What the F___ Huh? What the F___ing F__k???
Dean
I'm sorry, I posted about this earlier but few seem to be reacting to it. So let's lay it out again to get your attention:
Dead babies stuffed in ice coolers. Women, children, and babies of all ages raped. Cannibalism. Shootings everywhere. Corpses numbered in the hundreds at the Superdome, and tens of thousands throughout the city.
Bulls**t. It was all f**king bulls**t. You know, I am usually one of the first to stand up and say I hate false accusations of racism, and how America is mostly over that crap from the past, but someone please tell me: why did we all believe this racist bulls**t about the darkies down in New Orleans? (Yes, including a lot of you black folks, don't deny it... why the F**K did any of us buy this S***???)
Because NONE OF IT HAPPENED!
ARE YOU NOT ANGRY ABOUT THAT?????
* Update * Juliette thinks I'm wrong. Maybe she's right, but I gotta wonder about all those stories of po' white trash on the gulf coast raping babies and eating each other that we never heard. Come on man, what's been goin' on here?
The Conservative Thinking blog thinks I've gone off the deep end. My question would be: how so? We all bought into this complete bulls**t about how poor folks in New Orleans were raping each other, stabbing each other, slashing each others' throats, torturing and raping babies, and behaving like complete animals. But it never happened. Why did we buy into this? Why did we all--black, white, and otherwise, why did we all just accept this? What the hell were we thinking? It wasn't even close to the truth!
* Update 2 * Others in the comments are making a good point: a lot of these reports came out of Mayor Nagin and the New Orleans chief of police. I hadn't thought of that, good point.
Related Posts (on one page):
- Aziz Poonawalla Calls BS...
- What the F___ Huh? What the F___ing F__k???
- Superdome Myths
Today, I watched the two poles of this sad state come together. Mike Brown was defiant in accepting any serious discussion of what FEMA was responsible for during his watch while Police Superintendent Eddie Compass just said I'm leaving and don't ask me any questions.
Similarly, the report out of the Philadelphia Archdiocese causes Cardinal Rigali to say that we took action based on the best medical attention available rather than look at the morality of these situations as well stuns me.
If the leaders of our society cannot understand the importance of and accept the responsibility for one of the most fundamental duties we have, it is no wonder that cockroaches from all parts of our society feel emboldened to foist their bad behaviors and destructive ideas on us.
New Orleans vs. Biloxi - where are the reporters gonna be?
Most folks were peaceful and law-abiding and trying to help each other out. How did we buy into this bullshit of death and mayhem and insanity? It DIDN'T FUCKING HAPPEN!!
In other words, folks weren't raping each other, they weren't murdering each other, they weren't stabbing each other and shooting each other, they were helping each other out and it was kind of miserable and uncomfortable but pretty much everybody acted like law-abiding citizens who wanted to help each other through it and survive.
How is that even close to what we were told was going on?
Appears even that was wrong.
Did even a tenth of the looting that was reported happen? I mean, given the Superdome reality...
Which is why I don't watch tv news. I hate the pandering to my emotions.
(Look, Geraldo has 0.0 credibility and any organization that hires him for something other than "Celebrity Shark Tank Dunking Contest!" is stark raving bonkers.)
Yeah, I know- that and a buck-fifty will buy you a cup of coffee...
I'm just saying that they made s*** up about New Orleans and not Mississippi, because few people care about Mississippi.
The people who ought to be ashamed are the ones who reported it without checking to see if it was true.
Dale
I'm sorry but who believed it and promoted it except black racebaiters and their liberal idiot friends?
Now, all the reporting has to be suspect. As it should have been from the beginning. I know I can't trust the media, they're lazy, biased, ignorant and stuck on "SCANDAL!!!!" I blame myself for being gullible.
On the plus side, the credibility of the media has to be at an all time low and sinking lower. That's a good thing. Sooner or later they have to see it and try to fix it.
This is actually more accurate than any reporting I saw.
Also, we all saw photos of the looting and arson that was happening. When civic order breaks down, there's always the potential that assaults and murders will take place too.
If there was any racial componenent it was completely press driven.
