Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64 Posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1838 times:
If he could go to Baghdad, why didn't Bush go to the New Orleans Superdome or the Convention Center? It was bizarre for all of the country and much of the world to be watching those scenes for days on our TVs and news reports, and for Bush's photo ops to be in areas that were far less critical. I know there are security considerations but his visit seemed extraordinarily hollow even by this administration's standard of ultra-stage managed events.
Dutch viewer Frank Tiggelaar writes:
There was a striking dicrepancy between the CNN International report on the Bush visit to the New Orleans disaster zone, yesterday, and reports of the same event by German TV.
ZDF News reported that the president's visit was a completely staged event. Their crew witnessed how the open air food distribution point Bush visited in front of the cameras was torn down immediately after the president and the herd of 'news people' had left and that others which were allegedly being set up were abandoned at the same time.
The people in the area were once again left to fend for themselves, said ZDF.
What is ZDF News? A Dutch carrier? Can anyone confirm?
Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9823 posts, RR: 64
Reply 2, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1817 times:
Agreed, I only pasted that part because I wanted to get the first 2 paragraphs...what I was focusing on was the food distibrution center, and if it was in fact torn down after they got the footage...seems pretty wild to be true.
AvObserver From United States of America, joined Apr 2002, 2485 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 1782 times:
"ZDF News reported that the president's visit was a completely staged event."
As if ALL presidential visits aren't! This time, the rant about Bush rings hollow. The Superdome in particular would be a security nightmare for the Secret Service. There's also no compelling reason for Bush to stick his neck so far out in a community where the mayor has already helped to whip storm-deluge refugees into a frenzy of anger. As critical of Bush as I am, there's no reason to unnecessarily risk his safety by having him appear before a largely hostile body who won't be much swayed by whatever he said. I give Bush a pass, this time.
BN747 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5641 posts, RR: 50
Reply 7, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 1741 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): If he could go to Baghdad, why didn't Bush go to the New Orleans Superdome or the Convention Center?
That's actually a valid question...
There was no gaurantee that Ground Zero in NYC was without an 'Al Qaeda' sniper(s)... knowing full well that sooner or later, the president would would show up there. It would have been a full on suicide mission.. but they've shown having endless numbers of eager 'suicide volunteers'...
In Baghdad, the exact same situation, he went at night which lessened the chances of such a thing versus a daylight visit.
In New Orleans, we've seen DAYS of Footage (not hours) and not one mind you NOT single piece of footage has recorded the sound of 'sniper fire' in daylight. Infact, with news crews across the city.. NONE have shown themselves hunkered down at night weathering out (and recording) 'sniper fire'. Was it going on at night? I personally believe it was.
Word is Bill Clinton's headed to New Orleans, if he does, I bet you anything he will go to the Superdome and the Convention Center... and yep, the armed thugs are still about.
The possibily of armed hooligans, was a 'good excuse' (wink, wink) for Bush not to go to the Superdome and CC. But he could have gone if he truly wished it so, the SS couldn't stop him if he felt strongly that he should... we've seen nothing but how Bush 'stick to his guns' when he wants to do something. It's crystal clear.. he had no desire to visit either of those places. Had he gone, he would have score astronomical political points. Funny, the mayor went but not the gov. nor the prez. Why's that? Simple, he's just not comfortable around those situations.
It's not beyond security concerns as you'll see... because Clinton will show up and he will visit these places, with the very same SS protections. If he goes to Houston. he will go to the Astrodome. Being among suffering desperate, masses does not frighten him. Bush on the other, as we've seen as well, prefers contrived and 'staged events'.. it is after all, his perogative. And we're free to draw our own conclusions from actions taken...and those that are not.
People argue that the Presidents' presence gets in the way.. apparently it didn't at the WTC nor in Baghdad.
