Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - Comparing Louisiana's response and Mississippi's response to Katrina.

- Tilted Politics (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/)

- - Comparing Louisiana's response and Mississippi's response to Katrina. (https://thetfp.com/tfp/tilted-politics/94362-comparing-louisianas-response-mississippis-response-katrina.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elphaba

Alladin, I assume you just forgot to post the entirety of the Red Cross link...

Some of us are not too lazy to follow a link. Homeland Security is keeping out the Red Cross, as well, for very good reasons as their website states.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but, my understanding is that Governor Blanco refused Bush's offer to nationalize FEMA's efforts. Right or wrong, the governor decided to retain control and in so doing, she directs the Louisiana State Homeland Security department, not the federal department of the same name.

Last night FOX News Correspondent Major Garrett reported that Louisiana Governor Kathleen Blanco denied the help of the Red Cross. Tonight, Garrett digs deeper in what looks to be a cover-up and finds out Blanco also denied The Salvation Army. I hope there is a Part 3 to this investigation.

DOWNLOAD and view video here. http://thepoliticalteen.com/video/mgarrett2.wmv

So tell me host. Did Karl Rove invent these stories. Fox new reported on them, no one else did. IS that because Fox isn't news? or because the LEFT controls the media?

Note: The Louisiana Department of Homeland Security is run by the Governor's Office, i.e. Kathleen Blanco (D)

http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7000060641

Quote:

Update: Red Cross Says "We Were Kept From Superdome By State"

September 7, 2005 7:01 p.m. EST

Douglas Maher - All Headline News Staff Reporter

Washington, D.C. (AHN) - A report on Fox News from correspondent Major Garrett Wednesday night reveals a major break into what exactly went wrong at the Louisiana Superdome in the days after Hurricane Katrina struck the city.

An American Red Cross representative tells Fox News that the Louisiana State Homeland Security Department refused the relief organization permission to take food and water to the Superdome because they did not want to "encourage people to go there."

They State office of Homeland Security wanted to get people out and were afraid that providing support would be a "magnet" attracting more displaced citizens of New Orleans.

Stay with All Headline News for more on this developing aspect of the Hurricane Katrina Relief.

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...7/235423.shtml

Quote:

Wednesday, Sept. 7, 2005 11:52 p.m. EDT
Gov. Kathleen Blanco's Bureaucrats Blocked Food and Water

The Red Cross was reportedly ready to deliver food, water and other supplies to flood-ravaged refugees who were sweltering inside New Orleans' Superdome last week - but the relief was blocked by bureaucrats who worked for Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco.

Fox News Channel's Major Garrett reported Wednesday that the Red Cross had "trucks with water, food, hygiene equipment, all sorts of things ready to go ... to the Superdome and Convention Center."

But the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security, Garrett said, "told them they could not go."
"The Red Cross tells me that Louisiana's Department of Homeland Security said, 'Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or Convention Center, we want to get them out,'" he explained.

"So at the same time local officials were screaming where is the food, where is the water, the Red Cross was standing by ready [and] the Louisiana Department of Homeland Security said you can't go."

I thought it might be interesting to just compare Mississippi and Louisiana to start with. As has been mentioned previously, this is a pretty big difference

*************************************************
Mississippi:

Lowest Point:
Gulf of Mexico at Sea Level (source: U.S. Geological Survey)

Louisiana:

Lowest Point:
New Orleans at -8 feet, located in the county/subdivision of Orleans
(source: U.S. Geological Survey)

*************************************************

I think that may be related to the huge difference in the aftermath of the the Hurricane in these two places: The state of Mississippi and a good bit of Louisiana vs The City of New Orleans.

Y'all can now return to arguing about who has better facts and who is more partisan.

Quote:

Originally Posted by stevo

stevo, do you ever read or quote any references from MSM print media sources, i.e. those generally regarded as newspapers "of record" in their geographic regions.....NY Times, LA Times, Washington Post, or of the original TV network news sources, CBS, NBC, ABC? These six sources are not impeccable, and they do make mistakes and misreport, too often, but they do not seem to fall to the low standard of integrity and impartiality that one of your recently cited <a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=1885038&postcount=34">sources</a>, "Cyber News Service", http://www.cnsnews.com/, does.

Background:

Quote:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Brent_Bozell
Brent Bozell is the founder and President of the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization.

