Tim Rutten Politicizes Katrina
A Tim Rutten piece in today’s Los Angeles Times, “A warning sent but left unheeded” wastes no time doing two things; politicizing Katrina; and complaining about the new media. I suspect that Rutten is just a little sensitive on the latter issue.
In the last three years, there were indeed a number of MSM reports detailing the probable destruction that could eventually be visitied upon New Orleans. Recounting these reports, Rutten spends a goodly number of words setting up this political shot at the Bush administration.
Were the MSM reports three years ago the discovery of some new information? They were not. When the levee system was built, some 40 years ago or so, it was known that they were only designed for a category 3 storm. Did the designers and financiers of the levee system think that there would never be a category 4 or 5 storm? No, certainly not. Was there some new information three years ago indicating that there is now a greater risk for a category 4 or 5 storm that did not exist when the levee system was built. No, certainly not.
Public policy is based upon risk assessment which asks questions of probability and the cost of insuring against that risk. Mother nature is a powerful foe and public policy can never insure 100% against her fury.
Rutten states,
Clearly the residents of New Orleans did not consider living there to be an unnecessary risk. If they had, they would have moved elsewhere.
Tim Rutten’s cheap political shot at the Bush administration is another example of how the LA Times continuously demonstrates its irrelevance to the reading public. And, the irrelevance is measured in a declining circulation. Read the interchange between Rutten and Hugh Hewitt and my previous post here.
The one good thing about the Tim Rutten piece is that it appeared as a column and not a “news” piece. We expect that there is likely to be bias and shaded reporting in an opinion piece. But, when we find it the credibility of the writer decreases. Do that enough and people will stop reading you. That leads to decreased circulation. Is there a pattern here?
Nowadays, it often seems like every other third person with access to a mike or computer is a press critic, who thinks that their particular beef could be resolved by simply resorting to the good old-fashioned practice of shooting the messenger.
In the last three years, there were indeed a number of MSM reports detailing the probable destruction that could eventually be visitied upon New Orleans. Recounting these reports, Rutten spends a goodly number of words setting up this political shot at the Bush administration.
… the combination of tax cuts, the war in Iraq and the demands of homeland security had led President Bush's administration to repeatedly reject urgent requests from the Army Corps of Engineers and Louisiana's congressional delegation that it allocate the money to save New Orleans.
Were the MSM reports three years ago the discovery of some new information? They were not. When the levee system was built, some 40 years ago or so, it was known that they were only designed for a category 3 storm. Did the designers and financiers of the levee system think that there would never be a category 4 or 5 storm? No, certainly not. Was there some new information three years ago indicating that there is now a greater risk for a category 4 or 5 storm that did not exist when the levee system was built. No, certainly not.
Public policy is based upon risk assessment which asks questions of probability and the cost of insuring against that risk. Mother nature is a powerful foe and public policy can never insure 100% against her fury.
Rutten states,
Politics may have failed the people of New Orleans. Politicians certainly failed them. They may have failed themselves by not demanding better.
Clearly the residents of New Orleans did not consider living there to be an unnecessary risk. If they had, they would have moved elsewhere.
Tim Rutten’s cheap political shot at the Bush administration is another example of how the LA Times continuously demonstrates its irrelevance to the reading public. And, the irrelevance is measured in a declining circulation. Read the interchange between Rutten and Hugh Hewitt and my previous post here.
The one good thing about the Tim Rutten piece is that it appeared as a column and not a “news” piece. We expect that there is likely to be bias and shaded reporting in an opinion piece. But, when we find it the credibility of the writer decreases. Do that enough and people will stop reading you. That leads to decreased circulation. Is there a pattern here?
posted by Paul Coambs | 6:05 AM
<< Home