It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

NEWS: Bush Under Fire for Slow Action

page: 5
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
I can understand that but im talking about anchorman level presenters here, people that have been in Iraq and countless other war zones. They always kept their cool in spots like that but they are completely scathing of the situation there. I go so far as to say its unprecedented for our news presenters.


I have boycotted the BBC for the last few days because everytime I turn the channel I see sports on or that little kid Ryan - who let's face it is 'cute' and deserves 190 hours of non-stop 'serious' journalism. I think maybe British reporters would relish a challenge, because let's be honest, after 7/7 and the other failed bombing, they didn't get a chance to really do any investigative journalism did they? They were all spouting the same pre-approved stuff.

Their coverage on this event in the US has been weak and almost non-existant. On the weekend you couldn't even get any footage except that old stock 'wood boarding windows' stuff they had used when the hurricane swept through Florida.

It was all cricket this and cricket that.

Lately, the only news I have seen (which is why I'm still boycotting BBC) is what you mentioned Subz, the insulted reporters spewing bile and not doing much coversage, just opining what we are all thinking. No scratch that, their opinions are far less researched and thoughtful than our own. They are reacting at gut level and it is appalling for journalists to act that way. They are after all seasoned professionals.

It is far too easy to be critical at a time like this. If the same had happened in Britain I have my fair guess of what would happen to the country's poor black minority and although the leaders would probably act in a different way and the media would move in like a thief in the night to sew up all the outgoing 'problem' press, the UK's ugly side would still be showing for all the world to see.

Yesterday I said here on ATS that the BBC had made a statement that 10,000 were dead. Where did they get the figures? I looked and searched and found nothing. It turns out some senator has said there were possibly 10,000 dead. THe BBC used that as a figure with no source and no fact searching. Is that repsonsible journalism?

For one I will not tune into BBC until they start reporting something with some intelligence, some decency, some respect and compassion for the people of the US.



[edit on 3-9-2005 by nikelbee]




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:16 AM
link   


For one I will not tune into BBC until they start reporting something with some intelligence, some decency, some respect and compassion for the people of the US.


What else is there?
Sky? God no....don't even go there...
ITN? Far to interested in being a TV tabloid with feck all substance...
Channel 4? Ok, I guess, but still more biased than Auntie...
Channel 5? ok, if you want no substance or topless women...

Apart from that, there isn't much else on the TV to choose from...



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:22 AM
link   
I agree about Sky - ugh.

I am watching CNN it has the advantage of having Anderson Cooper.
So far the coverage hasn't been that bad.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:26 AM
link   
Nikelbee, I wouldnt go that far in criticising the BBC. They are by far the premiere mainstream news outlet in Britain, if not the World. Their reports out of New Orleans are by and large faultless, but its the odd few that are not that pricked my interest. This was coupled with the likes of Channel 4 who were also scathing in their reports which should be neutral that also pricked my interest.

I would urge you not to boycott the BBC, they are not even incorrect in their editorializations but they just shouldnt include it in news reports.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by subz
Nikelbee, I wouldnt go that far in criticising the BBC. They are by far the premiere mainstream news outlet in Britain, if not the World. Their reports out of New Orleans are by and large faultless, but its the odd few that are not that pricked my interest. This was coupled with the likes of Channel 4 who were also scathing in their reports which should be neutral that also pricked my interest.

I would urge you not to boycott the BBC, they are not even incorrect in their editorializations but they just shouldnt include it in news reports.


Usually this would be the case yes. As the BBC is (as you said) the mainstream news in Britain and many times quite comprehensive and insightful. But for now the boycott will continue. It is too hard to get uninterrupted news at the moment and it is being covered (in my opinion) in a haphazard and cut and paste way. As someone said previously, it isn't like we have a vast choice of news sources here in the UK.

There are times when the BBC do a great job and times like this when they just don't. I would be silly indeed if I thought I could boycott them forever.

(cue evil music)



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:45 AM
link   
Well if you are after complete 24-hour coverage of Katrina then I guess the BBC is not the channel of choice for you. It is, afterall, a British news channel and the likes of Rory and the Ashes still matter to us.

The BBC will still devote a large chunk of air time to Katrina but it will continue to report British news as well. I understand that Katrina is a massive disaster and that American news stations will devote all their air time to it, but unlike its treatment of 9/11 the BBC will not scrap everything else over this.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:55 AM
link   
Maybe then you have to reevaluate the word NEWS - Rory 'news' over and over and over and over again. How many times can you see the picture of the cute little school boy and have updates? How fast do the police work? How fast is public opinion swayed? Yes, it is a sad thing he was killed. Yes we care... stop throwing up his picture in our face 24/7.

Granted the cricket was great news - wonderful. How many times do you have to watch it and rehash over and over and over and over again? We got it - Australia lost... last time I checked it was the same thing - nothing had changed. I'm not against showing feel good news - it is great - everyone is happy and victorious and all that. But after a few days, when other stuff is going on it gets old.

Please listen to my gripes and respond accordingly. I don't want to watch nonstop coverage I want to watch GOOD coverage.

