#Nolamayor piques national attention

The campaign to elect the next mayor of New Orleans has attracted a wave of national attention. The AP, New York Times, and Los Angeles Times all wrote reports within the last week to brief readers about the mayor's race and the real possibility that New Orleans will elect a white mayor for the first time in over a generation.

Check them all out and see if you agree with the analysis:

Campbell Robertson of the New York Times, "Race Assumes Central Role in New Orleans Vote"
Richard Faussett of the Los Angeles Times, "In New Orleans, a white candidate leads the field"
Kevin McGill of the Associated Press, "Mostly black New Orleans could pick white Mayor"


State Senator Ed Murray's exit from the race and the collective gasp of many members of the city's African American political elite when he did, seems to have been the impetus for the wave of national dispatches.

The three stories are not appreciably different, but do emphasize different reasons for the loss of African American political unity.

McGill points to the decline of African American middle class neighborhoods as a result of the Katrina tragedy as "undercutting efforts by black candidates to raise money and build voter support."

Faussett describes "buyer's remorse" in the African American community and points to universal disapproval of Mayor Nagin in polls and ongoing federal investigations.

Robertson's piece similarly discusses "buyer's remorse" and - I love this line - the "low wattage" of most contenders prior to Landrieu's entry. Robertson's description of "the franchise" and the significance of political power for the African American community is also very interesting.

Black professionals refer to the office as “the franchise,” the counterweight to the economic power of New Orleans’s white elite. For the past three decades, the black private sector — the lawyers, businessmen and architects — has relied on the franchise: they may not always be able to become board members at the city’s white-owned firms, but black professionals turned to the city government for contracts and jobs.

I think these are damn fine write-ups all things considered. How about you all? Any nits to pick?

Teaser

I feel like most people already saw this New York Times article about C. Ray Nagin's last year in office. The piece represents the first time a national news gathering organization has really alluded to the swirling e-maelstrom.

Now, however, that sense is coming to an end, after accusations arose in a civil lawsuit concerning city technology contracts. In a deposition, a former city official said he took a Hawaiian vacation with Mr. Nagin and their families in 2004 that was paid for by a company whose owner did extensive business with the city through other companies. Claims of other trips raising ethics questions were raised in later testimony.

At a news conference on April 7, the mayor defended the Hawaiian vacation. “I don’t see it as a violation of any law, any ethics rules,” he said, because he had been told that the city official — Greg Meffert, the former chief of technology for New Orleans — was paying for the trip, not the contractor.

“It’s been cleverly portrayed that there’s something wrong here, and no one has proven that yet,” Mr. Nagin said at the time. He acknowledged, however, that “there’s still a question whether this is illegal or unethical.” He declined requests for an interview.

There's certainly nothing ground-breaking about the report, it's just an interesting first. We're going to see a lot more national news attention as the last year of Nagin unravels and as our upcoming Mayoral race exposes itself as a comic tragedy clusterf*ck. I think the NYT is going to regret pulling it's regular beat guy. They're going to be paying for a lot of flights here or a lot of AP reprints.

Fishing

I'm certainly not saying that you shouldn't pay the taxes you owe on time, but is this really news?

It's the little things

This piece from 538's Sean Quinn is surprisingly interesting. An article like this would never have been written before the age of the newsblog. Traditional Beltway media doesn't pick up on these kinds of angles.

Charity Cha Cha

During Mardi Gras, City Business publisher Mark Singletary took time out from parading to write a factually deficient manifesto in support of the unfunded LSU/VA megahospital even though a new Charity would be a faster, cheaper, and more progressive way to restore a world-class medical facility to the metro area.

The piece is particularly horrendous because his argument is essentially that the new project is a done deal and must go forward because he says it's a done deal and must go forward. He doesn't actively refute any of the major concerns related to cost estimates, conflicts of interest, or community justice. He just says it must be so. See for yourself:

Here’s the deal. The new Louisiana State University teaching/charity/trauma/learning center in downtown New Orleans is going to be at the lower end of Mid-City between Tulane Avenue and Canal Boulevard next to the equally new Veterans Administration hospital.

Period, end of story.

That is unless we don’t get close to $500 million from FEMA.

All LSU needs is $492 million it wants from FEMA, not to complete the project, but to start it. So far FEMA’s offer is somewhere just short of $150 million. The $350 million gap is based on a FEMA assessment of the old Charity building and how much damage was sustained during Hurricane Katrina.

When finished, the entire complex will cost somewhere close to $800 million, plus or minus $100 million. The FEMA money is critical.

LSU thinks the Charity building is completely damaged and FEMA thinks not - at least for now.

If FEMA drops our ball, refuses to pay up and otherwise gets in the way of the state’s best-laid plans, there won’t be a new LSU teaching hospital. Also, end of story.

Or, if old-time Louisiana politics mess things up so much and nothing happens in New Orleans, we end up losing everything - medical center, medical school and thousands of high paying jobs.

There has also been a lot talk about using the old Charity Hospital facility on Tulane Avenue. That talk is a feint. Public hearings have been held, consultants have conspired, the Legislature has convened and decisions have been made to go forward. New hospital wins.

End of story! Done deal! New hospital wins!

Because Stone Cold Mark Singletary Said So!

I love that last paragraph especially. Public hearings have been held? Not one ever at City Council or in front of the City Planning Commission. Consultants have conspired? Um, I think that's precisely what we're saying.

But let's go back and look at the whole. Singletary says the only thing standing in the way of the destruction of Lower Mid City is the $492 million (pocket change I know, "all LSU needs") it will take to "not to complete the project, but to start it."

I don't think he meant to write a pro-Charity column but it would sort of seem like it based on the silliness of his argument. At any rate, he seems to think its a foregone conclusion that FEMA reimburses LSU to the tune of the rest of that $492 million.

That's a pretty bold assumption don't ya think?

But not just because I say so/end of story/done deal/temper tantrum...

Let's actually examine at some like, you know, evidence.

The quotes that follow come from the February 04. 2009 version of the FEMA Project Worksheet Report on Charity Hospital. The emphasis is always mine. (I'll try to get this doc online for you as soon as I can.)

In the middle of December, Governor Bobby Jindal rejected FEMA's offer to reimburse the state $150 million for Katrina-related damages. This was a new high offer from FEMA, put forth in the closing days of the Bush administration, up from $23 million.

