22 Responses to “Covering Katrina”

1. JonGarfunkel Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 12:29 am

   Hey Brendan–

   Thanks. I appreciated the shows on Whitman and Garrison, those were long-planned, and timeless. Of course we can’t ignore this story. I wish the enthusiasm for blogs should evolve into a more critical analysis of information systems.

   For one, the report on the refugee-matching tools (PeopleFinder, FamilyLinks et al) was promised. But it was just a lovefest between new media masters. Meanwhile, on tonight’s All Things Considered, Mandalit del Barco did some real beat reporting by uncovering the problems with the whole process– yes, we have databases, but there’s still a disconnect to people on the ground in the shelters.

   Secondly, there’s an eerie dissonance with the way that the recent wars were conducted, or even how 9/11 played out. There were always official press conferences, with maps, with questions, etc. Have I missed that here? Sure it’s one part PR gambit, but the reason to have a press conference is to reassure everybody that somebody’s in charge and possesses all the facts. If we had a more open (in the open-source) style of governance, officials would walk out of a meeting room and announce to the cameras: here’s what we decided.

   One last thought, however maligned Barbara Bush’s comments were, I just listened to them online. And what’s amazing is that this is the only statement of humanity from the First Family. Am I unawares as to the where the rest of the President’s brood has been?

2. Nikos Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 1:52 am

   I’d like to know this: can anyone say with complete certainty that if the levee-refurbishment proposals had been funded fully instead of cut since fiscal-2001, the flooding might have been mitigated? Isn’t it possible that Army Corps of Engineer levee work done in 2002, 2003, 2004, and/or early 2005 might have raised and strengthened the Seventeenth Street canal wall?
   We The People need to know the truth about our government’s priorities, and not just their exculpatory spin. If the feds are guilty of criminal negligence, WE NEED TO KNOW IT!

3. Kat Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 2:17 am

   I would like to know how the NOPD can insist people leave their animals behind when it could be the very thing that would save their lives, by letting them take the animals, bring them to one of the animals rescue groups of the MANY MANY that are there, and reunite later. No, the want them to leave them stranded, after being with them the last horrible week. They want them to give up the last thing they have that comforts them. Whether you agree with animal rescue or not, at the very least you must agree that this is a psychological issue for these poor people who have lost EVERYTHING. Why is this such a hard thing to figure out?????????

4. Abby Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 6:02 am

   JonGarfunkel,

   I think that Bush 41 said some basic things about how the people of the Gulf are going to need our help for a long time. It was bland and inoffensive. Not great, but not bad. That’s why you haven’t heard much about his remarks.

5. Raymond Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 8:59 am

   Brendan, thank you for the specific request for comments.

   Can Radio Open Source sort out for us just where the responsibilites lie in the immedate aftermath of a disaster? Who by orgainization, position and name makes the immediate decisions? Are these inidividuals at the federal, state, or local level, or all three? Did these individuals report directly to the president prior to decisions being made?

   Perhaps this line of questioning is a little less than compelling, but just this morning in the Globe a letter to the editor called for the president’s impeachment. Such sentiments do not seem to me to be rooted in the reality of the process, but I would want to know if it is otherwise.

6. avecfrites Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 10:04 am

   If global warming is real, we can expect to see more Katrinas, hitting other cities. What do we do as a country if we have a Katrina every year somewhere else? Do we harden our coastal cities, or shut them down except for essential commercial use and move the people elsewhere? If we get a Katrina each year, what does the US look like 20 years from now?

7. mfortner Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 11:24 am

   One of your recent guests alluded to a recent paper in Nature that said that due to global warming storms like Katrina were going to increase in frequency and severity, and that the hurricane seasons were going to last longer. This means that it won’t do any good to rebuild New Orleans to withstand a Category 4 storm, if they’re going to be the norm, and more ferocious storms are going to occur.

   I’d like to hear from some of the people who are planning on rebuilding New Orleans and what they’re plans are going to be to deal with these storms. The 1900 Galveston storm resulted in the entire city being raised several meters and a sea wall being built. Are there plans to do something similar in New Orleans? Should New Orleans be rebuilt, or should it just be moved? If so, where?

   A lot of the current confusion and problems that evacuees are having with benefits checks, locating relatives, identifying relatives, getting medication would be alleviated with a National ID card. If countries like Brazil and Belgium can do it, why can’t we? Will this disaster spur calls for better means of identification and for more centralized disaster relief databases? If so, who’s in the driver’s seat on the issue? FEMA? Social Security?