Bozell is also the founder and President of the Parents Television Council, which his biographical note describes as "the only Hollywood-based organization dedicated to restoring responsibility to the entertainment industry." [1] (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/BIOS/cbbozell.html)

"In June 1998, Mr. Bozell launched the Conservative Communications Center (C3) to provide the conservative movement with the marketing and public relations tools necessary to deliver its message into the 21st century. C3's online news division, the Cybercast News Service at www.CNSNews.com, has become a major internet news source with a full staff of journalists in its Washington, DC metro bureau, and operates bureaus in London and Jerusalem, with other correspondents around the world," his biographical note states.

Bozell is a nationally syndicated writer whose work has appeared in a wide range of publications.

"Mr. Bozell is Executive Director of the Conservative Victory Committee (CVC), an independent multi-candidate political action committee that has helped elect dozens of conservative candidates over the past ten years. He was National Finance Chairman for the 1992 Buchanan for President campaign, and Finance Director and later President of the former National Conservative Political Action Committee (NCPAC). He currently belongs to the Council for National Policy (CNP) and sits on the Board of Directors of the American Conservative Union (ACU)," his biographical note states.

Media Transparency describes L. Brent Bozell III as "a zealot of impeccable right-wing pedigree. He is the nephew of columnist William F. Buckley and the son of L. Brent Bozell, Jr., who assisted Barry Goldwater with the writing of Conscience of a Conservative. He was the chief fund-raiser behind Pat Buchanan's unsuccessful bid for the Republican Presidential nomination in 1992.

According to Media Transparency, Bozell helped orchestrate the smear campaign directed at the opposition to Clarence Thomas's appointment to the Supreme Court in 1991. During the 2004 elections Bozell has launched a 2.8 million dollar campaign to discredit the "liberal media" (see WaPo external link). His column on the eve of the Republican convention (http://pittsburghlive.com/x/tribune-.../s_245188.html) attempts to smear Kerry by accusing him of "soldier-smearing", for having reported, during his 1971 Congressional testimony, on atrocities being committed in Vietnam.

stevo, I don't have the nerve or the narrowvision to cite a "news story" by this guy, Bozell's 'Cyber News Service' as one of only two sources that you posted to strengthen your argument. You and your defender who posted followups, conveyed, in the jist of your opinions, that all "sources" and "facts" are equally weighted....and, in effect, cancel out each other. Do I have that right? Is this close to a description of your opinion on the citing of news reports and of other third party sources, in our posts here?

Are you content to receive your "news" filtered by organizations run by Bozell,
Murdoch, Rev. Moon, or philanthropist Richard Mellon Scaife?

stevo, get some perspective on how much your own political philosophy and POV has been "shaped'" by Scaife funded "projects". Your talking point about the "LEFT controls the media" is a result of Scaife funding ingraining it into the culture of the right........
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...main050299.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...main050399.htm

stevo, <a href="http://conwebwatch.tripod.com/stories/primer.html">more</a> on Bozell, Scaife, and Ruddy.....founder of "newsmax", a source you linked to on your recent post that I am responding to now......

finally, Fox "reports" on N.O. as they relate to assigning "blame" are not news.
They are Rove directed propaganda designed to re-shape public opinion of Bush and Fema, via the usual smear of critics, this time the governor and other political leaders in Louisiana......

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509090002
Fox touts misleading Red Cross account to blame Blanco

Fox News and other conservative media, including nationally syndicated radio host Rush Limbaugh and popular weblogs, have loudly and repeatedly touted statements made this week by American Red Cross president and CEO Marsha J. "Marty" Evans that Louisiana state homeland security officials blocked Red Cross efforts to enter New Orleans to deliver food, water, and other critical provisions to victims of Hurricane Katrina because the state officials did not want to provide an incentive for people to stay in the city. But a review of public statements by Red Cross officials -- who originally agreed that requests or directives by state and local officials that Red Cross relief workers stay out of the city were made because the city was not safe -- shows they have subtly shifted their rhetoric regarding who was responsible for barring the Red Cross, whether it was an outright bar or a request, and what the reason was for the authorities' not wanting Red Cross relief workers to go into the city, undermining the Fox News report.

