Michelle Malkin and a lot of bloggers see bias in this Reuters story (originally erroneously blamed on CNN):
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration’s first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
At least two major corporate clients of lobbyist Joe Allbaugh, President Bush’s former campaign manager and a former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, have already been tapped to start recovery work along the battered Gulf Coast.
One is Shaw Group Inc. and the other is Halliburton Co. subsidiary Kellogg Brown and Root. Vice President Dick Cheney is a former head of Halliburton.
Malkin points out that the Shaw Group is headed by the chairman of the Louisiana Democratic Party.
To which I say … um, why is that relevant? This is a story about companies getting federal contracts. If these were contracts being doled out by the Louisiana, that’d be one thing. But … these are federal contracts.
I don’t see any “Bush-profiteers-are-evil narrative” in this story either. In fact, it explictly makes the point that this type of stuff is nothing new:
Experts say it has been common practice in both Republican and Democratic administrations for policy makers to take lobbying jobs once they leave office, and many of the same companies seeking contracts in the wake of Hurricane Katrina have already received billions of dollars for work in Iraq.
P.S. Weird that so many bloggers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) took Malkin’s word for this and didn’t bother to do their own checking … big difference between a CNN report and a Reuters report carried on CNN.com (and, for that matter, MSNBC.com). Of course, since the blogosphere is “error-correcting,” I’m sure all these bloggers will surely have corrected themselves by the time you read this … right??
The hooker paragraph is:
WASHINGTON (Reuters) — Companies with ties to the Bush White House and the former head of FEMA are clinching some of the administration’s first disaster relief and reconstruction contracts in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.
Clearly, that language *implies* — and rather *overtly* — impropriety, cronyism, and favoritism.
I haven’t checked any other links, but… I’d think an organization headed up by the chairman of the LA Dems is not likely to be a place with “ties” to the White House, or at least none beyond those expected of any major firm, and, if so, it’s misleading in the extreme.
But wait! There’s more! Let’s look at the headline(s):
Firms with White House ties get Katrina contracts
FEMA taps Halliburton subsidiary, Shaw Group, Bechtel for cleanup
1) It mentions the *evil* Halliburton. This tends to throw liberal moonbats foaming into overdrive. Kinda like using the word “radiation” in “irradiated foods” – it’s just BEGGING to have a percentage of nutballs go into a giant hissy-fit of a snit. Right there you have them off on a rampage and not reading (or hearing) any more that the article says. In short, it’s loaded from the start.
2) “Firms with WH ties get Katrina contracts”? Really? How about some context?
a) How many firms COULD get these contracts? I recall one of the whines about Iraq and Afghanistan was how Halliburton got some prime contracts. Absent was the mention that there were only like 3 US companies in existence which had the capacity to fulfill that contract, and none of them other than Halliburton even made a bid.
b) How many other firms got contracts? You know, the ones which wouldn’t get Bush charged with cronyism. Are there any that even could?
c) How many other firms could have gotten contracts, and didn’t? This, too, is relevant towards justifying a claim of cronyism.
Then there’s:
“The government has got to stop stacking senior positions with people who are repeatedly cashing in on the public trust in order to further private commercial interests,” said Danielle Brian, executive director of the Project on Government Oversight.
Gosh. I wonder if she said the same thing when Clinton was in office…?
> I don’t see any “Bush-profiteers-are-evil narrative” in this story either.
> In fact, it explictly makes the point that this type of stuff is nothing new:
> Experts say …
DEREK, Come ON!!
Who is in charge NOW?
Who does the media want to tear down NOW?
This statement clearly has the greatest impact on the CURRENT administration. I don’t see any specific effort, for example, to show how the Clinton admin was even more guilty of it than Bush’s admin is, even though it’s likely the case (Clinton was the ultimate prostitute president. Anything and everything was for sale).