   Most of the organizational confusion seems to revolve around the “who’s in charge here” question? Despite having practiced this scenario last year, why are we still having questions about this? We’ve had claims in some newspapers that part of the reason for the delay in getting FEMA and National Guard unit’s deployed was the fact that the Mayor and the Govenor didn’t want to relinquish control to federal agencies.

   Why did we have parking lots full of school buses stand idle when the SuperDome was filling up? Why weren’t trains and planes commandeered to handle the early evacuation? The scenario they practiced last year called for school buses to be used to evacuate people, what happened to that plan and why wasn’t it followed?

   It would be good to pursue why people were reluctant to evacuate for a 3rd time after the calls for evacuation due to Cindy the previous month. Is this just another “failure of imagination” on the part of the citizenry and the officials?

   How is Katrina going to change the building codes in the area? Are we going to mandate shutters, and roof clips on all coastal buildings?

   Will it change the way we plan our cities and towns? We we devolve our cities in towns of 60-70 thousand to make evacuation easier, and even out the economic strata. If you wander around the Netherlands, the whole country feels like one large village. You don’t really have large inner city pockets of economically deprived people, surrounded by large pockets of affluent people. The Dutch also make commuting a lot easier, since bus, train and tram service is easily available. Could we see engineering projects like the Zuiderzee project here in the US? Could we see New Orleans become something like that? How could some of our larger cities evolve in that direction? What would it take? You might want to contact the Gulf Coast Institute and interview them. Will the tradition of incompetent government that Louisiana has had dating back to the aborted reconstruction era, prevent it from getting back on it’s feet quickly?

   How is Katrina going to change our priorities when it comes to getting off of gasoline? A recent article in Wired proposed a 10 year program similar to the Apollo program to accelerate the development of fuel cell technologies? We have some really innovative fuel cell car designs from GM recently.

   Our demands on fossil fuels are going to continue to accelerate in the short term. Will China’s need for energy accelerate our own development of fuel cell technologies? China doesn’t have the gasoline infrastructure that we have — are they better positioned to leap frog the whole need for gasoline? What programs do they have in place for making the transition? What can we to work together and accelerate the whole process?

   In the short-term could we see a change in the economics of hybrid engines in the form of a tax for all cars that use internal combustion engines? This would even out the price differences between the two technologies. If so, which politicians are actively involved in these areas and can you get them as guests?

   I’d also like to see some changes to your show:

   (1) I know that Chris Lydon has a liberal bias, but I’m not really interested in his politics, and as a journalist he shouldn’t be part of the news but interact with both sides of the fence with equal objectivity. You’ve had a few shows lately where that hasn’t been happening.

   (2) Your show has absolutely nothing to do with Open Source technologies aside from the fact that it uses them. Calling it that seems deceptive at best. I’m probably not the first one to point this out. Just because I use Open Office, doesn’t mean I’m going to call my business Open Office.

   (3) Have Chris stop interrupting his guests. It’s rude, and unprofessional and irritates the hell out of me. You don’t hear Bob Edwards doing that, or the BBC.

   (4) Don’t interrupt guests to go to an imaginary commercial break. You’re a public radio show, you don’t have real commercials, and the commercials you do have can wait wait 30 seconds for your guest to finish what he’s saying.

8. gorrbucks Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 12:34 pm

   A lot of people have said that they can’t understand why people wouldn’t evacuate both before and after the storm. I’d like to see some discussion about what the effects of being such a consumer-driven society causes in disasters like these. People are so addicted to their ‘stuff’ that many were unwilling to leave, while others risked their lives to loot yet more stuff.

   I know it’s not that people literally stayed to be with their possesions, but most of us have such a strong attachment to our stuff that the thought of it all being gone in the blink of an eye is unimaginable. So the fear of losing everything has to play into people’s minds on some level when it comes to making decisions about leaving.

   This touches upon an earlier post that talked about leaving animals behind. What’s really important to us and how do we make decisions based on it?

9. allison Says:
   September 9th, 2005 at 1:57 pm

   As someone offering to house an evacuee family, I find myself considering the long-term impact of doing so. I don’t think that people will be able to return to New Orleans for a long time because it is now a Superfund site. I am concerned that people are being asked to help for up to six months when the evacuees won’t have anywhere to go in six months. Why aren’t we asking for longer-term solutions? I am assuming that this could be longer term, so that I won’t harbor resentment when it is. Or feel guilty that I want people to leave who can’t leave.