This shift neatly complements <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200509080023#20050909">Bush administration efforts to re-direct blame for failures in the relief effort on state and local officials</a>, particularly on Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco. Also notably absent from Fox News' reports was any mention of the fact that both the Red Cross' charter and the federal Department of Homeland Security's December 2004 National Response Plan clearly indicate that ultimate decision-making authority rested (or should have rested) with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), not with any state agency.

Last week, the Red Cross, which by law works under FEMA during national states of emergency, agreed that officials on the ground in New Orleans were taking the correct course of action in requesting or demanding that relief workers not enter the city before and after the storm. In a September 2 <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/02/lkl.01.html">interview</a>, Evans explained to CNN host Larry King that the Red Cross was not in New Orleans because "it was not safe to be in the city, and it's not been safe to go back into the city ... We were asked -- directed -- by the National Guard and the city and the state emergency management not to go into New Orleans because it was not safe.".......

.........Red Cross president Evans shifted emphasis from safety to evacuation incentives

In her September 6 interview on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, Evans emphasized that the Red Cross was "ready" to enter New Orleans immediately after the storm, but was "not allowed" by "state homeland security authorities." This account stands in contrast to statements the prior week by Evans and other Red Cross officials.

Evans explained to CNN host Larry King during her September 2 <a href="http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0509/02/lkl.01.html">interview</a> that the Red Cross was not entering New Orleans due to concerns about personnel safety, as well as a desire not to provide survivors an incentive to stay in the dangerous conditions of the city: <blockquote>

KING: Joining us now in Washington is Marty Evans, the president and CEO of the American Red Cross. She traveled with the president today. The Red Cross is not in New Orleans. Why? EVANS: Well, Larry, when the storm came, our goal was prior to landfall to support the evacuation. It was unsafe to be in the city. We were asked by the city not to be there, and the Superdome was made a shelter of last resorts and, quite frankly in retrospect, it was a good idea because otherwise those people would have had no shelter at all.

We have our shelters north of the city. We're prepared as soon as they can be evacuated, we're prepared to receive them in Texas, in other states, but it was not safe to be in the city, and it's not been safe to go back into the city. They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city, people wouldn't leave, and they've got to leave.

[...]

EVANS: Well, Larry, we were asked, directed by the National Guard and the city and the state emergency management not to go into New Orleans because it was not safe. We are not a search and rescue organization. We provide shelter and basic support, and so we were depending, we are depending on the state and the agencies to get people to our shelters in safe places. </blockquote>

The Chicago Tribune <a href="http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-050902hurricane,1,4993635.story?coll=chi-news-hed">described</a> conditions in New Orleans as authorities tried to evacuate the Superdome and the New Orleans Convention Center in an article published later that evening: <blockquote>

A convoy of 1,200 National Guard troops rode into downtown to begin restoring order and delivering life-saving supplies more than four days after Hurricane Katrina stranded at least 100,000 citizens inside a city once known around the world as the "Big Easy" but now virtually indistinguishable from a war zone. Officials said 7,000 Guard personnel would be in the city by Saturday.

Looters were still running rampant, fires raged out of control in several buildings across the city and bloating corpses floated along flooded streets, but officials said they had nearly finished evacuating more than 30,000 refugees from the filthy Superdome and were now focusing on tens of thousands more huddled in and around the city's convention center. </blockquote>

In a <a href="http://www.redcross.org/faq/0,1096,0_682_4524,00.html#4524">FAQ</a> apparently posted on its website September 2, the Red Cross emphasized that its "presence would keep people from evacuating and encourage others to come into the city," and noted that "[w]e are an organization of civilian volunteers and cannot get relief aid into any location until the local authorities say it is safe and provide us with security and access." The FAQ concludes by describing the Red Cross' "appropriate role" under the circumstances: <blockquote>

As the remaining people are evacuated from New Orleans, the most appropriate role for the Red Cross is to provide a safe place for people to stay and to see that their emergency needs are met. We are fully staffed and equipped to handle these individuals once they are evacuated. </blockquote>.............