I'm not going to argue with you about the BBC versus anything else. This is how *I* feel. I am not encouraging anyone else to boycott. I am not trying to get you to change your mind. I am fine with what you want to watch. This is *my* opinion and I had the time and patience to explain it. You don't have to share my opinion and that won't make me feel any differently about anyhthing else.

Everything doesn't have to be an argument. As I said in my previous post, i'll probably grudgingly go back to watching BBC and my primary news source after this is over. I have no problems doing that.

But I will also call it like it is now.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by nikelbee
Maybe then you have to reevaluate the word NEWS - Rory 'news' over and over and over and over again. How many times can you see the picture of the cute little school boy and have updates? How fast do the police work? How fast is public opinion swayed? Yes, it is a sad thing he was killed. Yes we care... stop throwing up his picture in our face 24/7.

Granted the cricket was great news - wonderful. How many times do you have to watch it and rehash over and over and over and over again? We got it - Australia lost... last time I checked it was the same thing - nothing had changed. I'm not against showing feel good news - it is great - everyone is happy and victorious and all that. But after a few days, when other stuff is going on it gets old.

Please listen to my gripes and respond accordingly. I don't want to watch nonstop coverage I want to watch GOOD coverage.

I'm not going to argue with you about the BBC versus anything else. This is how *I* feel. I am not encouraging anyone else to boycott. I am not trying to get you to change your mind. I am fine with what you want to watch. This is *my* opinion and I had the time and patience to explain it. You don't have to share my opinion and that won't make me feel any differently about anyhthing else.

Everything doesn't have to be an argument. As I said in my previous post, i'll probably grudgingly go back to watching BBC and my primary news source after this is over. I have no problems doing that.

But I will also call it like it is now.

Dude, chill out


Im not arguing with you in the slightest. I too am expressing my opinion and giving reasons why the BBC is not showing Katrina news constantly. Im also giving reasons why your idea of "good coverage" is different to my idea of "good coverage". Dont take offence or get annoyed over it.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:22 AM
link   
No offence taken Subz
no beef with you and not annoyed. Well, not annoyed at you - just annoyed at the situation in general.


Peace.

n.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 07:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by SourGrapes
The local governments are the ones responsible for the first response during a disaster. To expect the federal government to have an instant disaster plan and swoop in, to save everyone instantly, just isn't realistic.


The Federal Government did have a plan in place, problem is that they can't impliment it until they are asked by the Local and State Governments. You know one of those little laws put into place to prevent the Federal Government from overthrowing the States.



Firefighting gear stockpile unused
From CNN Producer Mike M. Ahlers
Saturday, September 3, 2005; Posted: 6:09 a.m. EDT (10:09 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Nine stockpiles of fire-and-rescue equipment strategically placed around the country to be used in the event of a catastrophe still have not been pressed into service in New Orleans, five days after Hurricane Katrina, CNN has learned.

Responding to a CNN inquiry, Department of Homeland Security spokesman Marc Short said Friday the gear has not been moved because none of the governors in the hurricane-ravaged area has requested it.
A federal official said the department's Office for Domestic Preparedness reminded the Louisiana and Mississippi governors' offices about the stockpiles on Wednesday and Thursday, but neither governor had requested it.


Firefighting Gear Stockpile Unused

When a disaster hits all aid on the Federal level is put under the control of the State Government who are assisted by the FEMA people. The ball was dropped here, but it wasn't dropped by the Feds. THe governments of LA and New Orleans are the ones who dropped it.

I have friends and relatives in the Navy helicopter squadrons in Jacksonville Florida. Talking to some of them I learned that the Navy pre-deployed several helicopter squadrons to Pensacola to be ready to lend aid for Katrina. The helos arrived Sunday Aug. 28th. They were not given missions until Thursday morning. The Operations Officers of those squadrons informed both the Governors of Mississippi and Louisiana that they were ready to assist Monday night.

People have no idea what is involved in helicopter rescues. The hoist rescues that you are seeing on television are the slowest and most dangerous type of rescue. The helo expends a large amount of its fuel in a hover and with the air temperature can only carry so much weight. This means that the helo can take fewer people per trip and has to be refueled more often. Navy helicopters are not equipped with the nice lift baskets that you see the Coast Guard using on TV, nor are they trained on how to use them. They have to use the horse collar sling. This means that a crewman has to ride the hoist each trip to make sure that the person being rescued doesn't fall out of the collar. The most efficient way to use the helos is to find some clear high ground for landing zones and use boats to transport the people to these zones, land the helo load them up and fly them to safety.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by JIMC5499]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
TOTAL Incompetance of the Bush Goverment how to deal with this Situation.

I think the Response in totally ineffective.

Bush has been caught with his pants down.

It's a Disgrace that Some people are treated like Animals - well worse then animals.

Looks like Concentration Camps.




posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by Souljah
TOTAL Incompetance of the Bush Goverment how to deal with this Situation.

I think the Response in totally ineffective.