   We need to build support systems for longer-term arrangements. I will have to spend a few thousand dollars to get my house into a comfortable state if we are to have an extra family in the space. I have a rich life, but I am poor. I have a start-up small business, a young child, an unemployed ex-husband. We want to offer what we have – lots of space, right here in Boston. I’ve made arrangements for a child/children to attend the same private school my daughter attends. But we don’t really have money. We’ll figure it out. But is this kind of monetary need stopping others from offering? Can we find grant money for them?

   Then there are long-term considerations of helping people who have just been through quite trauma. How will they cope? Will they want to go back? Will they want to stay in their host communities? How do they build community? And how do they heal? Who provides for all the care that will be required to get people back on their feet? Where do we turn when the host families are impacted by the trauma?

   The questions go on. So many of us have an instinctual response to offer what we can. Yet, we don’t really know what the long-term impact of that offer will be. Can we start talking about this as a long-term issue and not a short-term one? I believe that if we did, people would more seriously consider what they can offer. If we talk about and begin to create financial and community support systems, many people may be more willing to help.

10. catsforme Says:
    September 10th, 2005 at 1:22 am

    The cable news channels until this week have been filled with outrageous, extreme, insulting, belittling, condescending, outright arrogant statements/images re the animal victims of Katrina and the skilled, trained animal rescuers who have been fighting a losing battle with authorities and the media to find, rescue and save the thousands of animals stranded by Katrina. The anchors in particular have ridiculed, attacked, cast aspersions on the credibility and the very sanity of their viewers who have challenged them re their indifference to the animals’ plight and imminent horrific deaths. The animal rescuers were and are still being obstructed at every turn by the authorities which has been and continues to be cruelly compounded by the media’s blithe uncaring relentless broadcasts of animals being totally ignored, with impunity, as they cruise by in their boats, pointing out the dogs dying in the trees, on the tops of cars and on the roofs, clinging so desperately at life– without a prayer of rescue because there are not enough rescue boats and the media and authorities will not lift a finger to help in any way shape or form. The thousands dogs, cats, horses and other pets who have already died and those dying slowly, in agony, terror, pain and confusion revealed to the world the current low depths of American indifference, out right self-absorption and nonchalance towards animals.

    The TV images have been constant, relentless – coupled with the blatant callousness and arrogance of the broadcast anchors (O’Reilly, Aaron Brown, Anderson Cooper and their ilk – especially all the coverage showing rescue boats blithely cruising by animals on roofs and clinging to trees, without stopping or caring to try to help these innocents) – these images have implanted and reinforced the world view that animals do not matter, their lives have little significance or import, and most blatantly, any suffering or death is immaterial. Animals are now reduced to less than garbage.

    The 1993 floods were horrific beyond belief; many of us thought it couldn’t get worse. During that crisis the airwaves showed the animal rescues that were underway almost immediately. These rescues were deemed worthy of attention and were applauded. It is now so much worse; animal rescues are considered trivial, childish, unimportant, a waste of time & resources; the deterioration in attitude/world view is profound.

    This must be challenged and fought against the authorities, local, state, federal, as well the Red Cross & Salvation Army etc. which still force victims to dump their beloved furry families, with no provision for their safety, well-being, their very lives. Simultaneously the media must be challenged and brought to task for compounding this disaster into a holocaust against all animal species.

    Even though I live on the West Coast I have registered with the appropriate animal groups indicating I can provide foster care/home placement for rescued Katrina cats and kittens (that includes the cost of airfare to Seattle). I already have a feline family (all rescues) but I could not live with myself or look in the mirror if I did not take steps to help save innocent lives.

11. andycarvin Says:
    September 10th, 2005 at 9:26 am

    I’ve actually seen something quite different on CNN at least. I can’t get through a day without four or five segments about the animal rescues. I’ve seen stories on Noah’s Wish, the LSU Vet School, HSUS, the LSPCA, plus countless stories of people being reunited with their pets or their frantic search for them. CNN reported Jeanne Meserve broke down and cried while recounting what she’d seen animals experiencing.

    There are clearly a lot of people out there that don’t give a damn about these animals, and others who believe that human rescues must take precedent. I don’t fault CNN for airing those views, but when I’ve seen them, it’s been in the context of debate, not condoning it. As someone who’s already given to Noah’s Wish, the LSPCA, my local SPCA, and is about to leave the apartment to lead a team of walkers at the MSPCA Walk for Animals this morning, I can’t say I’ve been disappointed by CNN’s coverage. It breaks my heart when I see the footage of animals not being rescued, but I blame the authorities who don’t let rescue crews save people while saving humans, not the reporters for that. Reporters and camera crews wouldn’t be allowed to go on these boats if they tried to force them to rescue animals when their assignment is to rescue people. It’s heartbreaking, yes, but not the fault of the journalists.

