Replies

"I still think that the problem was more in the coverage than in the response. The assumption tht one can carefuly plan and execute a perfect response to an unpredictable event is false, to begin with. Then, if the reporters had actually covered what people were doing to get to people and rescue them instead of planting themselves in one spot and demanding to know why help was slow in coming we would have a better understanding of just how heroic the responders really were. Scapegoating shortchanges the tens of thousands of people it took to help out."

Yep, very valid point. The media and some of the victims of the storm are wed to some myth that a response to such a big time event should work like clockwork. That is never the case. FEMA and the other stale and local governments have plenty to be ashamed of, but the media reporting of what was supposed to happen before and after a storm has been almost comical. For example you can tell the National MSM has no clue who is in charge before a 'cane hits. I have never seen the Fed's in charge of 'cane preparedness down here. But if you listen to MSM reporting after the storm, you would have thought Bush should have sent in every branch of the military into N.O. and the rest of the area to convoy people out. But that was never corrected by the powers to be.