P.S. Weird that so many bloggers (here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, etc.) took Malkin’s word for this and didn’t bother to do their own checking … big difference between a CNN report and a Reuters report carried on CNN.com (and, for that matter, MSNBC.com). Of course, since the blogosphere is “error-correcting,” I’m sure all these bloggers will surely have corrected themselves by the time you read this … right??
Umm, what ERROR are you talking about? What makes you think that anyone cares about the difference between a Reuters report carried by CNN and a CNN report except the people looking for credit for the story? If it was a CNN report coming from some less “reliable” agency than Al-Reuters, I might concur, but Reuters is still, despite its history of questionable practices, is still a major news agency, and CNN, by repeating the piece, is giving it their imprimatur.
derek: why bother to correct these wackos. malkin and others will write from the perspective they write from. they ain’t journalists. they ain’t fair and balanced. they’re partisans and they have a distinct pov and a distinct objective. nothing you say, no mattter how logical or how true, will make them change. nothing. ever.
> derek: why bother to correct these wackos.
LOL. When I see some fair and balanced reporting come from the MSMs, I’ll notice.
To that end, the WaPo has actually been somewhat even handed of late.
ABC News, on the other, has been so obviously egregious it’s not even funny.
Contrast THIS headline:
Viewers Skeptical Over Bush Speech
With the people they interviewed just hours before on Nightline:
http://newsbusters.org/media/2005-09-15-ABCPSP.wmv
(fairly complete transcript Here)
Now, I’m not saying that there is nothing to justify the piece — I’m simply saying that it’s quite interesting that they managed to completely ignore about 6 positive people out of what is almost CERTAINLY a representative sample of those in the Astrodome when writing it. It’s rather clear from the questions asked on TV that the interviewer was looking for skeptical answers, and when he got mostly positive responses (and none particularly negative) does ABC let this color their website’s headline?
Does Dan Rather’s crew know about subscripts and superscripts on manual typewriters?
LOL. There’s so much crap put forth in the media it’s not even funny. It’s only recently that they’ve gotten challenged by anyone on their lame-ass fact checking and, in some cases, outright lies.
This is not to claim there’s no bias in the blogs by any means — just that bloggers are a lot more likely to be openly, publicly corrective when they make an error or when data comes forth to make an expressed position doubtful or even suspect.
Show me the MSM reporting that gets a not-retraction-but-certainly “here’s data which differs from our earlier piece” as up front and open as this:
In Fairness – Sean Penn in N.O.
Think Tim Russert’s made an open denouncement during his show of Broussard’s lame-ass “I’m an outright lying sack of fecal matter” acting job on his show a couple weeks ago? I don’t watch Russert, but I doubt it seriously.
Some sources are damned sure more balanced than others, and most of them aren’t a part of the legacy media.
Err, that story, “Viewers Skeptical Over Bush Speech,” is not an ABC News report. It’s an AP report. Big diff. (Interestingly, in a later version of the AP story, both the headline and the story was toned down: “Bush’s Speech Gets Mixed Reviews”. Couldn’t tell you why, as the stories have expired from my wirecenter).
As for the Aaron Broussard thing … for those of you who haven’t been paying attention, Broussard is the Jefferson Parish president who gave that emotional statement on “Meet the Press” about a grandmother who died in a nursing home after repeatedly calling for help. Only he got details and the timelines wrong, leading bloggers to make all kinds of nefarious political accusations. So of course, Russert revisited this issue on Sunday, and had Broussard on again. Here’s part of what he had to say:
> Err, that story, “Viewers Skeptical Over Bush Speech,” is not an ABC News report. It’s an AP report. Big diff.
OK, Derek, I’ll give you the fact that in this case, the *attribution* has some significance — but not enough.
ABC’s interviewer was clearly, blatantly expecting a skeptical response on the part of their interviewees, and when that didn’t happen, they blew right on past it like it never happened.
Why no *ABC* piece titled “Viewers blame local, state government for problems, not Bush”?
How many pieces released after the speech were titled like that, or something to that effect — and how many went on a “BASH BUSH!” hunt?