Let's take a look at how FEMA came up with that $150 million figure.

Again, the original assessment was roughly $23 million. From there, the feds added tens of millions of dollars because "FEMA also recognizes the likelihood of additional damages that would be discovered through exploratory work, testing, and construction. It is further understood that in the months immediately following the hurricanes Katrina and Rita, certain mechanical and electrical components within the facility would have started to deteriorate to the point of disrepair."

But that wasn't all. An extra $51 million got tacked on by FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security for reasons independent from estimates of actual damage to the building:

This determination was based on (1) the magnitude of the impact of the disaster, (2) recognition that the actual cause of much post-storm damage could not conclusively be determined, and (3) the desire to accelerate the recovery of the healthcare system in New Orleans.

In other words, in response to heavy political pressure, FEMA basically tacked on a gift $51 million outside their evaluation of actual storm damage to Charity in order to help Louisiana expedite the restoration of medical care to New Orleans (which by default means the LSU/VA project).

How likely is it now that another few hundred million dollars will be forthcoming?

Well, if you look at the most recent project worksheet report, it wouldn't seem as though FEMA is particularly enchanted with the state of Louisiana's penchant for intentional neglect. More specifically, FEMA seems to think that a lot of the damage has been inflected upon the building by LSU itself due to its failure to properly secure the hospital for years after Katrina. The following selections have been lifted from FEMA's project worksheet report on Charity from early February:

Through 2008, FEMA conducted additional assessments of Charity Hospital to validate additional damages presented by the applicant. During these assessments, FEMA observed deteriorating conditions at Charity Hospital resulting in the continuation of damages. The observed damages consisted of (1) Preventable damages, such as humidity damage and mold damage, and (2) Damage due to lack of use and deferred maintenance.

Here is the chronology of warnings from FEMA to the state of Louisiana regarding the protection of the Charity facility from further damages.

In an April 16, 2007 letter, Jim Start, Director of the Louisiana Transitional Recovery Office, advised the State of Louisiana that, "it is imperative that the applicants are aware of the requirements related to protecting facilities from further deterioration and the implications of neglecting to do so. Moreover, it should be noted that a significant number of these degrading facilities are state-owned. Examples of these facilities include Charity Hospital and RSD (Recovery School District). Avoidable damages linked to an applicant not taking proper measures to protect its facilities will not be eligible for reimbursement through the FEMA PA Program..."

In a follow-up May 5, 2008 letter, Jim Stark advised the State of Louisiana that "now, over a year since my first letter and nearing three years since the storm event, it is alarming that applicants continue to allow their facilities to deteriorate. A significant number of these degraded facilities are owned by the Facility, Planning, and Control Department. Charity Hospital, the Dibert Building and the L&M Building, all facilities in the LSU MCLNO Network, are examples of such facilities... Avoidable damages linked to an applicant not taking proper measures to protect its facilities will not be eligible for reimbursement through the FEMA PA Program..."

Naturally, LSU has acted with all deliberate speed to secure the property after Jim Stark warned them that they were risking reimbursement eligibility.

July 12, 2007, the architect developed a scope of work to suspend continuing damages related to Hurricane Katrina and minimize the immediate vulnerability of the facility. This scope of work has since been submitted to FEMA and was addressed in Version 2 of this project worksheet, which was obligated November 13, 2008. At the writing of this project worksheet, FEMA has observed that none of this work has been initiated.

So is Barack Obama's FEMA now going to "earmark" another 300 or so million dollars for this LSU/VA "pork" project when Charity could be rebuild faster and cheaper without destroying a residential neighborhood? Is Barack Obama's FEMA suddenly going to reward LSU for their own failure to properly secure the facility over the course of three and a half years?

Bobby Jindal is threatening to turn down tens of millions of dollars in federal aid for Louisiana's recession victims but he's simultaneously asking for hundreds of millions of dollars in gift money from FEMA to fill a funding shortfall in a sprawling hospital project that still won't see its first shovels for several more years?

Janet Napolitano, the new head of the Department of Homeland Security will be down here in New Orleans this week to take a look. Something tells me she won't find the blank check being requested by Bobby Jindal and LSU to be particularly prudent.

Mark Singletary's little 'done deal' if is actually a LARGELY UNLIKELY IF.

This story ain't even close to its conclusion, kiddos. Pay attention to the news this week.

We'd have a done deal on our hands if LSU would come around to support the Hillier compromise proposal backed by a diverse coalition of New Orleanians.

Nossiter!

The Gamblog has just pointed out that the New York Times has been especially attentive to New Orleans over the past few days. Kevin Allman links this article by Adam Nossiter about day laborers as victims of crime.

I'm glad he did because the article sucks. I see it as an example of Mr. Nossiter's often incendiary and anecdotal perspective on race in New Orleans.

But on the street, these laborers are known as “walking A.T.M.’s.”

Their pockets stuffed with bills, the laborers are vulnerable because of language problems and their status as illegal immigrants. And as Hispanics have become the prey of choice in crumbling neighborhoods here in one of America’s most crime-ridden cities, racial friction between the newcomers and longtime black residents has moved close to the surface.

-

Many bluntly assigned a racial component, saying that it was “los morenos” — their colloquial term for blacks — who were after them. “When we are leaving here after work, we have to go on foot,” Mr. Billado said, speaking through an interpreter. “The blacks are waiting for us. They’ll beat you up. They’ll take your money.”

I don't want to dismiss the tragedy that is the victimization of hardworking New Orleans residents and the plight of undocumented workers in general. Nor do I want to dismiss the notion that there is tension between Latino and African American communities.

But Nossiter seems to cherry-pick quotes and structures his narrative to suit the needs of a predetermined meme - that racial tension has resulted in African Americans preying upon Hispanics.

The anecdotal quotes from victims of crime are given the lede but the causal factors - the high rate of crime generally, African American joblessness and underemployment, the overall vulnerability of undocumented workers, and the fact that African Americans are so often victims of crime themselves - are buried on page 2 or left out entirely.

Furthermore, this article could have been written at any point over the last three years and the issue of the vulnerability of immigrant laborers to robbery in New Orleans has been covered by local and national media.

Nossiter does not break a new item anywhere in the article so I question the choice of subject.

