hot? And have too much time on their hands?

Jeepers. We have spent millions of dollars on jobs programs, crime-prevention, and the War on Poverty. Are you telling me all we needed to do was to hold school year-round and buy some air-conditioners?

Thoughts on Rita vs. Katrina

In his press conference yesterday, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the mainstream media. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. Although I consider myself fairly risk averse, I tend to ignore warnings. The last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it.

However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. We did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing.

We were spurred to action by the sense of responsibility for someone ELSE's children.

I think, like me, most people can’t imagine that the worst could possibly happen to them. We’ve all been warned about so many things that we are becoming fear-immune. Constantly alerted to a new ‘crisis’ every minute by the media (cable news is one of the worst offenders)— catastrophes caused by global warming, brain cancer caused by our cell phones, death by terrorist attack—we start tuning them out.

The problem is that these catastrophes rarely happen, and when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people. Truth be told, we all are much more likely to die of natural causes than to be killed in a disaster, man-made or otherwise.

Unfortunately, in the case of Katrina, the ineptness of Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly. They reinforced the jaded skepticism of New Orleans residents who have survived multiple storm warnings in the past and thought they could ride this one out.

Regardless of the facts, the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

While the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita, it is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks that it has completely re-engineered its approach to disasters. Especially while everyone is still up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina..

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people who need help.

While it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.

The President Nails It

In his press conference today, President Bush was asked about the differences between how the government responded to Hurricane Katrina and how it is now responding to Hurricane Rita. (Note: you will see this theme very quickly cropping up in the MSM. Witness a front-page headline in today's Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, "This time, U.S. is quicker to act". But more about that later).

His response? He told the reporter that one of the major differences was that, this time, the order to evacuate was given and people were taking it seriously.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately. I don't know if I am unique, but I consider myself fairly risk averse. Even so, the last time there was a tornado warning and we were advised to seek shelter, my husband and I ignored it. However, we called my son, who was babysitting at the time and advised him to take the kids downstairs for safety. But we did nothing. In fact, had our son been home along with us, we probably still would have done nothing. But we were spurred to action by the responsibility our son had for someone ELSE's children.

In fact, I believe that most people refuse to think that the worst could possibly happen to them. We have been warned about so many things that I think we are becoming fear-immune. We are constantly threatened and warned of new crises every minute. If we don't die of a catastrophe caused by global warming, we will suffer brain cancer from our cell phones, heart disease caused by our diets, or killed in a terrorist attack. The problem? These things rarely happen, when they do, they affect a relatively small number of people and we all are much more likely to be killed in a car accident or die from smoking than to perish as a result of disaster.


The MSM, eager for our attention, screams warnings of doom. We were told that Hurricane Katrina would kill tens of thousands of people and render New Orleans uninhabitable due to toxic soup for years to come. So the combination of natural human inclination to think that nothing will happen to us and the constant dire predications that fail to materialize leave us skeptical and less likely to take reasonable precautions.

So, just like in the story of Chicken Little, we begin to ignore the warnings that "the sky is falling" until it is too late.

Mayor Nagin and Governor Blanco's ineptness, indecisiveness and reluctance to call in help from federal authorities only added to the skepticism and sent the wrong message to their citizens--especially those most in need of guidance--the poor and the elderly.

But the media will pat themselves on the back for 'exposing' the failures of the federal government and make it appear as though they (the media) are responsible for the change in behavior from the feds. From the AP this morning...

Stung by the relentless criticism of their faltering response to Hurricane Katrina, federal officials raced Wednesday to prepare for the devastation that Hurricane Rita could inflict on the Texas coast.

So, yes, the federal government is being somewhat more pro-active in preparing for Rita. But not drastically so. It is ridiculous to suggest that in a matter of a few weeks, (and while
STILL up to their eyeballs in the aftermath of Katrina) the federal government has completely changed its practices and approach to disasters, or that the firing of Michael Brown turned FEMA around overnight.

The AP story never mentions one other important difference. The Mayor of Galveston and the Governor of Texas are not sending out mixed, ambiguous messages to their citizens. They are not ignoring their own disaster plans. They are not directing people to a facility that they know they cannot secure. They are clearly telling people to evacuate and making arrangements for people with no transportation to get out of the area.

And, while it may have nothing to do with it whatsoever, it is interesting to note one other difference. The Mayor of New Orleans and Governor of Louisiana are Democrats. The local Texan authorities happen to be Republicans.

I don't know about you, but although I do not live in a geography affected by tropical storms, I know which way I would vote in the next local elections if I lived in the Hurricane zone.

