Fact v. Journalism
John Hinderaker posts this rather informative tidbit which leads one to the very logical conclusion that the media's reporting on the events at the New Orleans Superdome and the Convention Center were at best sloppy and unsourced, and at worst, knowing falsehoods.
But in all fairness, I'll put it this way: the media, in a truly irresponsible and unprofessional fashion reported what they knew to be unsubstantiated rumors of human atrocities at those sites. But they did it because those accounts fit the picture that they were trying to paint of the disaster, and particularly the perception they wished to create that Bush was allowing the misery to happen. But I think there is a deeper angle to this than just sleazy reporting.
Let's say that the Superdome was filled with folks from the wealthiest neighborhoods in New Orleans. Nothing but. Mostly white, middle age people. The conditions after a while would have been much the same--a breakdown in the public health system, a foul pervasive odor, unmet needs, and a facility falling apart. But would the media have reported on children being murdered and raped in that case? (Thanks to Reuters who believes anything bad which happens under "the rotors of President George W. Bush's helicopter.) Or was it somehow a more believable tale when told in the environment of low income, mainly black inner city folk?
Is this what the media thinks of Black America?
And is their plight little more than a political tool to slime a President the media-left despises?