If he wanted to take the pulse of the city, he might want to examine the backlash bubbling up against the NOPD that has been separately emanating from black, white, and brown quarters.

He includes a line about this:

The police, the men said, either ignore their calls, admonish them for being in the country illegally or arrive too late at a crime scene to do any good.

But what could have been useful in another context becomes a throwaway within this article in particular.

-

Did anybody else get a little queasy reading this Nossiter piece? Or am I being a cherry-picker too?

Jindal Tip-Toes Around Hospital Plans

It's been a pretty interesting 48 hours or so in the ongoing debate over whether to build a new LSU/VA super complex or to rehabilitate Charity. Let's review, shall we?

We shall.

On Wednesday, and Adrastros has a good political take on this, righty pundit John Maginnis wrote a column taking Governor Bobby Jindal to task for his poor leadership, citing a pattern of political cowardice. He sneaks in the LSU/VA controversy as exhibit C toward the bottom of the article:

Jindal also supports LSU's plan for a new teaching hospital in New Orleans, but you wouldn't know it from his silence while preservationists accuse state health-care officials of plotting to destroy a neighborhood alleged to be historic.

Maybe I'm nitpicking, but the neighborhood is not "alleged to be historic." It's a nationally registered historic district as part of the Mid City Historic District. This isn't something that preservationists are just making up or alleging to suit the needs to their argument; the Mid City Historic District was designated way back in 1993. The hospital proposal threatens 145 historic buildings. It's a fact. But either way, it rhetorically reduces the argument against the LSU/VA complex to the aesthetic complaints of those nerdy historians when, in actuality, the opponents of the LSU plan center their arguments on things like fiscal responsibility, transparency, and the city's public health emergency.

Coincidentally or not, Jindal turned around and within 24 hours, was on the tv 'reaffirming his support' for the LSU/VA.

But where some saw certainty, there's actually some surprising equivocation:

He said that renovating Charity is out of the picture.

“My commitment hasn’t changed. Our support hasn’t changed,” Jindal said, adding the only way they'd renovate is “if LSU were all of a sudden to come back and say, ‘you know what, we’ve talked to engineers, we’ve talked to architects, we think we can build a great, modern hospital within the old footprint.’”

“My point is this: I continue to support the fact that we need a modern hospital that is connected to the VA, that’s a home for not only patient care – which is absolutely critical – but graduate medical education and cutting-edge research,” Jindal said.

How very interesting. Jindal reaffirms his support for a robust biomedical district anchored by a modern teaching hospital and pledges his support for the LSU plan. But he does not explicitly rule out the rebuilding of a hospital in Charity. He just says that the decision is up to LSU.

Now why would he say something like that? Why would he even create that daylight?

In fact, world-renown architects and engineers have already evaluated the Charity footprint. RMJM Hillier, the world's 6th largest architecture and design firm, found that the old limestone shell of Charity remains not just structurally sound, but ideal for a "great, modern hospital."

In fact, an objective side-by-side comparison of the LSU proposal and the RMJM Hillier proposal yields a clear conclusion.

New Orleans can have a state-of-the-art biomedical development corridor faster, cheaper, and better based on the Hillier model. By building a state of the art facility in the Charity shell, New Orleans can attract economic development, restore public health infrastructure, and make the Central Business District more robust, all while avoiding the demolition of a historic residential neighborhood.

-

LSU has argued that their teaching hospital needs to be connected to the VA. Why? Why do the hospitals need to be connected? Are they sharing facilities?

Not really. In fact, there is no compelling reason why these hospitals need to be directly adjacent instead of two blocks away.

What is it about the Charity building that makes it incongruous with a modern facility?

Nothing. In fact, the RMJM Hillier plan does not plan to preserve Charity's interior or anything about the outdated ward layout. They propose preserving the solid limestone exterior while building an entirely brand-new facility inside.

LSU has never taken the time to properly evaluate the structure of Charity. One of their major claims by LSU is that Charity is unsound structurally because of rusted connectors in the limestone shell of the building.

In fact, RMJM Hillier took a thermal image of the building and found that the building wasn't even constructed with connectors.

And so on and so forth.

-

The LSU/VA project will not go forward as currently proposed.

Residents, public health advocates, smart growth planners, preservationists, and civil rights activists will fight this every single step of the way.

LSU does not have the money, LSU does not have the argument, and LSU does not have the right.

And our city doesn't have the time. We can't afford for them to cling to their disproved model when everybody else is willing to compromise with this alternative proposal. We could start building next year instead of next century.

If LSU would just take an honest look at RMJM Hillier's plan or even bother to show up at one of the countless public forums that have been held on the matter to defend their plan, they might have some credibility. But they haven't and they don't.

We can have a state-of-the-art hospital district sometime before the end of next decade if LSU would just reevaluate Charity and admit that rebuilding on that site is the smarter, better, cheaper, and faster way to bring back medical care to New Orleans.

And to me, it looks like Bobby Jindal is willing to support that compromise as soon as LSU gets its own head out of the sand.

-

So you tell me who's the obstructionist here?

Is it the diverse partnerships that have already rallied around a compromise proposal?

Or is it really just LSU that can't get its sh*t together?

Fitting Room

National mainstream tries 2012 storyline on for size. Stupidly predictable.

Mumbai and Media

Earlier in the week, I wondered about the utility of all that rumor-based reporting live and direct from the Mumbai attacks.

Slate's Jack Shaffer details the many contradictory details reported by mainstream news outlets over the course of that event. He also offers somewhat of a defense of that kind of reporting:

As one who has scribbled conflicting eyewitness accounts from a fast-moving story in my reporter's notebook, I have nothing but gratitude and sympathy for the boots on the ground who produce the hot dispatches readers crave—even if many of those hot dispatches turn out to be crap.

The latest example of crap masquerading as authoritative news comes to us from the pens and microphones of the reporters covering the Mumbai massacre: Reading the first wave of Mumbai stories against the second reveals how rough the first rough draft of history can be. Respected, major media outlets produced contradictory accounts of the carnage and its aftermath.

---

Should reporters publish only when they've nailed the story six ways to Sunday? Not to endorse journalistic malpractice, but as long as they don't intend to deceive and believe what they publish, I'd rather read their imperfect reports from the scene of breaking news than wait for a book on the subject. "Journalism in lieu of dissertation," to use Edgar Allan Poe's phrase, is the light artillery we can use now.