Bush has been caught with his pants down.

It's a Disgrace that Some people are treated like Animals - well worse then animals.

Looks like Concentration Camps.



I am probably going to get a warning for this but it has been bugging me all day.

How in the hell is any of this President Bush's fault. Although you couldn't tell from some of the posts I have read, the US is not a dictatorship, the President does not have the authority to just wave a magic wand and do what ever he wants. The state governments were in charge until President Bush suspended Posse Commitatus. I'll give you the point that the response up until this point has been relativly ineffective, but what would you have done? This whole thing has just been an excuse for the bashing of President Bush and FEMA. That seems to be a popular sport these days. I am fairly sure that if a meteor were to take out a small town tonight with no warning some how it would be President Bush's fault as well. I have not yet heard one substantiated example of how FEMA or President Bush has screwed up.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:43 PM
link   
Bush should have done this soooooooner...

The first 2 days were natural disaster...the last4 human disaster.


Bush is the 'Man w/ the plan'. Bush has 'the Big Shoulders'. He asked for the yob(how many times?).

Don't beg for quarter for Bush. He shouldn't need it.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
Bush should have done this soooooooner...

The first 2 days were natural disaster...the last4 human disaster.


Bush is the 'Man w/ the plan'. Bush has 'the Big Shoulders'. He asked for the yob(how many times?).

Don't beg for quarter for Bush. He shouldn't need it.


If President Bush had suspended Posse Commitatus on Tuesday everybody would be screaming about how fast Bush was to sieze power and make the US into a dictatorship. It is nice when opinions are not rooted in fact that leaves nothing to prevent them from swinging the other direction in a heartbeat. And no I am not begging for anything for President Bush I'd say the same thing about President Clinton and I can't stand him. I just believe in fair play.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:01 PM
link   
JIMC5499,

That also is part of the job . Your wrong no matter what you do, but putting federal control into force sooner was the right medicine in this instance.








[edit on 9/3/2005 by bodebliss]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
JIMC5499,

That also is part of the job . Your wrong no matter what, but putting into force sooner was the right medicine in this instance.


I agree...........now but hindsight is always 20/20. What if he would have done it on Tuesday and things turned out to not be so bad. People have made an issue that the suspension of Posse Commitatus sets a bad precedent and should be used as a last resort. Well we got to where the last resort is necessary. If the State governments had donr theit jobs right it should have never gotten this far. I still can't under stand why anyone would want the job of President. You are never right and it only pays $400,000.00 per year.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:34 PM
link   
I've been looking for this it was on the DHS website. Maybe it will clear a few things up.
DHS Emergencies and Disasters



EMERGENCIES AND DISASTERS
Declared Disasters & Assistance
A Guide to the Disaster Declaration Process and Federal Disaster Assistance
Please visit Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) website to get a copy of the Guide to the Disaster Declaration Process and Federal Disaster Assistance.
Local and State governments share the responsibility for protecting their citizens from disasters, and for helping them to recover when a disaster strikes. In some cases, a disaster is beyond the capabilities of the State and local government to respond.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, as amended (the Stafford Act) was enacted to support State and local governments and their citizens when disasters overwhelm them. This law establishes a process for requesting and obtaining a Presidential disaster declaration, defines the type and scope of assistance available under the Stafford Act, and sets the conditions for obtaining that assistance. This paper explains the declaration process and provides an overview of the assistance available.

The Declaration Process
The Stafford Act (§401 and 501) requires that:"All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster or emergency exists shall be made by the Governor [chief executive] of the affected State." " A State also includes the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Federated States of Micronesia and the Republic of the Marshall Islands. The Governor's request is made through the regional FEMA office. State, local, and Federal officials conduct a preliminary damage assessment (PDA) to estimate the extent of the disaster and its impact on individuals and public facilities. The information gathered during the PDA documents the severity and magnitude of the event and is included in the Governor's request. Normally, the PDA is completed prior to the submission of the Governor's request. However, when an obviously severe or catastrophic event occurs, the Governor's request may be submitted prior to the PDA. Nonetheless, the Governor must still make the request and damage assessments are still conducted.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:38 PM
link   
JIMC5499,

It doesn't, because a real leader would have done some arm twisting on that Governor on day 1 and Federal troops would have been there that day.



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 05:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by bodebliss
JIMC5499,

It doesn't, because a real leader would have done some arm twisting on that Governor on day 1 and Federal troops would have been there that day.


So why even have the Posse Commitatus Act in the first place? We will just elect omnipotent Presidents from now on. Wonder which party they will come from? A governor can't do their job and the President has to take the heat. I can see the fallout from a Republican President twisting the arm of a Democrat Governor.

[edit on 3-9-2005 by JIMC5499]



posted on Sep, 3 2005 @ 06:10 PM
link   
JIMC5499,


President Johnson was a great arm twister, you could hardly say no to him no matter your party.

President Eisenhower same.

President Truman Said,'The buck(blame sits) stops here!'







[edit on 9/3/2005 by bodebliss]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 2  3  4    6 >>

log in

join