.......Garrett's own reporting on Fox was carried extensively on September 7 and 8. On the evening of September 7, Garrett appeared on Fox News' The Big Story with John Gibson. Playing a recording of Evans's claims on The O'Reilly Factor, Garrett reported, "Well, last night on The O'Reilly Factor, Red Cross president Marty Evans said the Red Cross was ready, ready to drive in food and water, but Louisiana officials said no." Later on Special Report with Brit Hume, Garrett elaborated on this revised explanation for the Red Cross' absence from New Orleans following the hurricane. Citing "one of their officials," Garrett repeated the Red Cross' suggestion that state officials' desire to encourage the evacuation of New Orleans was the primary reason relief workers did not enter New Orleans. <blockquote>

GARRETT: The state's own agency devoted to the state's homeland security. They told them, "You cannot go there." Why? The Red Cross tells me that state agency in Louisiana said, "Look, we do not want to create a magnet for more people to come to the Superdome or the convention center. We want to get them out." So at the same time local officials were screaming, "Where is the food? Where is the water?" The Red Cross was standing by, ready. The Louisiana department of homeland security said, "You can't go." </blockquote>

The September 8 edition of Special Report featured an extended discussion of the Red Cross' revised account of what happened and why. In video segments from a taped interview, Evans elaborated on the effect of the state homeland security authorities' purported ban on Red Cross workers, who had, she said, "great anguish about the fact they weren't able to help." <blockquote>

GARRETT: The Louisiana department of homeland security kept the Red Cross and Salvation Army from delivering relief supplies to stranded evacuees at the Superdome and New Orleans convention center. 

EVANS: We were ready from literally the time the storm blew threw. We were ready to go. We just were not given permission to go in. 

MAJ. GEORGE HOOD (Salvation Army spokesman): We were prepared. The intent and the will was definitely there.

GARRETT: State authorities told both relief organizations delivering food and water would impede evacuation efforts. 

EVANS: We understood that the thinking was that, if we were to come in, that, one, it would impede the evacuation. They were trying to get everybody out. And, secondly, that it could possibly suggest that it was going to be OK to stay.

GARRETT: The scenes of suffering tore at the hearts of Red Cross volunteers.

EVANS: I don't think there was any Red Crosser either nearby the scene or even in Washington, D.C., who didn't just have great anguish about the fact that we weren't able to help.

[...]

GARRETT: But the process was agonizingly slow. City buses, supposed to be ready to transport residents to higher ground, stood unused. The state then asked the Federal Emergency Management Agency to produce 1,100 buses. Relief agencies say the root of the problem was an inept evacuation of New Orleans.

EVANS: In a city such as New Orleans, it is extremely important to not only conceive a plan but to have a plan that is then executable and then is executed.

GARRETT: The Red Cross and Salvation Army provided shelter, food, and water to thousands of New Orleans residents outside the direct impact zone. But they couldn't reach the ones whose needs were most acute and most visible on television, because the state stuck with its evacuation plan. </blockquote>

Fox News also ran segments on the Red Cross story twice during the evening of September 7 and three more times in the morning and afternoon of September 8. It was also mentioned on Hannity & Colmes September 8.

Conservative blogs didn't have to wait for Evans's September 6 interview to blast state officials for their purported actions, but read much into the Red Cross' FAQ. Excerpting portions of the Red Cross' post, the weblog Cafe Hayek <a href="http://cafehayek.typepad.com/hayek/2005/09/government_tell.html">posted</a> on September 3: "So, government decided that letting people die was a better course than risking any success that the Red Cross would likely have at providing disaster relief." The Instapundit blog focused blame on state officials, <a href="http://instapundit.com/archives/025335.php">concluding</a>, "So as I understand it, the Louisiana authorities don't want the Red Cross to provide services in New Orleans because that will discourage people from leaving?" The conservative blogs <a href="/rd?http://powerlineblog.com/archives/011594.php">Power Line</a>, <a href="http://www.captainsquartersblog.com/mt/archives/005397.php">Captain's Quarters</a>, and <a href="http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=17428_The_Red_Cross_and_the_Superdome&only">Little Green Footballs</a> all highlighted Garrett's interview with Hewitt on their sites September 7.

The conservative news websites <a href="/rd?http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/9/7/235423.shtml">NewsMax</a> and <a href="http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=46224">WorldNetDaily</a> repeated Garrett's characterization of the matter on September 7 and 8, respectively.