Athenae reacts:

And look, I'm arguing simply that most of the autowittering on about blogs and their supposed reams of inaccuracies and unchecked facts and anonymous sources and OMG THE HORROR TAKE THEIR PENS AWAY is based mostly on defensiveness and projection. No matter where or how your work is published it is done by a person and thus will be full of mistakes and confusion in a sitch like this, I don't care if you work for the Daily Telegraph or are Twittering from your kitchen.

I agree with Athenae's point about the futility of any proposed blogger code of conduct and respect Shaffer's larger lionization of the first rough draft of history concept. But I think they're both missing a key point about the implications of reporting 'crap' as 'news.'

The proliferation of twitter rumors is one thing, but the mainstream TV broadcasting of rumors on a background of pornographic images of severed body parts and burning buildings is another.

The issue is that public reaction/opinion is driven by emotional connection or reaction to traumatized news coverage from the day of a catastrophe. Official response considers political implications, considers public reaction and opinion.

Shafer says that "as long as they don't intend to deceive and believe what they publish, I'd rather read their imperfect reports from the scene of breaking news than wait for a book on the subject." It's fine if he trusts the intentions of the journalists on the scene, but maybe it's a little bit naive to ignore the intentions of the official sources that pass along rumors to those journalists.

This week, there was a massive public demonstration in Mumbai. The outrage percolating from the crowds had something to do with what they took away from television reports of the attacks. Since a great deal of that information appears contradictory looking back... isn't all of this a little bit dangerous?

Suppose the United States was attacked by a terrorist organization and the mainstream news inaccurately proliferated rumor on the day of the tragedy that the attackers had an official tie to an unfriendly government. Wouldn't there be incredible an incredible public outcry for an immediate military response? Immediate means something different in this age of technology and short attention spans than it did in the past. Whereas in the past, an immediate response might be to amass or mobilize a large land army over the course of days and weeks, now it means dropping bombs in a matter of hours. So there might not be a big cushion of time in which we can go back and get all the info right so that we don't do something really stupid.

I mean, let's not forget the way the media has whiffed on, I dunno, WMDs in Iraq, when there was at least a few weeks in which to get to the bottom of things.

The point is that I don't know if it's enough to call on the media to do more to remind viewers that reports are contradictory and should be taken with a grain of salt on the day of a shocking event. This is particularly true for the TV media, which also shows the graphic footage partially responsible for traumatized public reaction.

Maybe Athenae is sensing that the blowback for the proliferation of rumor is directed at twitterers and bloggers. If that's what's going on here, than I agree because twitterers and bloggers don't have to and shouldn't subscribe to the same standards as the professional news media.

But I think Shaffer's article and the larger criticism of the way this event was covered is directed toward mainstream TV journalists. And if that's the case, then I think that we do need to take a long look at creating some sort of ethical standard for how rumor is delivered on the day of a traumatic event. Is it enough to merely suggest that journalists do a better job attaching rhetorical caveat when they're reporting from the scene of an event? I think we need something a little more compulsory.

More on Bush Legacy Spin Cycle

To supplement what I wrote about Bush's interview with Charlie Gibson the other day, Maddow had a great segment last night about the return of Hughes and Rove to the White House as part of efforts to spin Bush's legacy as he prepares to leave office:

Bush Regrets Decision to Invade?

Andrew Sullivan highlights a portion of the lame duck's chat with Charles Gibson of alphabet news. Mr. Sullivan highlights this quote:

I don't know -- the biggest regret of all the presidency has to have been the intelligence failure in Iraq. A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein. It wasn't just people in my administration; a lot of members in Congress, prior to my arrival in Washington D.C., during the debate on Iraq, a lot of leaders of nations around the world were all looking at the same intelligence. And, you know, that's not a do-over, but I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess.

And then offers his analysis:

Observe the passive constructions. The description of others. "People in my administration." "Prior to my arrival." Everyone got it wrong but him, the one person ultimately responsible for getting it right.

But I look at the Bush quote and I see, in Bush-speak, an admission that the Iraq War was a mistake and that he regrets authorizing invasion. He wishes the intelligence had been different. He wishes it had all said that Iraq was not a threat, instead of just the parts he chose to ignore. So while he won't take ownership of his awful decision to invade, isn't he tacitly acknowledging that it was a bad decision with disastrous consequences?

If he didn't regret the Iraq war, he wouldn't have offered the intelligence failures as his biggest regret because they wouldn't, to him, make any difference as to whether or not the invasion of Iraq was justified or smart.

He might have instead chosen to blame "people in my administration" for the failure to respond to -- I don't know -- Hurricane Katrina.

It's not as if he didn't have an easy 'out' to that question. He chose to go the War route.

The follow up exchange between Gibson and the duck is also illuminating:

GIBSON: If the intelligence had been right, would there have been an Iraq war?

BUSH: Yes, because Saddam Hussein was unwilling to let the inspectors go in to determine whether or not the U.N. resolutions were being upheld. In other words, if he had had weapons of mass destruction, would there have been a war? Absolutely.

GIBSON: No, if you had known he didn't.

BUSH: Oh, I see what you're saying. You know, that's an interesting question. That is a do-over that I can't do. It's hard for me to speculate.

In the past, Bush would have dutifully defended the decision with his other made-up justifications about democratization and fighting them there so we wouldn't have to fight them here. Or he would have gone on and on about how the surge is working and we're succeeding in Iraq. In this case, Bush doesn't evade the question with talking points. Instead, he barely musters the strength to punt it entirely.

It might be the closest thing to an admission of wrong-doing or confession as we'll ever get. If Gibson pressed here, even a little bit, Bush might have gone even further. He didn't. He immediately went to the next question:

"Greatest accomplishment? The one thing you're proudest of?"

I was hoping he'd say "not rigging the 2008 election." He didn't.

Perceiving the Mumbai attacks

updated

As we're all aware, Mumbai was victimized by some savage human behavior over the last week. The standoff was simultaneously gripping and painful to watch.

I was not glued to the couch or the internet all weekend, so I didn't not follow every single development as it unfolded. Rather, I checked in periodically. Five minutes here, twenty minutes there.