Don't hold your breath waiting to see THAT analysis in the mainstream media.

Support for Voter Photo IDs

I just came across this excellent post from LaShawn Barber on voter photo IDs. Read the whole thing.

I have often wondered myself how many people actually lack photo IDs. The left assumes that anyone poor, elderly, or from a minority group does not have a photo ID. I have yet to see any hard facts quoted to support this assertion. Since anyone who drives or cashes checks has to have a photo ID, this would eliminate anyone who has a job, a car, or receives welfare checks (which should pretty much cover everyone except street people and the elderly).

If you make photo IDs available in nursing homes (where the residents have to be driven by healthcare workers to get to the polls), that eliminates the elderly objection. Many elderly people who live independently have access to bus lines or friends/family members who can drive them to appointments. I'm sure the 'Get out the Vote' volunteers could be mobilized quickly to transport people to get voter IDs in advance of an election.

It is embarrassing to me that we dismiss voter IDs as being too much 'hassle' in an era where people in the Middle East are risking their lives for the privilege of voting in free elections. You know, many things in life are a 'hassle'. Going to work every day is a 'hassle'. Paying taxes is a 'hassle'. A once-in-a-lifetime requirement to register in order to help prevent election fraud (and make sure when I go through the 'hassle' of voting, my vote wasn't canceled by a fraudulent vote) seems like a small price to pay.

Off with their Heads!!!

Mind-boggling editorial from the MJS (Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel) yesterday on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina. They have never found a solution too complex to be immediately solved by the firing of a single individual in the Bush Administration.

Their solution for the thorny and complex issues facing the nation after the horrible destruction and loss of human life wreaked by Katrina? Fire Michael Brown, the head of FEMA. While I am not a fan of Michael Brown, I don't think getting rid of him will do the trick.

And here is their reasoning....

FEMA used to give local communities grants to combat natural disasters - money Homeland Security subsumed mostly for grants to fight terrorism. The administration slashed FEMA's staff by 500 positions, to 4,735, reports the Los Angeles Times. The Wall Street Journal chimes in that morale at the agency has plummeted and its executives are stretched thin.

So....

Having insisted after 9/11 on the establishment of a giant homeland security bureaucracy, they (the Democrats) now are shocked to find that FEMA, having been placed within that bureaucracy, is too bureaucratic. So now some Democrats are demanding that FEMA be removed from the giant bureaucracy. Lacking anything serious to say about national security, the Democrats are treating us to the spectacle of chasing their tail while spewing venom against the president.

(from Powerline)


So, this is Michael Brown's fault? Well, not really, the editorial goes on to say:

No, Brown can't shoulder most of the blame for the agency's downgrading. President Bush and Chertoff must answer for that. But even with his diminished power, he could have acted in a more decisive and timely manner. He failed to do so.

For instance, the agency left thousands of people stranded in the New Orleans Convention Center for days, local officials and others say FEMA refused many offers of help that could have saved lives and many victims complained of getting the bureaucratic cold shoulder from the agency.

Here's the problem. The editorial makes it sound as though FEMA refused to help people, resulting in the death and discomfort of thousands. But during that timeframe, the Red Cross and Salvation Army were denied access to New Orleans by state officials because they were told they would interfere with rescue and evacuation efforts. Red Cross officials say they were told that aiding the people in New Orleans would discourage them from evacuating. Who are the 'local officials and others' quoted by the MJS?

Here is the transcript from the Hugh Hewitt interview with Major Garrett, who spoke with the heads of the Red Cross and Salvation Army (from Powerline):

I was watching up on the corner television in my studio, and it's headlined that the Red Cross was blocked from delivering supplies to the Superdome, Major Garrett. Tell us what you found out.
MG: Well, the Red Cross, Hugh, had pre-positioned a literal vanguard of trucks with water, food, blankets and hygiene items. They're not really big into medical response items, but those are the three biggies that we saw people at the New Orleans Superdom, and the convention center, needing most accutely. And all of us in America, I think, reasonably asked ourselves, geez. You know, I watch hurricanes all the time. And I see correspondents standing among rubble and refugees and evacuaees. But I always either see that Red Cross or Salvation Army truck nearby. Why don't I see that?

HH: And the answer is?

MG: The answer is the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, that is the state agency responsible for that state's homeland security, told the Red Cross explicitly, you cannot come.

HH: Now Major Garrett, on what day did they block the delivery? Do you know specifically?

MG: I am told by the Red Cross, immediately after the storm passed.

