Hellifino, Pt. 2

Here's an interesting tidbit Coast Guard spokeswoman Jolie Shifflet just told me: "Coast Guard helicopters were not fired on during Hurricane Katrina rescue operations."

Comments

[matthew hogan]

Not ruling out that it means what we assume it to mean, it might be good idea to parse it before running with it: did she mean that OTHER helicopters were fired on, or might have been?; or that when fired upon, they were technically part of FLOOD rescue and not HURRICANE resue, etc. etc...?

[Ironchef]

matthew,

How about we ask those same questions of the reporters who broke those stories?

[Matt Welch]

matthew -- There were more non-Coast Guard helicopters than Coast Guard helicopters in the airspace, at least as of Day 2 or 3. Also, it's pretty hard to know if you've been shot at, unless you take a hit or see a muzzle flash -- copters is loud!

[joe]

Poor, poor conservatives. First they were forced - forced! - to believe that Saddam Hussein was filling out the receipt to give Osama a nuke by the schemers in the CIA, then they were subjected to so much misinformation by the nightly nooz, that they had no choice but to write column after column about how those people are no better than animals.

You've no doubt blocked it out, chef, but there was an awful lot of skepticism expressed about the more sensational reports coming out of that city.

None of it came from conservatives.

[ChicagoTom]

My memory may be faulty, but isn't the helicoptors being fired upon (along with other stories of resucers being fired upon in general) one of the main reasons why the government rescuers were very slow in getting to people ? I thought the meme was that it was so dangerous with all the responders being shot at that caused delays in rescuing and helping people that were stranded?

If many of these stories are turning out to be false, then what is it that caused such a delay in getting rescuers out there?

[Eric the .5b]

You've no doubt blocked it out, chef, but there was an awful lot of skepticism expressed about the more sensational reports coming out of that city.

None of it came from conservatives.

The hell? Then who were all those people were were trying to "minimize" what was happening in NOLA?

[Britton]

I don't think it was a conservative who claimed that black people were resorting to cannibalism.

[Eric the .5b]

You're correct, Britton, however Joe posted earlier today arguing that Bush-defenders were trying to use the point that the media was spreading false rumors to "minimize" the deaths and suffering in NOLA.

That stinks of trying to have things both ways.

[theOneState]

Joe, there's satire in there somewhere. But, um, your apparent ideological compatriots don't really smell like roses. (Send in the troops! Send in the troops! The troops are here, locked and loaded! Oh, the humanity! Just like Iraq, there weren't enough troops to keep the peace! Of course there's violence, these people feel violated! Abandoned! It's an understandable reaction to being left behind by this administration. Etc. Etc. Etc.)

[joe]

Eric's moved onto Step 2 - blur the distinction between the flooding, lack of supplies, and inability of the residents to get out (all documented) with the stories about mayhem, rapes, and roaming gangs of snipers (all falling apart).

The conservative media dutifully played down the former, and went into full freakout mode hyping the latter.

[scape]

Now that things have toned down and we're beginning to get a more accurate account of Katrina and what happened in New Orleans, all the misinformation that the media amplified has me more skeptical than usual. I'm wondering if the whole thing was photoshopped and edited on Anderson Cooper's laptop.

[NOfan]

I do recall hearing at least one interview with a doctor at one of the hospitals (Tulane? Mercy?)who said that the evacuation helicopter that was trying to pick up patients from their roof was fired on.
Or maybe it was all made up and the flood didn't happen, either--anybody been down there lately?

Certainly there have been lots of exaggerations and misreporting, but it still sounds like a beastly place to be--and we shouldn't minimize that while we're correcting the hysterical excesses.

[JMoore]

I just want to know at what point in the evolution of the English language did the word "skeptic" become synonymous with "uncaring bastard"?

And furthermore...

When did a steadfast refusal to accept second- and third-hand "eyewitness" reports as established fact become a bad thing?

When did holding to the maxim that extraordinary claims (like gang rapes and cannibalism) demand extraordinary evidence (or at least one photo) become a sign of partisanship?

Why did my friends--most of a fairly leftist persuasion--call me evil when I said I will believe the wildly improbable guesses (and, I believe, intentional exaggerations) when I hear the final body count?

When did raw unthinking emotion and hysteria become more desirable traits than cool level-headedness? (Related to this question, why was I denounced as awful when I said--in a "cold" tone of voice--that this jackass president of Jefferson parish should be removed from office and given a public flogging for his sickening performance piece on Meet the Press?)