Is it inappropriate of me to suggest the US media coverage of Mumbai attacks was horrendous?

I haven't seen much discussion of this elsewhere.

I thought US coverage was dangerously sensational. I got the sense that they were reporting every last rumor they heard on the ground without getting any confirmation. I also sense a perverse enthusiasm for tying the attacks to the Pakistani government.

I know there are certain reasons this attack garnered so much attention compared to other terrorist attacks in the recent past but I'd just like to point out:

In 2004, Spain was rocked by an attack on a passenger train which killed 191 people and wounded an additional 1,775.

In 2006, attackers set off several bombs on a train in Mumbai, killing over 200 and wounding 700.

Since the start of our War in Iraq, attacks yielding similarly grisly death totals have occurred with tragic frequency.

In 2004, gunman killed over 1000 in Beslan, Russia, over the course of a three day standoff.

In Pakistan, an attack on Benazir Bhutto's motorcade, not long before her assassination, killed 140 and wounded several hundred.

Maybe I'm misremembering, and please correct me, but I do not recall media coverage for any of the above attacks being in the same ballpark as what we observed this past week. These recent Mumbai attacks yielded wall-to-wall live coverage on the cable news, including the preempting of late-night reruns of that prison lock down show they normally put on MSNBC.

There are a lot of reasons this recent attack resonated in the US. For one, its level of sophistication was out of the ordinary. Second, the attacks targeted cultural landmarks, the rich, and Westerners. Third, the attacks were drawn out over a few days.

There is some difference in the coverage of a bombing attack which is a singular brute event and an attack by gunmen, which requires a different breed of attacker and a more skillful police response.

We also know how volatile the region is, particularly when it became clear that Pakistan would have to provide some cooperation.

Nonetheless, I was still struck by how the attack made time stop for the US television media in the midst of a Presidential transition and a financial crisis. Someone I was talking to about this wondered if the Mumbia attacks garnered so much attention because it was a slow holiday news weekend. I considered this but it wouldn't explain why cable news networks would preempt previously scheduled programing. Nor does it make any sense given how the media has seemed to enjoy chewing over the 'team of rivals' thing. I could be wrong about that. Even my beloved Talking Points Memo unveiled the rarely used big headline format to announce the Mumbai attacks as the top story. I was surprised when I encountered this.

The other major thing I noticed was the brazen fashion in which many outlet reported on the attackers' "ties to Pakistan" when it was revealed that the attackers were from Pakistan. This observation may turn out to be moot, as there does seem to be some reasonable suspicions at this point. But I was really struck with the jump to conclusion. And yes, I am familiar with the US cable media.

Sorry that this has been a little disorganized. I don't have a thesis or a conclusion or anything. I'm just wondering if people perceived the coverage of the event similarly. I have come to expect sensational coverage of events out of the US media but I was surprised by the extent to which the Mumbai attacks dominated. Anybody else?

What am I missing?

Update:

This afternoon, NPR's Phillip Reeves delivered a great report from Mumbia that outlined the outrage of everyday Indians at their own government, not just for their response to these attacks, but for widespread failures. Protests are scheduled and word is spreading fast using the tools of new media.

It will be interesting to see how India's government responds to public pressures.

It is wise to be skeptical of India's actions during this crisis, including efforts to use the Pakistan boogieman to divert attention from homegrown shortcomings.

Transparent Bias by Times-Picayune Editors [Updated]

I was looking forward to see how Darran Simon's recap of yesterday's contentious hearing at City Hall in today's paper.

I found it, eventually.

Hidden all the way at the bottom of page B-1.

School-closing plan fuels council anxiety

I don't think I'm just too close to the story when I say that the upcoming vote on the facilities master plan represents the most important event involving public schools since Katrina, or at least since the decision to create the Recovery School District itself. The plan will determine the capacity of New Orleans' public school system for decades. Nobody disputes that. Nobody disputes that funding does not exist for anything beyond the first phase ending in 2013. Nobody disputes that 'landbanked' schools will likely mean demolition and/or resale. Nobody disputes that 'landbanking' is certainly synonymous with closure, even if planners allude to maybe possibly some of the closed schools one day perhaps being considered to be brought back as schools through third party operators.

Those are facts, those are the stakes. Read the article and see for yourself.

Yet, the Times-Picayune determined that this was not a top story today. In fact, the Times-Picayune made the decision that this wasn't even the top education story today. On the front cover of this morning's paper was another story about the RSD, this one about the possibility that four more schools may be turned over to charter operators. Now I'm not arguing that this doesn't merit coverage, as there are certainly people critical of the operator selection process and the ubiquitous involvement of Steven Bingler's sister-in-law's New Schools New Orleans in anything involving charter schools. But is this story nearly as important as the poorly-conceived master plan for school closure?

ABSOLUTELY NOT. It's not even close.

But let's argue for a moment that both stories are important and deserve front cover attention. The T-P could have included both stories, the one about charterization and the other about school closures, but then they would have had to bounce this life-changer that was included amongst the day's top stories instead:

Groom gets feds to snap to attention

That breaking news headline is in regard to some asshole who wore a Navy uniform to his wedding even though he'd never served. Something to note in the third hour of your midday talk radio program? MAYBE. Something for the front page of a major metropolitan newspaper on a day where the city's public school system teeters on the brink of catastrophic planning? HELL NO.

Really bad, Times-Picayune. Really bad.

--

I'd also like to challenge an assertion by Paul Vallas included at the bottom of the closure article:

Vallas pointed out that only one existing occupied building -- Audubon extension -- is scheduled to be closed in phase one.

That's simply false. Even if Mr. Vallas is trying to make the point that all of the currently-occupied schools to be lanbanked under Phase 1 won't close until the end of the phase, he's still making a false claim. Phase I of the master plan runs from 2008-2013.

Let me count them all for you.

(AND REMEMBER, THESE SCHOOLS ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED)

Elementary Schools - from page 90 of the official master plan.

McDonogh 07 - 2012
NO Free School - 2012
Arthur Ashe - 2012
Audobon Extension - 2012
McDonogh 28 - 2012
Dibert - 2012

High Schools - from page 94

Rabouin - 2012
McMain - 2012
Douglass- 2011

Vallas is right if he really meant that Audubon extension will be the first to be closed within phase 1 in 2010, but the currently operating Frederick Douglass High School will close soon after, in 2011. The reality is, however, that FDHS could close after this school year if doing so strikes the fancy of the school district. They are under no legal obligation to keep the school in operation and in fact, had not decided to keep the building open for this year until last May or June.