Limbaugh also repeatedly blamed "the governor's office" for the failure on the September 8 broadcast of The Rush Limbaugh Show, stating "Louisiana state governor's office, 'Huhuh, huhuh, huhuh. No water, no food to the Superdome. We don't want to cause a magnet down there. Ah...' They know what freebies do. Ah, if, if, they'd have said, 'All the food and water you need at the Superdome,' nobody would have left town."

FEMA responsible for coordinating Red Cross efforts as well as emergency disaster relief

In touting Evans's assertion that state officials blocked the Red Cross from New Orleans to avoid encouraging people to stay or return, Fox News and others have omitted another key fact: It was the federal government that was primarily responsible for coordinating operations, including the activities of the Red Cross. Presumably, if FEMA had deemed it necessary for the Red Cross to enter New Orleans, the agency could have intervened with state authorities at any time. Both the federal Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) December 2004 National Response Plan (NRP) and the Red Cross' charter clearly place the Red Cross under the purview of FEMA. Further, the response plan stipulates that federal agencies should strive for full coordination with state officials but not allow such coordination to "impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources."

According to the <a title="http://www.redcross.org/museum/charters.html" href="http://www.redcross.org/museum/charters.html">federal charter</a> of the American Red Cross, the organization has "the legal status of 'a federal instrumentality' " with "responsibilities delegated to it by the Federal government." Listed among these responsibilities is "to maintain a system of domestic and international disaster relief, including mandated responsibilities under the Federal Response Plan coordinated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)."

The NRP <a title="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf#page=21" href="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf">represents</a> the most recently approved "federal response plan." It confirms that the Red Cross falls under the purview of the federal government: <blockquote>

This plan is applicable to all Federal departments and agencies that may be requested to provide assistance or conduct operations in the context of actual or potential Incidents of National Significance. This includes the American Red Cross, which functions as an Emergency Support Function (ESF) primary organization in coordinating the use of mass care resources in a Presidentially declared disaster or emergency.

[...]

Departments and agencies at all levels of government and certain NGOs, such as the American Red Cross, may be required to deploy to Incidents of National Significance on short notice to provide timely and effective mutual aid and/or intergovernmental assistance. </blockquote>

But as journalist Joshua Micah Marshall noted in a <a href="http://talkingpointsmemo.com/katrina-timeline.php">timeline</a> on his Talking Points Memo blog, it wasn't until Wednesday, August 31, two days after the hurricane struck, that DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff declared Katrina an 'Incident of National Significance,' "triggering for the first time a coordinated federal response to states and localities overwhelmed by disaster," according to the <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/08/31/AR2005083102020.html">Associated Press</a>.

The NRP establishes the Red Cross as a "primary agency" under the <a href="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf#page=30">Emergency Support Function</a> (ESF) structure, which consists of 12 "precise components that can best address the requirements" of an "incident of national significance." Specifically, the Red Cross is responsible for the "mass care" element of <a title="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf#page=163" href="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRP_FullText.pdf#page=163">ESF component No. 6</a>. Mass care services include the "sheltering of victims, organizing feeding operations, providing emergency first aid at designated sites, collecting and providing information on victims to family members, and coordinating bulk distribution of emergency relief items." The NRP designates both DHS and FEMA as the coordinators of ESF No. 6 and stipulates that the Red Cross should be treated as a federal agency in its disaster relief capacity: <blockquote>

For the purposes of the National Response Plan, the American Red Cross functions as an ESF primary organization in coordinating the use of Federal mass care resources in the context of Incidents of National Significance. For the purposes of ESF #6, any reference to Federal departments and agencies with respect to responsibilities and activities in responding to an Incident of National Significance includes the American Red Cross. </blockquote>

Moreover, the NRP <a href="/items/200509080002#20050909">directs</a> FEMA to act on its own authority to quickly provide assistance and conduct emergency operations following a major catastrophe, pre-empting state and local authorities if necessary. In the case of "catastrophic events," such as what occurred in New Orleans, it calls for heightened and "proactive" federal involvement to manage the disaster. Catastrophic events are defined as incidents that immediately outstrip the resources of state and local governments. FEMA viewed a major hurricane strike in New Orleans as a "<a href="/rd?http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/fema.contract.task.order.pdf">catastrophic</a>" event when it (via Marshall's Talking Points Memo <a href="http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2005_09_04.php#006479">weblog</a>) proposed studies to formulate a disaster relief plan. The response plan's "<a title="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf#page=62" href="http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/NRPbaseplan.pdf#page=62">guiding principles</a>" make clear that, in these "catastrophic" cases, the federal government would operate independently to provide assistance, rather than simply supporting or cajoling state authorities: <blockquote>

Notification and full coordination with States will occur, but the coordination process must not delay or impede the rapid deployment and use of critical resources. States are urged to notify and coordinate with local governments regarding a proactive Federal response. </blockquote>...........

