Katrina Relief: The Buck Stops at the state level Posted by: McQ
on Friday, September 16, 2005
Newsbusters carries links to ABC's Dean Reynolds report at the Astrodome where, in the wake of the President's speech, reaction was solicited from evacuees there.
Suffice it to say, it probably wasn't what they expected (or wanted). Take a look at the interview:
Reynolds elicited reaction from the group sitting in chairs: “I'd like to get the reaction of Connie London who spent several horrible hours at the Superdome. You heard the President say retpeaedly that you are not alone, that the country stands beside you. Do you believe him?”
Connie London: “Yeah, I believe him, because here in Texas, they have truly been good to us. I mean-”
Reynolds: “Did you get a sense of hope that you could return to your home one day in New Orleans?”
London: “Yes, I did. I did.”
Reynolds: “Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?”
London: “No, none whatsoever, because I feel like our city and our state government should have been there before the federal government was called in. They should have been on their jobs.”
Reynolds: “And they weren't?”
London: “No, no, no, no. Lord, they wasn't. I mean, they had RTA buses, Greyhound buses, school buses, that was just sitting there going under water when they could have been evacuating people.”
Reynolds: “Now, Mary, you were rescued from your house which was basically submerged in your neighborhood. Did you hear something in the President's words that you could glean some hope from?”
Mary: “Yes. He said we're coming back, and I believe we're coming back. He's going to build the city up. I believe that.”
Reynolds: “You believe you'll be able to return to your home?”
Mary: “Yes, I do.”
Reynolds: “Why?”
Mary: “Because I really believe what he said. I believe. I got faith.”
Reynolds: “Back here in the corner, we've got Brenda Marshall, right?”
Brenda Marshall: “Yes.”
Reynolds: “Now, Brenda, you were, spent, what, several days at the Superdome, correct?”
Marshall: “Yes, I did.”
Reynolds: “What did you think of what the President told you tonight?”
Marshall: “Well, I think—I think the speech was wonderful, you know, him specifying that we will return back and that we will have like mobile homes, you know, rent or whatever. I was listening to that pretty good. But I think it was a well fine speech.”
Reynolds: “Was there any particular part of it that stood out in your mind? I mean, I saw you all nod when he said the Crescent City is going to come back one day.”
Marshall: “Well, I think I was more excited about what he said. That's probably why I nodded.”
Reynolds: “Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that's nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?”
Marshall: “No, I didn't.”
Reynolds: “Good. Well, very little skepticism here. Frederick Gould, did you hear something that you could hang on to tonight from the President?”
Frederick Gould: “Well, I just know, you know, he said good things to me, you know, what he said, you know. I was just trying to listen to everything they were saying, you know.”
Reynolds: “And Cecilia, did you feel that the President was sincere tonight?”
Cecilia: “Yes, he was.”
Reynolds: “Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he's got a handle on the situation?”
Cecilia: “To me it was a little too late. It was too late, but he should have did something more about it.”
Reynolds: “Now do you all believe that you will one day return to your homes?”
Voices: “Yes” and “I do.”
Reynolds: “I mean, do you all want to return to your homes? We're hearing some people don't even want to go back.”
Mary: “I want to go back.”
Reynolds: “You want to go back.”
Mary: “I want to go back. That's my home. That's all I know.”
Reynolds: “Is it your home for your whole life?”
Mary: “Right. That's my home.”
Reynolds: “And do you expect to go back to the house or a brand new dwelling or what?”
Mary: “I expect to go back to something. I know it ain't my house, because it's gone.”
Reynolds: “What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it?”
Mary: “I'm going to tell you the truth. I had the opportunity to get out, but I didn't believe it. So I stayed there till it was too late.”
Reynolds: “Did you all have the same feeling? I mean, did you all have the opportunity to get out, but you were skeptical that this was the really bad one?”
Unnamed woman: “No, I got out when they said evacuate. I got out that Sunday and I left before the storm came. But I know they could have did better than what they did because like they said, buses were just sitting there, and they could have came through there and got people out, because they were saying immediate evacuation. Some people didn't believe it. But they should have brung the force of the army through to help these people and make them understand it really was coming.”
London: “And really it wasn't Hurricane Katrina that really tore up the city. It was when they opened the floodgates. It was not the hurricane itself. It was the floodgates, when they opened the floodgates, that's where all the water came.”
Reynolds: “Do you blame anybody for this?”
London: “Yes. I mean, they've been allocated federal funds to fix the levee system, and it never got done. I fault the mayor of our city personally. I really do.”
