Looking back at Katrina: "On another matter ..."

[BobcatJH]

I wrote this as Hurricane Katrina approached New Orleans. Note how the president spent more time changing the subject and bragging about the quagmire in Iraq than the terrible tragedy about to unfold.

Yesterday, as Hurricane Katrina barreled her way toward New Orleans, President Bush took a few moments from his month-long vacation to discuss one of the worst storms in American history, a storm that cable networks fell over themselves to label everything short of the worst catastrophe in recorded memory.

In a little over 1,000 words, Bush reached out to the potential victims in Katrina's wake, offering thoughts, prayers, disaster declarations, promises of aid and ... congratulations to Iraqis on their dead-on-arrival constitution? That's right. When terrible loss of life and property loomed, Bush took the time to save political face, patting himself and his administration on the back for a failed process in a lost cause.

After opening his speech with the typical disaster speech trappings, Bush said "On another matter ..." and moved on, spending four-fifths of his time at the podium discussing a constitutional process too damaged for resuscitation. When Americans in peril needed him the most, our president bailed, choosing political posturing over personal tragedy.

Does this surprise any of you?

Bush, after all, is the same president who barely lifted a finger last December when the tsunami struck across the globe. He is, however, the same president who moved heaven and earth to interfere with Terri Schiavo's final wishes. This time, he took an opportunity to lead in a time of crisis and used it to congratulate himself for a job not done.

If you're so interested in other matters, Mr. President, please allow me to make a few suggestions: Instead of offering everyone a third-grade social studies lesson, why not talk about the more than 1,800 American troops who have given their lives for a failed constitution? Instead of cutting short remarks on a disaster not far from your vacation home, why not talk about the increasing strength of hurricanes, thanks in no small part to global warming? Instead of speeches made from the "Western White House," why not return to Washington and serve the American people?

But on another matter, I'd actually like to spend a second talking about Hurricane Katrina, if you don't mind, Mr. President. Maybe you've heard about the storm on television. You certainly didn't read about it in the newspaper. But, if you had, you would have noticed a distressing trend: The media has confused timely, thoughtful disaster coverage with a big-budget Jerry Bruckheimer movie.

I can't think of a network that hasn't sent a correspondent or two into the path of Katrina. I can't think of an outlandish comparison or statement that hasn't been made. I can't think of a pandering human-interest story that hasn't trumped solid coverage.

Imagine being in the direct path of Katrina only to hear your personal disaster being repeatedly referred to as a "toxic gumbo." The potential for you to lose everything you have – including your life – is very great, yet the networks are outdoing themselves to put a slicker-wearing daredevil with a microphone in your face.

Take, for instance, this Associated Press article, which begins:

As Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans on Monday, experts said it could turn one of America's most charming cities into a vast cesspool tainted with toxic chemicals, human waste and even coffins released by floodwaters from the city's legendary cemeteries.

Experts have warned for years that the levees and pumps that usually keep New Orleans dry have no chance against a direct hit by a Category 5 storm.

That's exactly what Katrina was as it churned toward the city. With top winds of 160 mph and the power to lift sea level by as much as 28 feet above normal, the storm threatened an environmental disaster of biblical proportions, one that could leave more than 1 million people homeless.

Is that really necessary? Is there a point when rhetorical flourish doesn't trump very real disaster? Is there a time when we can set aside the ratings race for proper coverage? Is there a network that will strive to make storm coverage mean more than slowing down to watch a car wreck on your way to work?

Or is that another matter?