UPDATE:

But perhaps nothing reflects the editorial bias of the Times-Picayune better than their absolutely ridiculous endorsements for this Saturday's Orleans Parish School Board Race. They pick the conservative establishment choice in every instance such a choice is available. Woody Koppel over Percy Marchand? You've got to be kidding me. Brett Bonin over either Amy LaFont or Davin Boldissar? A bad joke. Seth Bloom over Avis Brock? Totally ill-informed.

The Times-Picayune pretty much endorses the most conservative Board possible, the whitest Board possible, the most anti-union Board possible, the most pro-master plan Board possible.

Percy Marchand in District 6 and Amy Lafont or Davin Boldissar in District 3 are the only OPSB candidates that have taken the time to inform themselves about the consequences of this master plan document and have been brave enough to speak out forcefully with their concerns. Woody Koppel and Brett Bonin are opportunistic insiders looking to climb the ladder. It is imperative that they be defeated.

Times-Picayune editorial board: You're hurting the recovery of this city.

Absolutely infuriating!

McCain in High Def

Even since it became appropriate sometime last spring to anticipate a general election campaign between Barack Obama and John McCain, I've made one point more than any other during many private conversations.

My belief was, and I often emphasized this especially to those most skeptical of Obama's general election chances, was that even if Senator Obama could inly keep it a toss-up until the debates, he'd be fine. Now of course he's performed waaaaay better than that as a candidate and in the polls, already assuaging many of the fears of those feeling anxious after a contentious Democratic primary process but the point remains relevant as we try to understand how the media and voters might differently digest this debate.

My point then, and throughout the summer, was that once you got the two of these candidates side-by-side on television, there would be no mistaking the stronger candidate. Once you put the stoic, tall, young Obama next to the old, short, weathered-not-grizzled McCain, the substance of the debate would be of little consequence. This isn't something that pleases me, because I'd prefer Obama to win purely on the superiority of his policies but it is the reality of the television age of politics.

While most pundits, even Obama supporters like Josh Marshall, have scored the debate as a draw because neither candidate "scored points" or something, early polling data and focus groups indicate a fairly convincing victory for the Senator from Illinois. At this stage of the election, there are few true undecided voters remaining and I could be wrong about this but it is likely that many of these undecideds are not the types that tend evaluate the candidates on their policies. Those that still show no preference between the political agendas of either John McCain or Barack Obama, are either cartoonishly centrist or simply not paying that much attention to policy. Rather, a sizable chunk of undecided voters tend to 'feel' their way to a decision based on an image-based perception of strength, readiness, steadiness, charisma, and consistency.

When you examine CBS's poll of purely "uncommitted voters" Obama is considered the victor by a slightly larger margin.

Getting back to my point about the electoral effect of seeing the two candidates side-by-side, the line I always shot at people skeptical of Obama's chances against the GOP election machine was: Have you seen John McCain in high definition? That line always elicited laughs, and it was meant to be funny, but the larger point was serious. John McCain's age, the wear and tear on his body from several bouts with skin cancer, would speak louder than words. He would 'look' unfit. He would 'look' like the lesser candidate.

And that's precisely how it played out, even if we totally ignore the eye contact/body language miscues that are being emphasized in the media. McCain looked like the weaker man.

How many elections in your lifetime seem to have been decided based on that? Pretty much all of them, right?

Though Jeffrey is dead-on in lamenting the anti-substance fixation on McCain's body language, the reality is that the appearance of the candidates is EXACTLY what people focus on. Save for a major gaffe or transformative moment or line that sticks out, Obama wins all three debates by default.

Coast Guard on Southern Scrap: Rest "Assured"

I'm not too familiar with Sheila Grisset of the Times-Picayune, in fact I'm not sure I've ever noticed anything she's written until today. Her article on a meeting between the local Coast Guard commander and the SE Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East was pretty atrocious. While still failing to provide any long view context as to who Southern Scrap is and the political history of it's recent ownership group, the article also fails to provide any real "news" from the Flood Authority's meeting with Coast Guard Captain Lincoln Stroh. Times-Picayune readers were subjected to a rote summary of what Mr. Stroh told "SELFPAE" (I guess?) and just a few choice quotes without any exploration as to whether or not the Coast Guard would be moving to hold Southern Scrap substantively accountable for their failure to secure their property floating in the Industrial Canal during Hurricane Gustav.

Instead we got lovely loose vessels such as these and are left to our own devices to provide the context:

"I am fully committed to you and the people of this area to help save and protect lives," Stroh told members of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East.

You know Capt. Lincoln Stroh is on the defensive when he's caught publicly reminding people about his commitment to save lives.

And

"Nothing was going to float if Ike had continued on," he told them. Commissioners appealed to Stroh to take a hard line if any company violates his orders in the future.

Way to go SELFPAE (WCBF pronunciation: 'Self-pay'). Dear Coast Guard, next time Southern Scrap jeopardizes the very existence of the city of New Orleans, yell at them.

Wow. That's bad.

Anyway, the thing that jumped out to me beyond that lack of useful context in the article, because I suppose that there is a possibility that T-P editors gave Ms. Grisset a very restrictive length cap, was her repetitive phrasing.

Children, what did Captain Stroh do to the SELFPAE?

He "assured."

In fact, he, in Ms. Grisset's word, "assured" members of the Southeast Louisiana Flood Protection Authority-East three times within a very short article.

Eh, maybe I'm being hard on her. (Mirror check: my writing is horrendously wordy all of the time and just plain horrendous some of the time.)

I don't know about everybody else, but I don't want the Coast Guard's "assurance" that 'this won't happen again.' I want Southern Scrap to be punished. I want them out of the Industrial Canal entirely and I want the city and the Coast Guard to recoup monetary damages for actions necessitated by the vessels that Scrap officials failed to properly secure.

I don't think it would have compromised Ms Grisset's objectivity to press Captain Stroh and members of SELFPAE just a little bit about the possibility of actual penalties being levied against Southern Scrap.

But I never went to journalism school so what the hell do I know?

Gov't Suppressing Coverage of Ike's Devastation?