Go on, send me an overview of the headlines such a search brings forth showing me that there is ANY kind of balance in the reporting of the responses — because I simply don’t believe that ABC could’ve inadvertently found the *only* six people in *all* of the Astrodome who didn’t have too much bad to say about Bush for that interview, while all the rest had bad things to say.
The fact that at least five of six blamed the S&Ls, not the Feds overtly, and even the sixth wasn’t particularly negative, suggests that the distribution of positive to negative was something in excess of half-positive. Yeah, that group might have been “magically” skewed pro-Bush, but I want to see hard data to justify that fact, not simple presumption that the Media wasn’t cherry-picking bad responses, if, as I strongly suspect, most of the headline reporting mirrored that assinine AP piece. The number of positive responses out of six randomly selected suggests something better than a 75% approval rate.
Further, this still comes down to accountability — If ABC publishes a piece with questionable claims, it’s STILL ABC’s FAULT.
You don’t get to claim “superior fact checking” and then point the finger at someone else for a specious piece of reporting.
Face it — ABC had an axe to grind — and screw the face-to-face interviews… they were going to grind that axe.
===================
As far as Broussard goes:
> (Broussard) — Sir, that woman is the epitome of abandonment. She was left in that nursing home.
SHE WAS LEFT IN THAT NURSING HOME BECAUSE THE PROPRIETERS **REFUSED** EVACUATION -48- hours before.
Where was this wonderfully doting SON during this event? Why did he not call up the owners with ORDERS that she be taken when they came by to evacuate? If ANYONE knew what was happening it DAMNED sure should have been HIM!
Supposedly, according to the NYT piece, the owners had been in touch with the legal guardians for instructions.
It’s pretty clear WHO did the abandoning, and it WASN’T anyone outside the State of Louisiana!
> She died in that nursing home. Tommy will tell you that he tried to rescue her and could not get her rescued.
Uh, Yeah. By whom and HOW? I would have had some HARD questions for this LYING SOB Broussard if I had simply read the NYT piece (which Russert could hardly have failed to, if he was even remotely diligent) when he made this claim.
Instead, nothing. Let him rant some more, tell a few more half-truths, mis-truths, and outright lies…
People Died, Broussard Lied!
:-S
> Tommy could tell you that he sent messages there through the EOC and through, I think, the sheriff’s department, “Tell Mama everything’s going to be OK. Tell Mama we’re coming to get her.”
Conveniently less emotionally effective, isn’t it?
“Tell mama — third party — that someone, somewhere, somehow, is coming to get her”… BEFORE THE HURRICANE EVEN STRUCK?
SHE DIED THE NIGHT OF THE HURRICANE!
She DIED solely because she didn’t get evacuated when there were people there specifically FOR that task, despite the management being WARNED that no one would clearly be able to respond to any later requests for help.
This failure has *nothing* to do with abandonment by anyone in the Federal government — it has to do with a total collapse of local and state people CHARGED with the task… with their blatant incompetence before the hurricane, during the hurricane, and AFTER the hurricane, to do ONE SINGLE thing RIGHT.
Hell, I’ve been advised by a deaf friend of mine that SIX people — who were blind and deaf — died solely because NO ONE informed them that a hurricane was even on the way! — much less attempted to evacuate them!
EVERY bit of misery and suffering that occurred in NOLA was solely because of the incompetence in EVERY emergency function of the state and local governments.
This A**WIPE indicted people who were responding faster than ANYONE has EVER responded at the Federal level to an emergency.
THREE DAYS!! That’s all it took to have men on the ground in NOLA, after the Governor said “Help!”
The Feds weren’t there for FIVE days after Andrew, and this useless PoS is whining because HIS *incompetent* EMERGENCY planning can’t hold things together for THREE? Because the Governor is too stupid to grasp that she needs help after a major hurricane strikes? SHE dithered for *two* days!
> Listen, sir, somebody wants to nitpick a man’s tragic loss of a mother because she was abandoned in a nursing home?