Reynolds: “All right. Well, thank you all very much. I wish you all the best of luck. I hope you don't have to spend too much more time here in the Reliant Center and you can get back to New Orleans as the President said. Ted, that is the word from the Houston Astrodome. And as I said, when the President said that the Crescent City will rise again, there were nods all around this parking lot.”
I have to chuckle. Underestimate the intelligence of the average American at your peril. Most people, despite the concerted effort by some sements of the media, understand where first and primary responsibility lays in terms of response to natural disaster. And apparently, based on this interview, most agree with Governor Blanco ... the buck stopped right in her office (and Mayor Nagin ought to look on his desk as well).
Good Lord I am having a hard time not gloating about this. It’s not that I’m a rabid Bush supporter, but anything that exposes the media for the liars they are (objective, unbiased my ASS) is priceless.
What I wonder about though is Joe Sixpack, sitting at home watching this. Does he see the bias in the questions? If not, how can we inform people?
I’ve had to work hard to show my parents the bias in the news. Not that it’s bad, but you need to know it’s there so you don’t confuse opinions and loaded questions for facts. That’s why I think blogs rock, because they wear their biases out in the open which makes discerning the facts a bit easier.
Dean Reynold’s job is in danger. He obviously failed to get the story here. Had he talked more with these people he would have known that they were part of the small minority who do not understand what is really going on. He should have lined up people beforehand based on their truly understanding the situation and the incompetence and failure of the federal government. He could have given viewers a more accurate picture of the failures of the Bush administration. In his defense, he did try to get the real story [my emphasis]:
Reynolds: "Did you harbor any anger toward the President because of the slow federal response?" Reynolds: "Was there anything that you found hard to believe that he said, that you thought, well, that’s nice rhetoric, but, you know, the proof is in the pudding?" Reynolds: "Do you think this is a little too late, or do you think he’s got a handle on the situation?" Reynolds: "What is the one mistake that could have been prevented that would have made your lives much better? Is it simply getting all of you out much sooner or what was it?" Reynolds: "Do you blame anybody for this?"
I think that, due to the need for a “live” and immediate response he simply spoke with random evacuees, hence the inaccurate and ignorant responses. A competent MSM journalist would have mingled with these people beforehand and picked out those who truly understand the situation and who could be relied upon to respond appropriately to the expected lies and insincerity in the President’s remarks. Reynolds simply failed to do his job. [sarcasm/humor alert]
Robert, I’m glad I read to the end [the very end] of your comment, I was about to go off the deep end...
But I entered the Comments to say "Thanks for scaring me, McQ".
I assumed by the title that financial relief was pouring in but that the "buck was stopping" at the State level. I still expect that the money will be all screwed up, but at least I haven’t had to see it yet.
You got to give the MSM points for a really trying to pin the whole thing on Bush. It amazes me that lefties pretend the MSM is full of conservative bias when it seems clearly the other way.
And the other interesting thing it that all this agitprop from the left over the last few weeks has come to NOTHING. Priceless as the commercial says
Those potential interviewees that Reynolds should have been looking for, the ones with the correct and true understanding of the situation, don’t worry, ABC Radio found them, and led the half-hourly news segments with them. Screechy Bush-hatin’ spokes-folks for the grievance-American community ain’t being neglected on ABC, for sure. But it’s good to see that R.F.’s new irony-meter is working well.
“This morning I listened attentively to NPR to hear their coverage of the speech and its reaction. The results were not surprising. Bush’s outline for rebuilding the Gulf Coast was given a couple of minutes, and then four reactions from New Orleans evacuees were offered. Every one of them was negative (paraphrasing): "Bush doesn’t understand us," "I don’t believe the money will be spent correctly," or "It’s just a lot of talk."
What’s the difference between the ABC News coverage and NPR’s this morning? Simple. Because ABC was broadcasting live, they didn’t have the ability to present the news according to their frame. NPR, having 12 hours with which to work, managed to present the speech from the proper perspective: Bush sucks.”
You know, its really funny seeing liberals quoting refugees who are criticizing Bush after his speech and conservatives quoting refugees who are praising Bush after his speech. The fact of the matter is you can find someone amongst any group that will say what you like to hear, and then to report on it.
What do the victims of this storm really think? I have no freaking clue.
“What do the victims of this storm really think? I have no freaking clue.”
Yes, Rosensteelhead, we get the philosophical ‘having heard the conservative point of view and also the liberal point of view we still know nothing of the truth’. If we eschew the liberal trait of keeping our heads in the clouds and actually seek the truth in the real world, how about a liberal interviewing the first people they come across in a parking lot, which people state points of view that are anathema to the interviewer? If you still don’t know what the victims of this storm really think about the issues covered, then you actually don’t have a clue.