It is a relief to find out it didn't happen.
Yes, I'm pissed.
To me this is just par for the course, I don't expect what I see the MSM reporting to be true anymore, I expect it to be a story that will sell well and has a few of the true facts in it....somewhere.
Well, I think a little bit of outrage is in order, whether you believed it or not (I was extremely skeptical, because I'm an old &cynical.) I need to be informed through some mechanism besides my own two eyeballs. The alternative is to become a doorknob.
Poverty, Race &Katrina Lessons of a National Shame
I expected the press to criticize Bush while ignoring the mistakes made by corrupt local Democrats, but I also expected them to acknowledge the huge charitable contributions made by the American people. The way people pitched in, it was unprecedented. But the press can't say something good about America. It's just not what they do.
When I saw that cover, all I could say was "Up yours, Newsweek." The press has reached their nadir and they've plunged through it, heading straight to the earth's molten core. People believed the urban legends for the same reason Newsweek readers wrote in to say "thank you, thank you for telling us to be ashamed of ourselves." Self hatred seems to be epidemic lately.
But the MSM is slightly off the hook here, because the rapes/murders were reported even by the Police Chief. That's a pretty strong statement. But still, the MSM (and Police Chief, for that matter) should have labeled them as "unsubstantiated rumors" while reporting them, because the stories had the air of legend, even at the outset.
Some media sources actually got it right, almost from the start. If that could happen with some, why not all? Well, sensationalism sells newspapers (or at least, it used to).
>^..^<
link
Louis Farrakhan says the government blew up the levees.
from newsmax:
“Nation of Islam chief Minister Louis Farrakhan has expanded on his theory that New Orleans' levees were blown up during Hurricane Katrina, announcing Friday that divers working on the levee break have found evidence of explosives.
"These explosives are from the go Nation of Islam chief Minister Louis Farrakhan has expanded on his theory that New Orleans' levees were blown up during Hurricane Katrina, announcing Friday that divers working on the levee break have found evidence of explosives.
"These explosives are from the government side," he said during a press conference in Memphis held to promote his upcoming Million Man Anniversary March.
In quotes picked up by Memphis TV station WMC, Farrakhan demanded an investigation into the Bush administration's levee plot. If true, he insisted: "somebody is guilty, then not only of mass destruction of property, but of mass murder."
And in a prior statement in Charlotte, it was reported:
"I heard from a very reliable source who saw a 25 foot deep crater under the levee breach. It may have been blown up to destroy the black part of town and keep the white part dry," Farrakhan said.
"Completely Press Driven???"
I suppose the blogosphere is going to try and duck any blame for exaggerated claims of anarchy, hmmm? I think that stance deserves a good fisking. When bloggers had enough time to photoshop buses into 'SOS' does anyone actually believe that were going to be less restrained than the media?
Which blogger actually had the name of the reported 'helicopter sniper', or is that terrorist still at large? How many took stories of rape in the Superdome and Conference Center at face value? Find me a blog that says, no there was no rape and I'm not going to believe the press until the victim is named. Skepticism my eye.
"These explosives are from the go Nation of Islam chief Minister Louis Farrakhan has expanded on his theory that New Orleans' levees were blown up during Hurricane Katrina, announcing Friday that divers working on the levee break have found evidence of explosives.Whoa, now. Because I didn't say "I'm skeptical" for each story, I wasn't? Personally, the only claim of anarchy I personally posted about was a report of a gang trying to break into Children's Hospital. I've never seen a retraction of that particular story, but it could easily be out there and I just never saw it. Personally, I was skeptical of the reports because I have much more faith in my fellow Americans to do the right thing 99.9% percent of the time than the mediots (and possibly some bloggers) are willing to give them credit for.
It's an interesting concept, though, that a blogger could or should be blamed for relaying media reports and typing up their reaction to it, whether they typed the magickal "skeptical" incantation or not. Interesting, until you read the story on Drudge today that nobody knows what the hell blogging is. Our circle of influence is an eensy bit smaller than we'd like to believe, and certainly smaller than Fox and CNN and Oprah.