No, they want to NITPICK YOUR LYING about it, you useless slug of a bureaucrat! HE’s the one who started throwing blame around, in no uncertain terms. He doesn’t GET to play the victim card, here… unless he’s speaking to some idiot like Russert who *doesn’t* call him on it.
I have NO idea exactly where this F*tard personally failed, but I’ll lay huge odds some fair number of people in HIS departments need to be hung up by their BALLS for their failures… and the same to him for hiring them.
All Russert appears to have done is give this useless slimeball weasel room he doesn’t deserve. He barely says anything negative above, yet gives Broussard another 5 minutes worth of whine time.
The only people “abandoned” were those people who depended on *him*, those in his department, and those in the state above him, to actually do *their* JOBS in an EMERGENCY… and the obvious contrast occurs when you examine the events in Mississippi vs. Louisiana.
In one place, the government was competent. In the other, it wasn’t.
Do you need an explanation for which was which?
I didn’t think so.
I’m not conceding that the AP report was specious. I’ve seen no evidence that it was, except that the opinions of the people quoted don’t match the six people quoted on Nightline. As for Broussard … take deep breaths, man!
> I’m not conceding that the AP report was specious. I’ve seen no evidence that it was, except that the opinions of the people quoted don’t match the six people quoted on Nightline.
I don’t expect you to concede it… I’m saying the preponderance of the evidence holds it highly suspect.
You don’t pick six people semi-randomly out of a crowd (which one presumes the ABC interviewees to be barring any other data to the contrary) and get virtually the same positive opinion if the general crowd is not of that same positive opinion. To presume that they picked all six people “positives” when most of the opinions were negative is like drawing to an inside straight flush and expecting to get your card.
It *suggests* that the crowd was essentially positive, or at least substantially so — oh, “two-fifths”… then the odds of getting five out of six positive (w/ one neutral-to-positive) are more reasonable… but this also makes the AP report far more improbable unless they cherry picked for negative replies only.
Yeah, *maybe* ABC made six passes at the crap table — if so, the Nightline producer needs to go to Atlantic City, cause he’s very hot.
Lacking data to suggest that, I’m going to apply Occam’s Razor — the AP report has as much truth value as France-2’s Al-Dura story.
A good deconstruction of how a newspaper “makes” news more…. “interesting”:
http://www.zombietime.com/sf_rally_september_24_2005/anatomy_of_a_photograph/
A brief quote:
===========
The San Francisco Chronicle featured the original photograph on its front page in order to convey a positive message about the rally — perhaps that even politically aware teenagers were inspired to show up and rally for peace, sporting the message, “People of Color say ‘No to War!'” And that served the Chronicle’s agenda.
But this simple analysis reveals the very subtle but insidious type of bias that occurs in the media all the time. The Chronicle did not print an inaccuracy, nor did it doctor a photograph to misrepresent the facts. Instead, the Chronicle committed the sin of omission: it told you the truth, but it didn’t tell you the whole truth.
Because the whole truth — that the girl was part of a group of naive teenagers recruited by Communist activists to wear terrorist-style bandannas and carry Palestinian flags and obscene placards — is disturbing, and doesn’t conform to the narrative that the Chronicle is trying to promote. By presenting the photo out of context, and only showing the one image that suits its purpose, the Chronicle is intentionally manipulating the reader’s impression of the rally, and the rally’s intent.
Such tactics — in the no-man’s-land between ethical and unethical — are commonplace in the media, and have been for decades. It is only now, with the advent of citizen journalism, that we can at last begin to see the whole story and realize that the public has been manipulated like this all along.
============
Read it all.
that seems singularly unpersuasive to me. “Terrorist-style bandanas”? That’s a little unfair to bandanas, don’t you think? Terrorists weren’t the first to wear ’em, and they won’t be the last … and … okay, so some woman was giving them directions to the start of the march. umm…. so what? I guess you could call that being “stage-managed,” but I think most marches have someone giving directions.