Beating The Bush

Friend O’ Mine sent me a fast email with the CNN story saying Bush had apologized for his response to the hurricane. “WOW!” he said. “This is a first.”

I responded this way: “Smart.... America loves a contrite, apologetic confessional and the person who makes one.”

Then I wrote Friend O’ Mine, “Bet in fuller context he means that he was the person with final responsibility (buck stops here deal) and should have known better despite the layers of otherwise information and advice...etc. etc. Sniff: do you smell the lurking smell of Karl Rove in the ‘bushes?’”

It was supposed to be slightly more clever than it was certain, so I checked out the story. Damn if I wasn’t correct.

Our stand-up President actually said, “…to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I take responsibility."

That’s the kind of apology I used to give to my mother when I was a kid and she caught me doing something bad. I also always immediately promised that I’d never do it again. Until the next time I get caught, I was really thinking.

And Thursday night Bush goes on TV to tell us how much he cares. At least now. Ah, but it’s only the hot breath of Karl Rove breathing down his neck, like my mother used to with me.

The Gray Lady: 2 Stories

The NY Times, which has long been known as the Gray Lady, the journalistic standard, well she ain't what she used to be. Woman I Know (WIK) who cares, deeply, about such things discovered that the Times was running a list, supplied to it by the infamous FEMA of fast and furious Katrina response fame, of places you and I can send our hurricane relief money to. Included in the list is one for Operation Blessing, a project underwritten by the equally infamous Pat Robertson, so recently blogged right here. Now this Woman I Know finds anything associated with Robertson slightly suspect, feels that it comes with conservative Christian strings attached. Nothing in the Times list was revealed. So WIK went right at it with the Public Editor (aka Ombudsman, aka aka Byron Calame) asking why the paper of record wasn't on the record about any of this. From what I understand there were phone calls and emails between WIK and the public editor (his assistant actually) until she finally received this:

Thank you for your message and your concern for those in need.

Unfortunately, The Times can't be more helpful in this situation. The
paper is already trying to make it as clear as possible that the list of
charities is suggested by FEMA and not The Times.

I hope you can understand that The Times simply doesn't have the resources
required to check out each charity and repeat those checks frequently
enough to vouch for a long list of charities.

Byron Calame
Public Editor
The New York Times

It was as though she had received a "dear occupant" letter for all its real concern.

This is the New York Times! They don't have the resources?

The paper certainly does have absolute responsibility to check out any list submitted to them they use for editorial purposes (though none for advertising) whether by private or governmental sources. If the logic that Calame applied was true then all we'd see would be unsubstantiated reports provided by the Defense Department on the fighting in Iraq (no resources or time to check--- too many details) and State Department information on the status of war prisoners, (no resources or time to check---too complicated).

So go ahead, just send out your money. Of course God only knows where it will end up. We know you read it in the Times. But of course we can't and won't vouch that it was correct. And we don't, you know, like really care.

Here's the second story. I know about the details of this one first hand. A staffer at the New York Times recently reported that she had seen coverage of the storm by Geraldo Rivera (loathsome in general, and an easy target I agree) and he had pushed away a solider trying to help a storm victim so he, Geraldo, could get in the shot. You want to believe it was true, right? Well, the videotape of the event does not show that at all, and the Times not only refused to print a retraction but no one there would take any calls seeking a comment about the matter. Not enough resources to answer the phones I assume.

The Gray Lady is hiding behind her own skirt these days.