On the other hand (and maybe apropos of not much), how long will it take for the MSM/liberal elite to take the core of the point Cobb makes here, and turn it into one of those famous "larger truths"--you know, like Rathergate. The fact that the media will slip its own hook in the process will, I assure you, be completely coincidental.
But that shouldn't let everyone else who took the bait off the hook. Still a lot of slogging, digging, and heavy lifting to do.
Jarvis and Gandelman are already wrapping the line around a stump, to further your metaphor (analogy???). That will happen, we've seen it a million times. Probably get a raise for it.
Since I was one who decided to defend Nagin (and not attack Blanco) at the outset, I bore witness to those who were vested in magnifying the scope of the tragedy. So long as it became an albatross to hang around Nagin's neck, who cared about accuracy about what was going on at the Superdome, or Conference Center. So it was relatively easy to confirm the worst racial stereotypes about self-governance of the refugees so long as you could blame Nagin. Racism en passant. This came at the expense of truth, restraint and the admirable attitude that Chaffin claims.
Yes the MSM went off the deep end with stories of chaos, but bloggers who had access to timelines and Wikipedia could have done better. I'm not saying nobody did, but check out Junkyard Blog as an example.
Hey...maybe I can tie that in to an anti-semitic or anti-capitalist rant or something and get a book deal.
Yes I'm joking.
Dean here represents something of a compromise. He isn't merely an armchair quarterback, but he isn't a reporter most of the time either. Its sh*t-stirring at its finest around here, and I say that with admiration.
How many of these inaccurate reports made it into the mainstream media, anyway? I know KOLA and the Times-Picayune reported there were 30-40 corpses (not hundreds) in the convention center. NPR bit on the story of the girl killed in the bathroom. There were a couple of of other inaccurate reports out there. But if people believed stories of cannibalism and dead babies stuffed in coolers, they weren't getting them from the MSM.
It is also worth noting that what DID go on in New Orleans and was really really bad. The story of a man shooting at a rescue helicopter was apparently true. Conditions in the Superdome were appalling. Read this Chicago Tribune story, or accounts here , here and here from British and Australian tourists. I imagine there are some details wrong in those stories, but it sounds like there was plenty of mayhem, even if there were no rapes or murders. You make it sound like everyone was sitting around singing kumbaya.
Which makes me curious: Is there something about urban black culture, in particular, that makes these rumors spread quickly and be accepted with less skepticism? And be accepted so widely that reporters and officials were convinced?
In times past, media persons considered themselves to be part of society, not apart from it. They would have considered it their duty to squelch unsubstantiated rumors of chaos and mayhem in the absence of compelling evidence. Now, they eagerly report rumors as fact.
The other problem is that the media, by virtue of their relentless pursuit of scandal, has created an environment where public and private officials are very leery of allowing reporters "on the inside." Officials are justifiably afraid of being linguistically lynched by the media mob.
But the reality is that more access leads to greater accuracy. The embedded reporters in the invasion of Iraq gave a much better accounting of themselves than the green zone hotel occupying press of today does.
The problem in New Orleans was that the officials in the Superdome, being without power, had no way of knowing what was being reported. They did not realize their need to counter the rumors because they had no communications with the outside world. We were seeing the reporting of chaos and mayhem. But the officials were not. They had no opportunity, and did not even see the need, to rebut the wild accusations.
In times past, a more sober and responsible media would have policed itself. Unfortunately, they can no longer be trusted to do so. They are "stuck on stupid."
So officials, in addition to their normal and extensive duties, must also babysit irresponsible journalists and use valuable time that could be used assisting others to beat down every wild rumor that sticks its head up - kind of like the arcade game where you beat down the frogs. Imagine trying to do your job while simultaneously playing that game and you get a sense of the dilemma of officials with regards to the press. And then add into that the fact that the media can absolutely destroy your live-long built reputation, a la Michael Brown.
So it was relatively easy to confirm the worst racial stereotypes about self-governance of the refugees so long as you could blame Nagin.
That's impossible for me to parse. I don't see any way in which Nagin's actions (or lack thereof) have anything to do with people's perceptions of the actions (or lack thereof) of the people who were stuck in the city. They're not even coupled in my mind. What I'm saying (or trying to) is that I expect people to act decent ("self-govern"), regardless of their government. And as it turns out, that they did just that.