And for those griping about anti-Bush threads... we're in the middle of the biggest disaster in the nations history... this story warrants addressing concerns from all angles. No one demanded Bush to cut FEMA and fold it into the Dept. of Homeland Security. FEMA took the lead in Hurricane Andrew and Camille... and equally it's the lead Agency against Katrina's aftermath now! It's with it's appointed untested leaders... it has failed miserably, why do you think they're quietly bringing in James Lee Witt to get things back on track?
"Home of the Brave, made by the Slaves..Land of the Free, if you look like me.." T. Jefferson
The News (Nachrichten) of the greatest German TV Station. German TV stations (specially the greater ones) are known for having own teams all over the world and indeed in this area at this time. And they are known for their fairminded coverage of incidents.
If they have reported that the food distribution point was closed after the visit of the president, you can be sure that this happened.
Seb146 From United States of America, joined Nov 1999, 14033 posts, RR: 14
Reply 12, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 1629 times:
Quoting Clickhappy (Thread starter): Their crew witnessed how the open air food distribution point Bush visited in front of the cameras was torn down immediately after the president and the herd of 'news people' had left
More to the point, was the food and water distributed to those that need it?
I have also heard reports that rescue attempts were delayed so the president could have his photo op. Tell me again why this is so much better than John Kerry's plan for America?
"Greatest" as in "largest". It's public, much like the BBC is, and sometimes referred to as "grampa TV" due to the high percentage of shows catering to 50+, 60+ people. Of course, that doesn't make it any less respectable.
I don't know if this has been mentioned, but apparently the streets Bush got to see when he visited the "New Orleans disaster zone" had all been cleared of bodies and rubble so the photo op would be less irksome for him.
[Edited 2005-09-04 13:12:48]
Walk together, talk together all ye peoples of the earth. Then, and only then, shall ye have peace.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21652 posts, RR: 53
Reply 14, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1616 times:
It was on the ARD news as well... (the other big public broadcast network and the primary news source in Germany) The reporter said that she had been shocked about the devastation, but it shocked her even more witnessing the blatant theater production with suddenly appearing help efforts exactly (and only!) where the president was recorded by TV cameras while many more people would have needed heavy equipment and other stuff several kilometers away but getting none at the same time.
Security is perfectly fine - but that was apparently a purely staged photo opportunity with help only being present as long as the US domestic TV cameras were rolling and being withdrawn after that.
If Schröder should have had attempted a stunt like that with his visits during the Oder floodings before the last elections he would have been crucified by the media - and justifiably so.
Oldeuropean From Germany, joined May 2005, 2091 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 5 hours ago) and read 1606 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 14): Security is perfectly fine - but that was apparently a purely staged photo opportunity with help only being present as long as the US domestic TV cameras were rolling and being withdrawn after that.
I wonder why the American media accept so much without criticism. It`s sad! Are you living in Belarus?
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 16, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1591 times:
Quoting Oldeuropean (Reply 15): I wonder why the American media accept so much without criticism.
Back in the 1980's the news departments of US domestic television media were brought under the same ratings umbrella as all other television 'entertainment' programs. Since then, there has been a consistent reduction in critical domestic journalism even while the quantity of general 'news' programming has gone way up. Now we are at the point that our leaders are generally protected from critical questions by self-censorship of the domestic news networks unless they are involved in extra-marital affairs or similarly sleazy but relatively inconsequential developments.
Nowadays, when you watch domestic American news, you're generally just seeing and hearing what General Electric, Disney, Viacom, Clear Channel, Sinclair Broadcasting, and Newscorp want you to see and hear. Some of these multi-billion dollar corporations have apparently managed to find a way to pay no taxes whatsoever over one or more years during the Bush II's administration. Any wonder why? My guess is that Americans in general are blind to both spoon-fed news and white-collar fraud. Combine the two and you have a match made in heaven.
Klaus From Germany, joined Jul 2001, 21652 posts, RR: 53
Reply 17, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1576 times:
I think it´s not so much the american people ("demand") but really the existence and stability of reliable news sources ("supply").