But, most importantly--and I apologise for letting all these questions flow unedited--when did being skeptical become bad?

[Eric the .5b]

OK, not the last, because this is tangential -

You've no doubt blocked it out, chef,

Who were you referring to here, Joe?

[Jammer]

At the rate this is going, I fully expect to wake up one morning to learn that in fact what was reported to be a hurricane was actually someone leaving the sprinklers on all night at the NOLA Country Club and Levy Maintenance Facility.

[Jason Ligon]

joe:

Why is it that sometimes you come across as a reasonable guy who just happens to have more faith in government solutions than the locals, and other times you have these partisan freakouts?

The left was skeptical? Give me a break. The narrative runs both ways. One group's "people are animals" is another group's "GWB's social policies made people desperate".

[derek rose]

But apparently 20-year-old Wendell Bailey was charged the a few weeks ago with firing on a rescue helicopter in New Orleans.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

For every conservative that claims Katrina is God's wrath against sinful New Orleans there will be a liberal who claims Katrina was caused by global warming. From what I have seen, both ends of the political spectrum are willing to trade on human tragedy for political gain.

During a chaotic event, it is difficult to gather and report information (see War). In the time-sensitive, demand-driven world of the media, there is tremendous pressure to say something... even if it is repeating the rumors reported by another news outlet.

In real life, part of my job is interviewing job candidates. During the interview, I ensure there are occasional pauses. Some interviewees panic at the silence and begin babbling. Journalists in a crisis often babble... and babbling is not reporting.

[Matt Welch]

derek -- Interesting tidbit about that: As far as I know, it came because neighbors overheard him bragging about it, not because of anything a helicopter pilot saw. It was the only helicopter-related incident the ATF discovered.

[Jose Ortega y Gasset]

From a news clipping today:

Kenny Deluane, 51, clad in boots and a respiratory mask, dragged barely recognizable furniture out of his water-sodden house in St. Bernard Parish just to the east of New Orleans and looked at it with an expression of disgust.

"I can't haul it and I'm not paying somebody to haul it," he said. "It ain't my fault my house flooded."

[NoStar]

RE: Joe

"Why is it that sometimes {Joe}come{s} across as a reasonable guy who just happens to have more faith in government solutions than the locals, and other times you have these partisan freakouts?"

Joe's purpose is to push the buttons of the libertarians that hang out here. Sometimes I think he doesn't believe a third of what he says, but he is having fun rattling our cages.

[CTD]

Of course no one shot at the copters! That was just a story to keep the media from seeing the bioweapons being loaded onto the robosubs bound for Iraq.

[Mark]

Wow, it sounds like Matt has actually done some original reporting. But unlike his one phone call effort, the reporters he likes to target in his opinion columns - for all their faults - at least try to get the whole story, instead of settling for one official spokeswoman.

[Tim Cavanaugh]

Look, I don't know whether the left or the right was more caring, skeptical, rational, or whatever, but if the point was to keep a cool head about this stuff I'd say none-a-yous covered yourselves in glory. (Speaking of which, where's Jennifer in this confab?)

I don't blame anybody for getting emotional then. But don't blow smoke up each other's asses now.

[Jennifer]

Speaking of which, where's Jennifer in this confab?

Hi, Tim. I was down in another thread insulting your friend who almost lost his wife on 9-11. But if you'd like, I'll freely admit I got hoodwinked by the stories coming out of New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of the storm.

Tough situation all the way around--are we now to discredit everything we read and only believe that which we see, hear and touch for ourselves? Because if we go that far, I have no actual evidence that there's a single American soldier in Iraq. Do Saudi women really have to wear abayas every time they go outside? Does Osama Bin Laden even exist?

[quasibill]

so far, the only people who have admitted shooting at ref ... er ... displaced NO residents are the police from the town on the other side of the bridge.

Someone wake me up when they get charged with a crime.

[Jennifer]

In all seriousness, where do you draw the line between "I refuse to believe media claims that we invaded Iraq a couple of years ago" and "I refuse to believe media claims that the situation in New Orleans has gone to hell?"

[rob]

" I'd say none-a-yous covered yourselves in glory." - Tim Cavanaugh

I dunno, Tim, I think I can safely stand by what I said. Of course, my points were mostly peripheral...

[joe]

Tim, thanks for the links. Looking through my comments, I'm pretty pround of how I kept my head, thank you very much.