We know that FEMA is badly bungling the response to Ike in the Houston area but are forces also working to restrict the media from reporting the gravity of the situation?

Here's a huge collection of heartbreaking photos from Crystal Beach. There are lots of aerial shots if you scroll down.

Useless

This article in the T-P about the priorities of Louisiana voters is a stinking pile because the polls on which the piece is based were poorly constructed and poorly worded. It made me mad. If I'm a politician or a consultant, there is not one conclusion or piece of data that I'd find informative or useful in any way. This sentence is particularly dismal:

Coming in last as a "very important issue" was global warming, considered "very important" by 41.3 percent of the 600 likely voters called between Aug. 20 and Aug. 24.

Ugh.

Priorities: Rate-Gate v. Abuse of Power

Mayor Clarence Ray Nagin sure did create a stir toward the end of last week at a hastily organized press conference to entice Houston-area evacuees to come stay in New Orleans. In what has become his public speaking trademark, Mayor Nagin went off script, appealing to Hurricane Ike evacuees with promises of reciprocal hospitality.

From WDSU:

"Just ask for the Mayor Ray Nagin special rate," Nagin said. "I guarantee you're going to get one of the best rates you've ever gotten in the city of New Orleans. We're ready for you to come, to take care of you like you've taken care of us."

Immediately, this didn't sit well with the Gambit and after a few phone calls it was established that there had been no effort to actually organize a discount for Hurricane evacuees.

It turns out that these comments are indeed marginally problematic. While the Mayor may have only intended to attract evacuees to area businesses still suffering the economic impact of Hurricane Gustav, his off the cusp joke that hotels would be offering a "Mayor Ray Nagin special rate" to Ike evacuees was irresponsible. It is un-mayoral and insensitive to joke at a press conference billed as an informational appeal to hurricane evacuees. With millions of people displaced from the Houston, unsure of the fate of their homes, scrambling to find the cheapest way to safety, and vigilantly monitoring the airwaves for serious reports, Mayor Nagin's playful attitude was out of place. His quip alluding to a special discount for Hurricane evacuees opened the door for unnecessary confusion, potentially adding insult to injury to Houston-area evacuees.

Bloggers were pretty outraged over the Mayor's comments but I was very surprised to see that the Times-Picayune deemed the Mayor's false advertisement of a 'special rate' to be front page material for Saturday's paper. The AP wrote about it too and the story got picked up all over the place at WWL, WDSU, and nationally via MSNBC.

Was this a front page story?

No way. Not even close. Not even on a Saturday. The head of the hospitality bureau had to hastily send out a clarifying email to hotel managers? God forbid.

And it's not as if this was a particularly slow news day.

Our national financial institutions are being compromised, a major hurricane was bore down on the fourth biggest city in the country, and the most important election ever is just seven weeks away.

On the local level, Hurricane Ike brought new flooding to areas still powerless after Hurricane Gustav. State and municipal officials flunked on the basic task of food stamp distribution for thousands of New Orleans struggling to get back on their feet.

Even if the paper were to only cover Mayor Nagin and ignore everything else going on in the region or on the planet, "rate-gate" still doesn't deserve main page coverage.

This does. Also read this, this, and this.

In a strangely calculated grab for power, Mayor Nagin issued an unnecessary executive order during the Gustav state of emergency that suspends the Neighborhood Conservation District Committee that reviews properties slated to be demolished by the city. The stated rationale for doing this was to expedite the demolition of buildings in imminent danger of collapse. Yet immediately we know that this is ridiculous because buildings classified as in imminent danger of collapse already automatically bypass the NCDC. We know this because the Mayor was already rebuked for his lack of knowledge of the demolition process in July when he claimed that a collapsed building in Broadmoor would force the administration to streamline the historic review process. That building had long been cleared for demolition and was not held up by any review process but instead by the private contractor hired by the city.

So if NCDC has no purview over buildings classified as in imminent danger of collapse, then why has Mayor Nagin suspended it? From the T-P:

Of 162 demolition permits issued since last week, 64 percent were assigned to the city contractor hired to tear down properties in imminent danger of collapse, according to a review by Matt McBride, an activist who maintains a database of demolition permits granted since Katrina.

Of the remaining 57 permits that were handed to private contractors or to the city vendor assigned to tear down Katrina-damaged buildings, 52 are located in areas where the committee's review would have been required. Of those, 24 were slated for review at a meeting scheduled for Sept. 2, the day after Gustav struck, the review shows.

Very plainly, Mayor Nagin's suspension of the NCDC was not about IDC properties but about subverting the review process to hand out demolition permits that otherwise may not have been authorized and pay out demolition reimbursements to another closely-tied private contractor firm. Durr Heavy Construction, which appears to be the biggest monetary beneficiary of demolition contracts, is registered to Steven Stumpf. Remember that the Stumpf is amongst the partners that profitted from the post-Katrina reopening of the Old Gentilly Landfill. Stumpf and Jimme Woods, of the much-maligned Metro disposal, secured a sweetheart deal at the end of the Morial administration:

In 2001, Stumpf and Woods formed a joint venture and submitted the only proposal to operate the new facility. In the final days of the Morial administration in early 2002, they signed a deal under which -- provided the landfill received a state permit -- they would keep 97 percent of the proceeds, with the city getting the other 3 percent.

According to campaign finance filings, the Amid partnership organized for the landfill have given $12,500 to Ray Nagin since the storm. The last $2,500 was given in 2007 while the first $10,000 was given in two $5,000 chunks a few days apart in April of 2006. The donations were obscured so as not to overtly violate campaign finance law. The first $5,000 donation came from Amid Metro Partnership LLC. of 817 Hickory Ave. 70125. The second came from Amid Landfill of 817 Hickory Ave. 70123. Another Stumpf company, Harvey Canal Holdings, gave an additional $5,000 to the Nagin reelection campaign that same week. The only listed contribution originating specifically from Durr Heavy Construction was one for $2,500 received in 2004.

When you give $15,000 in a one week period to a candidate fighting for his political life you tend to get your needs met.