......On the defensive, White House officials have said Louisiana and New Orleans officials did not give FEMA full control over disaster relief. The so-called Hurricane Pam plan, which was never put into effect, envisions giving the federal government authority to act without waiting for an SOS from local officials. [Associated Press, <a href="http://www.montrosepress.com/articles/2005/09/09/ap/headlines/d8cgrb7o1.txt">9/9/05</a>]</blockquote>

So host, you complain about the impartialtiy of stevo,s sources, and then within paragraphs post from this site: http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html?

Wow...

Quote:

Originally Posted by djtestudo

So host, you complain about the impartialtiy of stevo,s sources, and then within paragraphs post from this site: http://mediamatters.org/etc/about.html?

Wow...

I do not expect you to like it, but if you bother to research what the article from
mediamatters.org outlines in it's analysis of Fox News coverage of the Red Cross
"controversy", which Fox, itself seems to have contrived and self-promoted, you will notice that every statement, is backed by a link to a source that can be further examined.....the Red Cross website, describing it's federal charter and it's mission, as well as transcripts of all of Fox media personalities misleading statements, and MSM reporting that contradicts the statements broadcast by Fox.

You do not have to like what David Brock has done in just over a year, but you do have to grudgingly accept it. It has become mainstream, with it's articles cited and challenged, more often than not, by columnists and pundits on the right. If mediamatters was not perceived to be credible and effective in challenging the Scaife and Murdoch propaganda that Rove depends on to broadcast his smears, why would it get so much resistance from the right?
It is perceived to expose the falsehoods in the ceaseless stream of misinformation that eminates from Rush, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al, because it is successful at doing so.

I cite the articles because they are so rich in links to supporting sources, and they usually do a more thorough job of debunking crap like Fox's fake investigative reporting by it's Major Garrett that Alladin and stevo have offered to this thread as some kind of 'break through journalism", than I could.
You can see for yourself on http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ne...nG=Search+News that associated press member newspapers, TV and radio, are not covering Fox news brilliant report Garrett's investigative "news" about the Red Cross being blocked from providing aid in N.O.

Show me an instance where anyone on the right would make accusations like these against Fox, the Washington Times, or the WSJ, for example.....

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200509100002
Wash. Post echoed Bush administration's false claim that federal agencies

In a September 9 Washington Post article, staff writer Bradley Graham falsely claimed that under the National Response Plan (NRP) developed after 9-11, federal agencies "are supposed to function as backup to state and local ones" in the event of a catastrophe, echoing statements made by Bush administration officials. ..........

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/archives/sea...tring=ny+times
NY Times reprinted without contradiction Bush's ...
NY Times reprinted without contradiction Bush's false claim that nobody "anticipated the breach of the levees"...
Saturday September 3, 2005

NY Times advanced Bush administration's dubious ...
NY Times advanced Bush administration's dubious suggestion that FEMA is "better prepare[d]" to handle hurricane crisis than before 9-11...
Thursday September 1, 2005

NY Times glossed over existing conservative pre ...
archives. ... NY Times glossed over existing conservative presence in public broadcasting. In ...
Tuesday May 3, 2005

NY Times article omitted key facts about CPB's ...
Topics. ... archives. ... NY Times article omitted key facts about CPB's new ombudsmen. In a ...
Monday May 2, 2005

NY Times article omits key information about co ...
NY Times article omits key information about conservative ties of CPB hires. Repeating ...
Monday May 16, 2005

Quote:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200505030002
........In just 12 months, more than five million consumers and producers of news have visited our site, viewing 30 million pages; our robust discussion forums have featured more than 120,000 comments; and more than 35,000 websites have linked to Media Matters' research documenting lies, distortions, inaccuracies and other forms of misinformation in the news media that forwards the agenda of radical right-wing political forces. In addition, more than 20,000 subscribers have registered to receive research, publications and e-mail alerts directly from Media Matters electronically, and more than 1,500 of you have supported our work through online donations.