Also, as someone who's worked in the newspaper business for 10+ years, I still have yet to meet a reporter who seems him- or herself as "apart from society."
You know, I can take it. I'm an American, I expect the occasional f*ckwit. I understand the 'price' of freedoms are to suffer the odd fool more or less gladly.
But I worry sometimes about how the people we're trying to help - Afganis, Iraqis - take crap like this in. Are some of the ones who're against establishing democratic institutions doing so because they see these kinds of abuses? I mean really: Porn, lies, vicous political infighting, racist smears, underhanded BS litigation, fake news, etc
What's a nice fantasy? I must have mis-typed somewhere. What Ray Nagin says on the teevee has nothing to do with how I expect the citizens of NOLA to comport themselves. And it seems my expectations were more or less met. They weren't fantastical at all.
From the Newsweek article, Poverty, Race &Katrina Lessons of a National Shame
For the moment, at least, Americans are ready to fix their restless gaze on enduring problems of poverty, race and class that have escaped their attention, writes Senior Editor Jonathan Alter in the current issue of Newsweek.
"Americans tend to think of poor people as being responsible for their own economic woes," sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University tells Newsweek. "But this was a case where the poor were clearly not at fault. It was a reminder that we have a moral obligation to provide every American with a decent life."
Senior Editor Jonathan Alter is American. Is Senior Editor Jonathan Alter criticizing himself for not fixing his "restless" gaze on these enduring problems?
Who are these restless "Americans" that Alter is attempting to shame? Is he trying to shame Jonathan Alter? I doubt it.
When sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University says "Americans tend to think of poor people as being responsible for their own economic woes," is he including himself in this contemptible group of shameful, inconsiderate American boors? Once again, I doubt it.
These asses who brayed tens of thousands of pixels and dead-tree pages worth of bitter, spittle flecked diatribes against inconsiderate, shameful, amoral, baby-raping, oppressive, ignorant, racist "Americans" certainly do believe that they are "apart" from and superior to American society. They're disgusted by us and yet they're more ignorant than we are. They can't see it but we can.
We have absolutely no reason to respect them, to listen to them or to pay for the garbage they spew.
But is thinking that "poor people [are] responsible for their own economic woes" really a "contemptible" "shameful" and boorish sentiment?
You're right, though -- you don't have to listen to us or pay for us! Really, though, I think you should not get so worked up about us. Just ignore us if we make you so mad.
I just don't know what to think of this stuff. I mean. Would a mortician lie? There are presumably going to be autopsies done on the bodies with gunshot wounds, so if he's lying, that would be found out, no?
Link.
"He was surprised by the number of homicides — people with gunshot wounds to their heads and backs.
Autopsies were performed on those victims, Roper said."
In the blogs I've read, by people who have had this figured out from day one, it's been described as "fear of the black mob." Here's some good analysis, and there's more on Digby's blog:
The rumors were born of fear. The poor response, the lack of timely humanitarian aid, were the result of fear. Racist fear.
And the resulting suffering and neglect were criminal, as far as I'm concerned. Not on the part of any one official or branch of government. It goes from the NOLA PD all the way up to George Bush, as far as I'm concerned. Because there's a lot more to it. The whole disaster is about more than just that.
And what's the point of blaming the media? That the "pop" news media is shallow and sensational is a new phenomenon? Since when? I've known since I was a teenager that what I saw on TV wasn't "real." Even if it was the news. That if I wanted the "real" story, I had to wait a while and find some real investigative journalism.
Reporting is always sensationalised with something like this. I've read research about it. And the people of color and poor immigrants are consistently portrayed as "savage and out of control". It happened just like that after the 1906 San Francisco earthquake. And it was a racist and bigoted portrayal then, and it was a racist and bigoted portrayal this time.
I knew from day one it was highly exaggerated. It happened when I watched the Watts riots on TV. It happened when I watched the Rodney King riots. It happened when I watched the Viet Nam war.