    One small bit of good news is that the general in charge of the military in the Gulf Coast has revised the rules so that rescue crews can and should pick up animals whenever possible. Hopefully some of the stories that have been told by CNN and others will raise enough public ire so that the next time we have a disaster like this, animal rescue will be part of the rescue policy from the get-go.

    ac

12. Mick Says:
    September 10th, 2005 at 10:14 pm

    *The phony photo-ops haven’t been covered despite Landrieu’s outrage about the levee and the footage on German tv from Mississippi.

    *The plan to declare martial law that began on Sunday–before the hurricane hit–hasn’t been covered.

13. Potter Says:
    September 10th, 2005 at 10:31 pm

    Many of the above suggestions about covering Katrina/New Orleans are very good. I really appreciate that we have been asked for this input about what we would like to hear.

    I posted most of my comments and suggestions on this subject in the “suggest a show” thread before this one was created so I won’t repeat myself.

    I also said that I totally agree and am outraged by the stupidity of rescue crews refusing to take animals, forcing holdouts to choose between staying with their pets or being rescued. People would no more leave their beloved pets than leave a child. It’s been heartbreaking to watch. But hopefully the footage has broken enough hearts to cause a stir and things have changed for the better. I am afraid that many animals will still be abandoned or get sick or starve to death. It really hurts to see because they are helpless and dependent ( and innocent). Anyway I am glad I have so much company on this thread.

    Today’s (Saturday Sept. 10) New York Times op-ed page had several essays on thoughts about what should happen next for New Orleans. I thought they were interesting.Today also the Washington Post posted an article ( for Sunday the 11th) that is quite good. “A Sad Truth:Cities Aren’t Forever” by Joel Garreau who makes some very good points. I link it here but I do not know how long the link will be good:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/09/AR2005090902448_pf.html

14. JonGarfunkel Says:
    September 11th, 2005 at 11:27 am

    “mfortner” raises some good off-topic points about the show in general. I don’t fully agree on all them, biut I’d like to discuss them in an open manner somewhere. And we’ve reached the core architectural fault of of the weblog format– blog tools put conversations with each post, but don’t provide forums for longer-lasting conversations. And furthermore users can’t initiate discussion topics. The Open Thread: Your Ideas page is now 163 posts long, and takes 80 screenfuls to scroll down.

15. evan Says:
    September 11th, 2005 at 4:30 pm

    A few stories from people who were actually there.

    Also the question “What’s to be done now?” in regards to the verdict The Times arrived it in regard to the the Administration’s inactivity and ineffectiveness.

    Also also: in regards to mfortner’s third footnote: Chris is not Charlie Rose, and there’s a need, in an interview, to keep the interviewee from giving a speech.

16. allison Says:
    September 11th, 2005 at 5:38 pm

    mfortner refers to this show as ‘news’. I didn’t understand it to be that. There is a difference between journalism and a salon type conversation or a talk show. We don’t hold talk show hosts to the same expectations as journalists.

    I like having a program where the host has an opinion. Chris’ views are generally well-thought out and well-articulated. His willingness to debate with his guests and push up against them with his (or a devi’s advocate) perspective gives his interviews an energy that I appreciate. Its never dry. Its not as though he is an uneducated fanatic. He is intellectually stimulating, full of character and willing to speak out without being sensational or preying on base fears to drive audience reactions.

    I am very excited to have his refreshing presence back on the Boston radio scene.

17. JonGarfunkel Says:
    September 11th, 2005 at 10:23 pm

    Well, as long as we’re discussing this here…
    Agreed with Evan that Chris should interrupt the guests who are starting to give speeches, but of course he should do it fairly.

    Also to Allison’s comment, there’s indeed been a lot of talk in recent times, about who is a journalist, and how much journalists should make their own opinion known, and the blog boosters have burnished the myth that publishing a blog is needed to transform a staid reporter into a opinion-touting member of society. Chris has been following much of that conversation.

    There are of course moments that a radio host has to choose between being the advocate for themselves and for the devil. For example, when Alan Wolfe chimed in that our current President is a dope, Chris saw no reason to object (neither would most people I know). But it’s also an opportunity for a radio host to say, “Now, Alan, is there something that the President could do, even now, to win your respect?” If the host is too knee-jerk liberal, he risks losing some people in the middle.