For your commitment to the Herculean task of holding the media accountable, we at Media Matters are profoundly grateful.

With more than 1,800 pieces of original research on a wide range of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets posted so far, Media Matters has led the way in alerting the public to news that made national headlines soon after: from Rush Limbaugh's outrageous comparison of torture at Abu Ghraib to a "college fraternity prank," to Internet hate speech by of one of the ringleaders of the so-called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, to Talon News "correspondent" Jeff Gannon's presence in the White House press room and his ties to GOP activists in Texas. Media Matters research led to the admission of Fox News Channel's Bill O'Reilly that he had, in fact, called Sen. Barbara Boxer "a nut" -- after denying it on the air; columnist Bob Novak's retraction of a false claim he made on CNN about DNC Chairman Howard Dean; and pundit David Ho
Horowitz's concession that claims he made against a college professor in Colorado were phony.

Media Matters' action campaigns have been credited with MSNBC canceling plans to let a partisan pollster, Frank Luntz, conduct the network's presidential debate focus groups; pressuring Sinclair Broadcast Group to abandon its plan to force its local stations to air an anti-John Kerry propaganda film, billed as "news," 10 days before the election; and prompting ABC's John Stossel to publicly defend his efforts to cast the threat of global warming as "just another foolish media-hyped scare." We also successfully pushed to get paid propagandist Armstrong Williams's column dropped by his syndicate............

Thank you for completely missing, or worse, ignoring, my point host.

I also did some research on Media Matters and Duncan Black and all I can say is that I find the source...questionable. From what I read it seems they put as much left spin on things as the right does. The other side of the Rovian coin, as it were.

Anyway, I would encourage everyone to investigate them on your own and make up your own mind.

I wasn't going to comment, but what the heck. While I may agree with many of host's positions, I think it will be difficult for him or anyone else to make a claim that mediamatters.org is anywhere near non-partisan. I don't think host ignored that claim, entirely...but it would seem a little side-stepping was involved, which I take as a tacit admission of their bias.

I think it's great what they do...which I actually perceive to be less of applying Liberal spin, as much as it is to selectively point out Conservative bias....but I would prefer that they, or another organization, applied the same research accross the board of the political spectrum. I don't know if the Independent Media Centers come closer to this objective or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Exactly. My point was that he can't call someone out on their sources when he used sources at least as biased. Especially when he uses one in defense of his calling-out statement.

An awesome AP Katrina pic from today:
funny pic of kid...had to remove...lebell
Caption said she was waiting in line with family, but I'm betting she found tfp's Katrina threads. :D

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

His first claim seemed to be, biased or not, mediamatters sources their claims.
Regardless of bias, readers are able to follow the links and make up one's own mind.
In that respect, political bias is irrelevant to the factual items they reported on.

The second point host seemed to make was that mediamatters does investigate "left" papers, such as, the NYT.
In respect to bias, at least from the snippets he posted, mediamatters is at least less funnel visioned than rightwing commentators/reporters who would rarely, if ever, question conservative news print.

That's just how I interpreted his reply.

Quote:

Originally Posted by smooth

The second point host seemed to make was that mediamatters does investigate "left" papers, such as, the NYT.
In respect to bias, at least from the snippets he posted, mediamatters is at least less funnel visioned than rightwing commentators/reporters who would rarely, if ever, question conservative news print.
.

I hear you, and I'm not saying they're the Daily World News or anything. I love Mediamatters...but they specifically say in their about page, linked above, that they exist to excise conservative bias from news stories. I think that inherently gives them a bias. I just wish they would hammer everyone.

edit : In addition, I didn't make the comment concerning the validity, per say, of the sources...only that it seemed that host might be implying that stevo's argument was a little weaker because his sources are biased. Fact is, mediamatters is biased too. If you read through my posts on this subject, you'll find I generally agree with host's position.

i am unclear about what the "media bias" accusation amounts to in this situation: all media sources are "biaised" one way or another--it is useless to hold up some (fictive, absurd) notion of "objectivity"----there is no way around having to read critically.