HH: Okay, so that would be on Monday afternoon.

MG: That would have been Monday or Tuesday.

***

HH: I also have to conclude from what you're telling me, Major Garrett, is that had they been allowed to deliver when they wanted to deliver, which is at least a little bit prior to the levee, or at least prior to the waters rising, the supplies would have been pre-positioned, and the relief...you know, the people in the Superdome, and possibly at the convention center, I want to come back to that, would have been spared the worst of their misery.

MG: They would have been spared the lack of food, water and hygiene. I don't think there's any doubt that they would not have been spared the indignity of having nor workable bathrooms in short order.

HH: Now Major Garrett, let's turn to the convention center, because this will be, in the aftermath...did the Red Cross have ready to go into the convention center the supplies that we're talking about as well?

MG: Sure. They could have gone to any location, provided that the water wasn't too high, and they got some assistance.

So, here is the solution to the problem:

After all, if the nation bungles its response to an anticipated disaster, how can it be prepared to handle a surprise disaster, such as a terrorist attack? FEMA needs restored clout and a new director - which the Republican Congress, in the past an enabler of Bush's penchant for non-accountability, should insist on.

I think the issue is that we have a form of government in which the local and state government serve as the first responders in the case of disaster, natural or otherwise. When they need assistance from the federal government, they ask for it. If the federal government offers help and they refuse it, what does MJS suggest that the federal government do? March in like stormtroopers? (I thought we put that approach to rest when we got rid of Janet Reno).

Unfortunately, in this case, state and local officials responsible for New Orleans knew that there were major issues with their evacuation plans and hurricane response capabilities. And yet they did nothing. Read this article from the Wall Street Journal.

So, why aren't Democrats screaming "Who knew what, when?"

So, this is another complex issue that deserves honest debate and creativity. What an opportunity for the media to educate its readers/viewers/listeners on the roles of federal, state and local governments. In this 'perfect storm', a combination of natural disaster and poor decision-making by officials led to disaster. The only way to have REALLY averted disaster was for the mayor to have called for full evacuation of the city and to provide needed assistance to those who could not evacuate on their own (which he was told to do in numerous reports, studies and policies issued BEFORE the Hurricane struck).

Instead, the media and politicians are using the death of thousands of hurricane victims to advance their own political causes. This is only compounding this national tragedy.

Typical and disappointing.

Best of Times, Worst of Times

Great article by Thomas Sowell on the breakdown of civilization in New Orleans.

It is interesting that disasters bring out the best in some people and the absolute worst in others.

Personally, I think it is entirely a matter of your perspective. If you believe that we all are here by mere chance and that this life is all there is, then I suppose there is really no reason not to loot, kill or plunder to guarantee your own survival. Especially when there is no threat of consequence. "Survival of the fittest" and all.

However, if you have an eternal perspective, believe that there are absolutes when it comes to right and wrong and realize that things we do in this life will have consequences in the next, then I think your behavior here and now is guided by higher principles.

Where Have all the Leaders Gone?

Showing the statesman-like leadership that has netted the Democratic Party a majority in the House and Senate, Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid today refused to support the idea of an independent investigation into what went wrong in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

They are going to hold their breath until their faces turn blue.

That will be a comfort to the people suffering as a result of Katrina's devastation. It continues to amaze me that there is no depth to which these people are unwilling to stoop to try to embarrass the President. And somehow, they think the American people are falling for it.

It would be funny, really, if it weren't so tragic.

Cut!! Take Two!!

This tidbit on Sean Penn from the boys at Powerline was simply too good to pass up. So, here it is in its entirety.

Our Helpful Celebrities

Actor Sean Penn has accused President Bush of "criminal negligence" in connection with the response to Hurricane Katrina. Of course, you have to give Penn credit--he's not one of those celebrities who just mouth off, but never do anything constructive. No, Penn sprang into action, determined to show the authorities how it's done by people who aren't "criminally negligent." Unfortunately, the results weren't quite what he had hoped for:

Sean Penn's Hurricane Katrina rescue boat just wasn't sound enough to help those in New Orleans. Penn had planned to rescue children waylaid by Katrina's flood waters, but apparently forgot to plug in a hole in the bottom of his vessel, which began filling with water seconds after its launch the other day, reports the Melbourne Herald Sun. The star was seen wearing what appeared to be a white flak jacket and frantically bailing water out with a red plastic cup. When the motor didn't start, Penn and his entourage — including a personal photographer — were forced to use paddles to propel themselves down a flooded street.

Poor Sean.