Posted on 09/19/2005 4:52:09 AM PDT by yoe
One of the points George Bush made in his speech that garnered both praise and criticism was his acknowledgement that the enduring poverty of New Orleans caused the poor to suffer more proportionally in the flooding of the city in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath. Bush proposed a number of efforts to rebuild the city in such a way that the poor get an opportunity for renewed economic engagement and ownership of their homes and businesses. His recognition of the problems of poverty, race, and class won Bush some applause from the media, but most of them wondered why it took a hurricane before he addressed the problem.
Howard Kurtz, however, notes that the media hardly has room to squawk about the poverty issue. The two premier East Coast newspapers have barely written 1,000 words in a decade about poverty in the Big Easy, and a cover story on Newsweek has local columnists scoffing at the sudden national interest:
The fact that most of those left behind in the New Orleans flood were poor and black is being treated by the press as a stunning revelation -- "A National Shame," as Newsweek's cover put it. But not exactly a national secret.
"Apparently none of these ace reporters has ever set foot in Washington's Anacostia district, or South Central Los Angeles, or the trailer parks of rural Arkansas," writes Los Angeles Times columnist Rosa Brooks.
A Sept. 12 Washington Post story was headlined "Katrina Pushes Issues of Race and Poverty at Bush." An equally apt headline would have been, "Katrina Pushes Issues of Race and Poverty at a Media Establishment That Has Largely Ignored Them."
A database search of The Post for the past decade found one story that prominently mentioned the poor of New Orleans: a 2002 piece on a campaign to boost the minimum wage that cited the city's "40 percent poverty level." Far more typical of the Mardi Gras media was a 1995 Post story on how "the city's black neighborhoods come alive" with Sunday parades in the fall.
New York Times ombudsman Byron Calame found a similar record at his newspaper, unearthing only two articles about New Orleans in 10 years that "contained a few paragraphs on poverty and race."
Kurtz shows fine form today as a media critic. He also notes that the media that has picked former FEMA chief Michael Brown's bones clean over his lack of experience never bothered to report on that experience when Bush appointed him to the position. Only the Denver Post did so, and they considered him experienced enough due to his tenure as the #2 man at the agency.
Kurtz wants to know why these stories don't get news coverage -- stories like poverty and race, and political appointments gone awry. I think he already knows the answer: most news media do not have the energy or resources to devote to stories that complex or long-term. Even newspapers, which supposedly exist to give more depth and analysis to the news, too often only go after the most superficial of stories, because those can get efficient handling. A reporter can quickly go over the details of the extant issue and then drop it for the next big issue of the day. Poverty and race have too much complexity for any serious treatment, and lower-level political appointees bore readers until they screw up. Columnists supposedly should take up the slack, but the columnists have the same problem as the newspaper regarding the subject matter and a much larger obstacle in terms of resources.
How will this resolve itself? The blogosphere will probably provide the solution. People who find these subjects fascinating will devote themselves to researching them and documenting their findings, and journalists might use the blogs themselves as resources. Beltway blogs already give closer scrutiny to midlevel appointees than the media does, and again, reporters with a sense of survival will eventually learn to nurture that kind of research and the blogger who performs it.
In the meantime, however, the holier-than-thou reaction to the supposed novelty of Bush addressing race and poverty looks more like hypocrisy coming from the nation's newsrooms. If poverty has slipped off the radar screen, they need to start reporting honestly and intelligently on the issue.
Posted by Captain Ed at 06:02 AM
Let's face it - if this had happened during Clinton's reign, the press would never have taken note of the poverty in the region and, instead, would have fawned over his actions after the event. The press frames the issues and they only stress the negative when there is a Republican in office.
You know what comes in and what goes out....
The big question is, will they be able to rebuild the Democrat poverty plantation ... Bush says no, and that's what has the Mayor trying so hard to get them back now.
Going to be fun to watch.
I was wondering why the real truth of this sorry episode is not discussed. Much of the problem lies with the Democrat administration of the cities across America. Now we see Detroit with a population of 900,000. Detroit lost half it's population. The city has a 300 million budget deficit, crime, unemployment and urban decay. The situation is right for the Muslims to move into Detroit. They have done that.
Someone needs to discuss what Democrats have to do with the downhill slide of America's cities and the school districts. It is disgusting to point the blame at any Republican when some of these cities have not ever seen a GOP mayor. The Democrats point the finger readily but refuse to take any blame. I say it is about time Democrats
looked in the mirror. Louisiana needs a political purging in order to turn it around. Try to elect someone other than a Democrat in places like Philadelphia.
The media needs to take a look at all the major cities that are run by the "poor".
Take Mexico, for example. Many poor Mexicans work hard and become successful when they come to the United States, so it is not a problem with people or their work ethic. The Phillipines has lots of well educated women, but not enough jobs for them. So trained nurses and teachers go to take care of people's children in Hong Kong (which has taken great pains to limit corruption). Both Mexico and the Phillpines are famous for corrupt police and other government officials.
In the Unites States, we have pockets where free enterpise is hampered by corruption. New Orleans and Louisiana in general comprise one of those pockets.
Throwing money at a corrupt state may end up getting some rebuilding done, but it may not cure the underlying problem.
You said: Let's face it - if this had happened during Clinton's reign....
***
Actually, it did happen under Clinton, and you are right, it wasn't reported, at least not with any vigor.
Hurricane Floyd hit poor areas of eastern North Carolina, largely black (although perhaps not as heavily minority at New Orleans). The response was along the same lines as what we saw in New Orleans (although local and state preparation was better-- could it have been worse than La?), and NO blame was layed at Clinton's feet. Caskets were floating around, people displaced, the poor and black hit the hardest, and while note was taken of the devastation caused, it was all attributed to nature. Clinton and our democrat Governor escaped unscathed. This, of course, is hardly newsworthy, but rather, typical of the MSM.
........ also, when is the liberal bias media going to learn that the Louisiana Governor and New Orleans Mayor are also Democrats. Oh yes, and Senator Mary Landrieau as well.
How convenient to try to use the sudden revelations that there are desperately poor people in NO as a club against the president.
but Democrats win elections by keeping their base poor and dependent.
Watching "Fox and Friends" last night, it seemed like Juan Williams was making the point that George Bush just discovered that New Orleans was poor...or that Hurricane Katrian was George Bush's first reality check about the existence of poor people. D'OH! No one on the panel bothered to ask clueless Juan how the the former Governor of Texas (GWB), not to mention ANY 55 year old American, could have had no exposure to or awareness of ghettos or poor people.
Three of the poorest states in these United States are LA, MS and WV.
Q. What do these three states have in common?
A. Decades of Democrat controlled legeislatures.
Exactly!
And .. this statement, "most of them wondered why it took a hurricane before he addressed the problem."
It wasn't Bush's "problem" to address.
And .. WHY HADN'T THE MEDIA ADDRESSED THE PROBLEM WITH THE GOVERNOR OF THE STATE AND THE MAYOR OF THE CITY.
Oh yeah .. I forgot .. they're all democrats.
You see, if GWB could play the saxaphone he and Bubba would have gone down there, played a few tunes and make everything alllllright. </s>
STOP THE FREAKIN' PRESSES!
Nice of you guys to notice that a world exists outside the tony suburbs where you live. I'll start polishing up that Pulitizer Prize for you.
Figures - I missed the details about the poor and down-trodden. Most likely, as you say, it was because the press had no ax to grind when there were only Dems to place blame on.
There is no clear advantage to having a "free press" when the press all marches in lock-step with the party of special interest. Before Fox, Rush (talk radio) and the internet, our "free press" was really only a concept and no real substance.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.