and i am not sure at all that a simple statement of some (almost inevitably unfounded) notion of the general political line of a nonconservative press outlet, as such, amounts to anything analytically---what is does do is provide conservatives a rationale for beyond avoiding consideration of information that does not jibe up front with their predispositions--the non conservative press, unlike its rightwing correlate, encompasses a wide range of political positions and needs to be read with that in mind.

with the right press in the states, the matter of political line is easier to see and to deal with because the co-ordination of line is such an important part of how right media operates as a whole. the zones are not symmetrical: conservative media is not like other types of media.

the matter of "objectivity" in an information environment which for 20 years or so has been shaped to a significant degree by think tanks/industry groups buying science, buying pollsters, etc. and disseminating ideologically saturated information without acknowledging that saturation does nothing to resolve the problems---many of which are created by decisions taken to corrupt information in the interest of blunting critique. quite the opposite, in fact--in the contemporary press, "objectivity" operates to legitimate often inane conservative positions (for example) because the feature of objectivity that seems to matter these days amounts to the adoption of a kind of he said/she said game: if there is an argument from one "side" it has to be balanced with one from the other "side"--nothing in this even starts to address questions of quality of information--it is a paordy of balance.

holding to it generally benefits the right because it places their arguments on the same level as others. there is little doubt that the right benefits politically from this and that the various groups that operate within its purview have long since figured this out and adapted how they produce information to it. think about the coverage of antiwar demonstrations: you can have a demo of 200,000 people against the war and 35 people for it and the coverage will come close to placing them on an equal footing. he said/she said.

so like i said before, i am not clear at all about what this type of argument about bias, played out at a general level, resolves for you folks, but then again you make your own political bed and who am i to ask you why you do it the way you do? i just do not understand.

but such is the media climate that has been made for us, that somehow we swallow, that somehow--against all judgement--manages to structure opinion. it is a sorry state of affairs.

i would think it would be a nice idea for the folk on the right here to consider host's posts in more detail and maybe even repay the effort he puts into assembling them with a serious reading. it is also a sad state of affairs that this almost never happens. i would imagine that, after a while, he might grow tired of this space. i certainly would understand if he did. i have.

=====
so it is....
for what seem to be obvious psychological and political reasons, what should be a traumatic situation that has unfolded in new orleans--one that can and should function as a wholesale condemnation of the america way of doing class warfare in general (this implicates both "sides" within the reactionary oligarchy that is the united states--a single party state with two right wings) and in particular provides a demolition of everything about the right's conceptions of the role of the state gets diverted into a pissing match about what can and cannot be pinned on george w bush and his band of incompetents. the problems raised by the disaster in new orleans run well beyond this kind of trivia, and it seems to me that there is no way to see this bickering as anything more or less than damage control, not just on the part of folk like karl rove--whose motives and tactics at this point should be transparent to anyone who looks (consider the sequence of fake photo-ops for bush in and around nola, with phantom work crews that are busy busy busy for the duration of the photo op and then disappear, never to return)--but also for individuals around the country, who, for their own reasons, seem to use such bickering as a way pretend to be talking about something fundamental while in fact they work to avoid even beginning to confront what new orleans shows us, and the world, about what the united states has made of itself...the image of america presented across the disaster in new orleans is ugly indeed: better to run away.

but whatever--if the united states were even as democratic as any parliamentary system is, the bush squad would be facing a no confidence vote--one that they would in all probability loose, even given the republicans control of all things legislative. but no--so it is that in the absence of democracy in america, the miserable reign of george w bush continues---and now with the added treat of two supreme court nominations thrown in as if the cosmos was geared around playing an enormous joke on us all.

better not to think about it too much: continue as before.

Thanks Roachboy. That was well written and it pulled me out of the mental death spiral that was reading this entire thread. It should also probably be posted as it's own thread... I can only imagine how that thread would turn out.

Welcome back, Roachboy, even if your return consists of one post.

Man i fell real dumb reading roachboys posts

Quote:

Originally Posted by powerclown
Why are your 'sources' are any more valid than stevos?

You might want to do some research before asking that question.

Quote:

Man i fell real dumb reading roachboys posts

He is a professor, and a well educated one at that.

Sorry for interrupting.

Ch'i , my post #52, here:
http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthr...09#post2118609

.....continues my expose on L. Brent Bozell III and the gulf that his thinking and influence contributes to the growing political polarization in the U.S.

Wow, that is a strange coincidence.