(FACT CHECK UPDATE: It would appear that I misinterpreted the relationship between the executive order and Durr Heavy Construction. In fact, the regular permits that normally bypass NCDC for imminent danger of collapse go to Durr Heavy Construction. The city has continued to issue these types of permits since Gustav to Durr. However, the under the Executive Order, a separate contractor is used, DRC Emergency Services, the biggest beneficiary of the Mayor's unnecessary order. DRC Emergency Services is moments from being fired by the city for failure to live up to the requirements of it's post-Gustav debris removal contract. In addition to being one of the primary contractors indirectly implicated in the federal lawsuit filed earlier this year against the city for improper demolitions, Moldy City reminds us that they've won at least one Post-K contract in partnership with Southern Scrap. From the T-P:

DRC also holds a contract with the city to demolish blighted homes. A company executive, Robert Isakson, co-hosted a fundraiser for Nagin shortly after his 2006 election. DRC, a sister company and Isakson combined donated at least $11,500 to Nagin's war chest.

But as Moldy has pointed out already, DRC's relationship with the city is complex and has been alternatively hot and cold. Sorry for the confusion, it seems I got caught up in the alphabet soup.)

So while I applaud the T-P and other New Orleans news sources for having picked up on the NCDC suspension scandal, I would suggest that it is an everyday headline-caliber story. With everything going on, to so scandalize the hotel rate slip-up seems awfully petty, particularly when considering the Mayor's much more vindictive and unethical activities this week.

UPDATE:

New Orleans bloggers are increasingly aware of the influence they have. We can fight the Mayor on this and we must. Contact members of the City Council NOW

Let me second this post from Moldy City. Councilman James Carter, a candidate for Congress, has had ample opportunity this summer to win over skeptical voters by exercising his power on Council and standing up to Mayor Nagin. During the NOAH scandal, after Jackie Clarkson embarssed herself in a feeble attempt to make it appear as though everyone was playing nice, Councilman Carter could have stood up and provided real leadership during a tense week. He did not.

He would be wise not to pass on this. It may be his last opportunity to demonstrate in practice what he promises he'll do at Congress in theory.

Turning Point?

Palin's answers to Charlie Gibson's softballs were not vague in any cute or folksy kind of way. Instead, she came off as woefully unprepared and uninformed. There's really no silver lining; the McCain camp squandered a great deal of political capital in setting preconditions for this interview and isolated Palin for days from the media to help her prepare but she performed miserably.

Obama is out with two very strong new ads, one raises touches on how out of touch John McCain is with modern times and the other is an extremely positive ad that confronts the GOP's claim that they can be change too.

Meanwhile, McCain's latest ad is another grotesque race-baiter, inaccurately portraying Sarah Palin as a victim of fabricated viciousness on the part of Obama and Biden, using a female voice over to derisively call Senator Obama "disrespectful," you know in an uppity kind of way. Uppity meaning presumptuous or something. They've crossed some lines this week with this ad and with the one about teaching sex to kindergartners.

(See all three ads together here)

Elsewhere, John McCain is finally being forced to defend his choice by reporters in unlikely places. A local Maine TV reporter asked John McCain if Sarah Palin has any experience in the field of national security. Senator McCain paused awkwardly and then said "energy."

Then this morning on the VIEW of all places, John McCain was put on the spot repeatedly and did not fair well at all. I especially recommend McCain's dance around pointed questioning of what exactly Sarah Palin was going to reform in Washington, given who has been in power. In his answer, McCain LIES, falsely claiming that Sarah Palin has not requested earmarks as Governor of Alaska. In another critical segment, the girls confront John McCain on his campaign's recent attack ads, bringing up the ridiculous pigstick controversy and the lies about Obama's sex-ed legislation. They questioned whether or not McCain really approved of these things and he indeed does. This is a critical development because so many pundits this week have expressed their disbelief that John McCain actually approves of the negativity coming out of his own campaign. If you watch the clip, John McCain clearly stands by the ads even after the Walters and Co. reminded him that his campaign's claims are patently false in many instances.

Thus, a very encouraging day so far. The McCain camp's inappropriate and unjustifiable demands for deference from the press may have paid off earlier in the week but the viciousness and blatancy of the lies put forth and the refusal to address them when called out ultimately seems to have pushed the media to a relative breaking point. No more free passes on Palin's qualifications for office and no more free passes on the repetition of blatant falsehoods on the stump and in attack ads.

I still think the best course of action for the Obama campaign is to continue to avoid addressing Sarah Palin directly. She is still going to evoke the strong sympathies many and will still be put forth by the McCain camp as a victim of the media and of viciousness from Obama in manner that will create some wiggle room for McCain to dishonorably continue to push the envelope with racial imagery. Besides, it is John McCain that should be forced to answer for his own judgment, policies, and platform. And because it is impossible to ignore Sarah Palin's increasingly apparent unfitness, it is John McCain that should be forced to answer for his decision to bring her on the ticket and for the lies and character smears his campaign continues to propagate.

All Pigstick All Day

I worked my service industry job during the day today and it was slow so I got to watch a whole lot of MSNBC. I was treated to an entire day of this stupid back and forth over the lipstick pig comment. It's a funny thing, this controversy, because the media actually seems to be accurately portraying the fracas as an intentional misinterpretation of the remarks on the part of the McCain campaign to avoid discussing policy. But the media kept on leading every hour with 'lipstick politics.' Chris Mathews, who absolutely demolished the McCain camp on this and expressed utter frustration that it's even being covered nonetheless still devoted two whole segments to it. Even NPR talked about it.

So even though the media fairly vetted both sides in the controversy, they were still doing the bidding of the McCain campaign by making this thing the top story all day long. The McCain camp didn't much care that the media was largely debunking their claims because the focus stayed on the Palin personality and off of the repulsive policies of the GOP.

And unfortunately, the Obama campaign chose to play defense on this controversy all day. Barack Obama even responded personally. He did so effectively, tying this distraction to all the failed discourses of past election years, but he was still in response-mode.



Playing armchair campaign consultant, I would have recommended, once it became clear during the mid-morning that the McCain camp was effectively making this pigstick comment an all-day affair, that the Obama campaign craft a simple press release. In it, I would have spelled out all the criticisms that Senator Obama outlined in the video above but also that the campaign considered the matter closed and would not be issuing any more statements on the matter. Campaign representatives and talking heads would then have grounds to completely pivot away from responding to this bullsh*t to remind viewers about the detailed policy proposals that Senator Obama outlined in Denver.