The firt report I read that the rumors were pretty much unfounded was published in The Guardian around September 6. How'd you all miss that? There have been others since.
As far as I'm concerned, this was a human and American tragedy on a scale that didn't have to happen. The hurricane couldn't be stopped. Much of the suffering could have.
derek - If reporters are "us", then who is "them?" A reporter does see him or herself as "apart from society."
You're probably a very nice person and I don't want to get on your case - most of the annoyance I'm expressing is towards the press in general.
For instance, why did Newsweek feel that they had to chide Americans (a group that de facto doesn't include the press, of course) for their woeful ignorance about poverty? Americans had just donated more than 400 million dollars to help the poor in New Orleans. Many people were welcoming strangers into their homes, buying tons of supplies, volunteering to feed the homeless. This was a sign that the American public had already figured out that there was a problem.
Instead of being ahead of the curve, the press was way behind it.
The job of the press is to report the news (the news defined as information that helps us in our daily lives). We need to know about the weather, traffic, emergencies or crime waves, and we also need objective facts that we can use to deal with those problems.
But the press doesn't seem to know what their job is lately - they're not our teachers, our preachers or our ministers. Their job is not to cry "shame, shame" - they're not supposed to change the world, spread political propaganda or to make us better people - their job is to inform.
We have to read the news because we need to know basic facts. Right now, I have to sift through the preachy propaganda to find the facts. I often have to check two or three news sources to figure out what's really going on. Can you understand why, after years of wasting time doing that, people might be kind of annoyed?
Two boys in Boston were playing baseball when one of them was attacked by a rabid Rottweiler. Thinking quickly, the other boy ripped a board off of a nearby fence, wedged it into the dog's collar and twisted it, breaking the dog's neck.
A newspaper reporter from the Boston Herald witnessed the incident and rushed over to interview the boy. The reporter began entering
data into his laptop, beginning with the headline:
"Brave Young Red Sox Fan Saves Friend From Jaws Of Vicious Animal"
"But I'm not a Red Sox fan," the little hero interjected.
"Sorry" replied the reporter. "But since we're in Boston, Mass, I just assumed you were."
Hitting the delete key, the reporter began:
"John Kerry Fan Rescues Friend From Horrific Dog Attack"
"But I'm not a Kerry fan either," the boy responds.
The reporter says, "I assumed everybody in this state was either for the Red Sox or Kerry or Kennedy. What team or person do you like? "
"I'm a Texas Ranger fan and I really like George W. Bush" the boy says.
Hitting the delete key, the reporter begins again:
"Arrogant Little Conservative Bastard Kills Beloved Family Pet"
Maybe the race-baiters, mediots and Digby want to play it that way, but otherwise, it's horsesh*t. Figured out, my hind leg.
Apparently, you missed it in my post as well, Dean.
Probe of New Orleans Police Conduct Begins
By JULIA SILVERMAN, Associated Press Writer
Earlier this week, the city's police superintendent, Eddie Compass, resigned, as the looting reports gained currency, along with intense questioning of earlier police claims of widespread violence after the storm.
--------
That's right...any mention of racism is merely race baiting. And refusing to acknowledge racism is one way to make sure it never changes, and your "white privilege" status is never challenged.
Adrienne Long of Holliston said she was ringside when two men wrangled over the last sip of Jack Daniel's whiskey and one beat and stabbed the other to death. Her friend William ``Teddy'' Nichols of Ashland was nearby and saw the bloody aftermath. Long was angry when she first heard of the exaggeration reports on television Tuesday.
``I was sitting here screaming at the TV. Did I imagine everything I saw?'' said Long. ``I just can't believe people would say this.''"
What actually happened there? Will more people come back saying that the new conventional wisdom is bull?
Link.
I guess my question is, how do they know for sure he was dead?
Witnessing one fight hardly accounts for the magnitude of the rumors that were circulating and reported.
More Horrible Than Truth: News Reports
David Carr, NY Times, 9/19/05
".....Although I was not in New Orleans, I was at the World Trade Center towers site the afternoon of Sept. 11, 2001. People had seen unimaginable things, but a small percentage, many still covered in ash, told me tales that were worse than what actually happened. Mothers throwing babies out of the towers, men getting in fights on the ledges, human heads getting blown out of the buildings, all of which took place so high up in the air that it was hard to distinguish the falling humans from the falling wreckage.