All bickering aside I don´t think the german audience is all that much more sophisticated on its own, but the public broadcasting networks keep the news reporting standard so much higher than the commercial ones that the Tagesschau is definitely the "reference" for most of our population.
Private stations do exist in Germany and they are pretty much on par with the US commercial networks (with just as much "fluff" and questionable news coverage), but the difference in reporting quality to the public stations is so obvious that nobody really relies on them for the news.
As far as I´m aware it´s very similar in Britain with the BBC and in many other countries with real public networks.
So my impression is that the US political culture could greatly benefit from an independent public broadcasting network (or two) with enough funds and the official mandate for news coverage to serve the viewers and not the commercial sponsors.
The rudimentary public network in the USA obviously isn´t capable of serving that role as it is now.
SATX From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 2840 posts, RR: 6
Reply 18, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 1565 times:
Quoting Klaus (Reply 17): The rudimentary public network in the USA obviously isnï¿½t capable of serving that role as it is now.
PBS and NPR had decent if not excellent programming once upon a time, but the GOP got pissed off that some shows were beginning to focus on health of the environment, white-collar fraud, and political accountability. Thus, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting was summarily castrated just like the EPA and SEC. Regarding issues such as these, Americans generally fall into one of three groups.
1. Those who agree with these developments
2. Those who don't care now and never will
3. Those who have no clue it's even happening
Open Season on Consumer Protections is Just Around the Corner...
MidnightMike From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2892 posts, RR: 13
Reply 21, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 3 hours ago) and read 1521 times:
Quoting BN747 (Reply 7): And for those griping about anti-Bush threads... we're in the middle of the biggest disaster in the nations history... this story warrants addressing concerns from all angles. No one demanded Bush to cut FEMA and fold it into the Dept. of Homeland Security. FEMA took the lead in Hurricane Andrew and Camille... and equally it's the lead Agency against Katrina's aftermath now! It's with it's appointed untested leaders... it has failed miserably, why do you think they're quietly bringing in James Lee Witt to get things back on track?
Wrong, wrong, wrong. When there is a disaster it is the local government that takes charge of the aftermath, it is the local government that calls up the National Guard, and it is the local government that calls FEMA for assistance.
This is called the chain-of-command.
The chaos that you saw on TV with looting & gunshots on Tuesday, the day after the Hurricane, if the National Guard was called up there would have not been a problem.....
There are 50 States in the United States of America & each of those States have a Governor, Mayor that is responsible for the problems that could/may come up, and if the problem is to big, they then call upon the Federal Government for assistance.....
ANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 22, posted (10 years 8 months 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 1500 times:
Quoting BN747 (Reply 7): NONE have shown themselves hunkered down at night weathering out (and recording) 'sniper fire'.
Footage showed a reporter talking, at NIGHT, with a police officer and there was incoming. Two days ago.
Quoting BN747 (Reply 7): I bet you anything he will go to the Superdome and the Convention Center
Now that both are emptied, why not. . . .
Quoting BN747 (Reply 7): why do you think they're quietly bringing in James Lee Witt to get things back on track
Witt was/is running the efforts for the State of Louisiana in Baton Rouge - apparently he's lost his touch because the State and City government failed miserably! Want to get the job done, leave LTG Honore in the hot seat, he eems to be ON THE GROUND without a concern and seems to be kicking some ass on a fairly consistent basis. Witt is a waste of money. Brown is a waste of money.
Quoting SATX (Reply 20): 'Bush Bashing'... A simple phrase meant to counter adverse opinion with a meaningless buzzword instead of verifiable logic or reason.
Catchy tune SATX, it is of course wrong . . . "Bush Bashing" - what 75% of A-net does on a daily basis because they have no other basis for any argument or opinion on any other subject matter.
It was an interesting post you wrote regarding PBS and NPR - I tend to agree.