    To be truly open source, somebody could take the trouble to audit all the guest interruptions, all the dropped points, the frustrated callers, etc., and submit it here, and it would be published. It’s esoterica, but if we as a community want to make this the best radio show there is, and we want to all be involved in making that so, by collating the solid evidence of just how well it’s run, we’d like to see that. That’s the IT person in me speaking. Most of what I want are the “driveway moments” that make public radio what it is.

18. KenLac Says:
    September 13th, 2005 at 8:02 am

    The ounce of prevention angle: what would it have costed to bring those levees and walls up to Cat5 standards, vrs. what we’re paying out to rebuild. (Not to be cold about it — the loss in human suffering is incalcuable.)

19. allison Says:
    September 13th, 2005 at 10:14 am

    Today there is an article in the Globe about a family who went through a lot to get to a church in Somerville where they expected to find some kind of stable housing. Instead they were shown cots in the basement. The family was so disappointed they have gone to a hotel and are seeking something more stable.

    With all good intention of offering something to people in crisis, this is exactly the kind of mishap that I was mentioning earlier. We have not had a response to our offer to house a family and as I read this, I know that it is imperative that we really create living quarters, like an apartment within the house, where we share the kitchen. The cost to do this might be about $15,000 – to make sure there is a private bathroom and bedrooms and living room and that we can still function as a household. Are others prepared for how long-term the need is? And how much people need the feeling of stability after being dislodged so abruptly.

20. mfortner Says:
    September 13th, 2005 at 11:00 am

    There are actually a couple of problems with Chris’ interruptions that wanted to bring forth. In the conversation on Katrina, he was egging on the liberal view point, and the conservative viewpoint was literally lost in the static of a bad cell phone connection. When the host starts advocating a viewpoint, they lose their objectivity, and is the objectivity that we expect and need from the Fourth Estate. At some point you have to draw the line and admit that you don’t have a balanced guest list, and either reschedule, or add an impromptu guest that can fill in. Otherwise it just degenerates into one sided grand standing.

    I did notice yesterday that Chris was hanging back a little and was a little less obtrusive. But the second problem with his interruptions, beyond just the rudeness, is the fact that there’s obviously some kind of engineering problem at the studio because Chris’s sound level is way up and his guests are way down. I kept fiddling back and forth with the volume all during my commute. It’s not just a one time thing either. Admittedly this may be due to the difference between FM and XM radio, namely that digital radio is more sensitive to differences in sound levels.

    I agree with Allison that the role of host/journalist is to draw the best out of the guest, but you’re never going to get that through interruption. A lot of what passes for journalism nowadays consists of entertaining mindless mental whirlygigs like the Anderson 360 show which just a series of sound bytes. And they tend to ask questions that are designed to get those sound bytes, but in a public radio forum like Open Source, this medium is designed to explore the hard questions, the ones that take a while to answer.

21. Potter Says:
    September 13th, 2005 at 4:28 pm

    I think I would get annoyed if Chris interrupted anyone who was making a point that I wanted to hear the end of. So far I have found myself feeling that way. I know what that is like because I have listened to other hosts that do interrupt indiscriminately and have wanted to scream out of frustration.

    I hate the breaks too but commercial radio is far far worse. I don’t think there is much choice. Maybe the MP3′s cut them out. Still it’s a break in thought. I do think that these are finessed rather respectfully and the point is picked up usually. I admit it is frustrating when it is not. Again I have not felt this as a problem.

    I prefer not to think in terms of liberal or conservative but rather that this is a quest or a search and we are dependent on the host to lead and be informed in doing so. I think Chris is scrounging around for those magical moments for himself. Sometimes they happen, sometimes unexpectedly, sometimes not. The “open” part of open source is the relative openness of minds. The source can be anything, anyone that gives a spark. The game is to find meaning. When you divide us into liberals and conservatives or whatever- it destroys any magic you might be looking for.

    Chris rates very high compared to any others that I have listened to. Tweek him to perfection if you will- I am sure he’s listening.

    I agree about the sound problem with guests that are not in the studio or on bad phone connections. Callers are often on such bad phones. That is true of most of the shows I listen to though.

22. Potter Says:
    September 13th, 2005 at 4:29 pm

    I meant to say above : “so far I have NOT found myself feeling that way” Sorry.

Write a Reply