"There is a timeless primordial appeal of the story of a city in chaos and people running loose," said Carl Smith, a professor of English and American studies at Northwestern University and the author of "Urban Disorder and the Shape of Belief." He says that urban chaos narratives offered "the fulfillment of some timely ideas and prejudices about the current social order."
In New Orleans, the misinformation extracted a terrible toll in another way. An international press eager to jump on American pathology played the unfounded reports for all they were worth, with hundreds of news outlets regurgitating tales of lawlessness. "They're Going to Kill or Rape Us, Get Us Out" read the headline in The Daily Star, a British tabloid. "Tourist Tells of Murder and Rape," was one headline in The Australian. "Snipers Shoot at Hospitals. Evacuees Raped, Beaten," The Ottawa Citizen reported.
"I think that citizens of New Orleans have been stigmatized in a way that is going to make it difficult to be accepted wherever they go," said Jonathan Simon, who teaches criminal law at the University of California, Berkeley.
Howard Witt, the Southwest bureau chief of The Chicago Tribune, wrote early on that much of what he had been told, even by public officials, did not check out. And he found himself inundated by rumors.
"The Web and talk radio fueled these rumors in the days following the storm, and the evacuees themselves contributed to the misinformation because they were so scared," he said by telephone from Baton Rouge, La. With the grid down and accurate information at a premium, a game of toxic telephone supplanted logic......"
http://mediachannel.org/blog/node/1058
Uh, "us" are the reporters. Similarly, I might use "us" to describe Red Sox fans, runners, New Yorkers -- that doesn't mean I see things in terms of "us" vs. "them." I think you're really grasping here.
Magazines like Time and Newsweek don't just offer facts, they very clearly put the news in a certain perspective or narrative if you will. In my mind, there's room for all different types of journalism out there. If you don't like one publication, find another. That's what freedom is all about.
I work for a publication that does see its mission as more than just simply informing people. We cry "shame" on occasion -- mostly involving horrendous crimes -- and sometimes do try to effect political change. It's not for everyone. No publication is!
If you think you have the right to tell us what "our job" is, of course you're going to be annoyed when we don't follow suit. But, with all respect, I really don't think you have that right. We're just offering a product, and you can choose to read or buy it or not. Don't waste your time getting annoyed ... just ignore us, and find another publication that's more to your liking.
Usually when you buy a product, there something called a "label" that tells you what's inside. Most newspapers don't have a warning like "this product contains pompous moralizing", or "gratuitious Republican bashing inside - now with extra charges of racism!!"
If a newspaper product advertises itself as "news", and if I consume it and become nauseated by these extra additives and fillers, can I sue them for fraudulent misrepresentation?
I think you should sue someone.
False dichotomy - why do we have to make a choice between "liberal" bashing and republican bashing?
Just try to grasp the idea that a reporter's job is to help people lead their daily lives by giving them fact-based news and objective reporting. That's what news is supposed to be. The democrat/republican bashing belongs on the editorial page.
Why do you seem to find the idea of fact-based reporting so offensive?
"Americans tend to think of poor people as being responsible for their own economic woes," sociologist Andrew Cherlin of Johns Hopkins University tells Newsweek. "But this was a case where the poor were clearly not at fault. It was a reminder that we have a moral obligation to provide every American with a decent life."
It doesn't say Republicans anywhere here. It says "Americans". And the person who is clearly expressing his opinion, which is acceptable, even in a fact based story, as long as it's deliniated as such, is saying "we", not "them." So how does that translate to only Republicans? Where does that say anything about political party, except in your own partisan view of reality?
I don't find the idea of fact-based reporting offensive. I do think the idea of presenting facts completely free of bias to be impossible. Everyone has biases. I'm much less offended when the biases are clear, and quoted, than when they are disguised as "facts" and turn out to be rumor.
I suppose someone could have slipped a knife through. But a Jack Daniels bottle? I'm pretty skeptical.