"Jennifer,

Ix-nay on the ape-murder-ray. Even in the guy's story, he reports it as a rumor that kept growing and changing, and doesn't seem to quite believe it himself.

Can't we all get along? Horrible things happened in New Orleans AND the media hyped them."

joe heart old threads.

[Jason Ligon]

I'm bummed. I said something really over the top, too, bemoaning the human condition or some such.

Looking back, I think that in a way, the situation in Iraq made the worst case reports seem very plausible to me. I see people crapping all over everything without a thought to the long term all the time in Iraq. Horrible stuff happening in the Big Easy just seemed like an extension of the same problem in the human psyche.

[Jennifer]

Not to Godwin this, but the idea that "this is so horrible people should know it's not true. . ." well, the Nazis used that same justification to explain why, after they succeeded in taking over the world, nobody would ever believe the concenttration camps existed.

Seriously--what's the test of which stories to believe? If you take the default attitude "Everything you read in the media is wrong" you'll occasionally hit the mark, same way a stopped clock will be right twice a day, but that's no way to go about actually learning what's happening in the world any more than it's a way to figure out what time it is.

There was that story a couple of years ago about a fire at a Saudi girls' school, and many girls who managed to escape burned to death anyway, because the morality police forced them back into the building to put their abayas on. Such horrible, insane prudery can't really be true--can it?

[joe]

There was always a difference between the disaster/deprivation reporting (which was usually based on first hand knowledge - recall NPR people telling Michael Chertoff what they were seeing with their own eyes at the Convention Center and Chertoff denying it) and the looting/shooting/baby raping stories (which were always "my source says he heard" stories).

[joe]

Everyone accuses me of letting partisan and ideological concerns cloud my perceptions. You know what? It's true. I'm more willing to believe things that make Democrats look good and Republicans look bad. I'm more willing to believe stories that reinforce a "liberal" storyline, and more skeptical about those that reinforce a "conservative" storyline.

In the last few years, this has manifested itself in a number of areas. I did not believe Bush, Cheney, and Rumsfeld's assertions about Iraqi WMDs threatening. I found Eric Shinseki's statements about troop levels much more credible than the administration's. I was always confident that the Bush tax cuts would put the government deep into debt, without noticeably shortening the recession. I was skeptical of the gruesome stories about New Orleanians running amok and committing atrocities left and right. At the same time, I was quick to conclude that the federal disaster response was wholly inadequate, that people were suffering horribly in New Orleans, and that forces other than laziness had compelled those trapped in the Convention Center and Superdome to remain behind.

Etc etc etc. Which leaves me in a bit of an intellectual quandry - I know that allowing partisan concerns to dictate my perception of events is a bad habit, and yet, doing so has proven itself, on all the important questions of the day, to be an extremely effective method of discerning the truth. Does that mean that, in order to avoid wearing ideological blinders, in order to make sure I'm basing my beliefs on what has been objectively demonstrated, I need to jettison the evidence my lyin' eyes are telling me, and cling more closely to the "two sides to every story," "nothing is black and white," Enlightenment ideology that underlies liberalism?

I can't help but feel that a solid, reality-based two-by-four from the right would help get my head back to where it's supposed to be. But it just isn't happening.

[Jennifer]

And yet, Joe, at least one of the stories about the piles of corpses in the Superdome quoted actual names of Guardsmen who supposedly saw them. Again--how do we determine what is and is not believable?

[joe]

Jennifer, there is no way to do so with absolute reliability. However, the story you're referring to contained a number of weak attributions, which made me take a wait-and-see attitude.

[rob]

"I found Eric Shinseki's statements about troop levels much more credible than the administration's." - joe

Of that laundry list, this is the only thing I can think of on which you're actually, undeniably correct. But troop levels certainly doesn't seem to be a particularly partisan issue.

Are you sure that your partisan blinders aren't causing you to reinforce your expectations by believing that you have been proven correct?

In other words, the same loop of reinforcing what you believe by believing what reinforces your beliefs?

Not that this is an indictment, I certainly have caught myself doing the same, on occasion... I've come to expect every bureaucrat in the world to hamper and hinder rather than expedite and assist, for example. I found myself surprised when the lady at the DMV went out of her way to make sure that I didn't have to return another day, and realized it was because my expectations were a bit, uh, pre-fabricated.

[joe]

I'm not undeniably correct about Iraq's "WMD arsenal" not posing a threat to us?

I'm not undeniably correct about the deficit?

"But troop levels certainly doesn't seem to be a particularly partisan issue." You know, it shouldn't be. But for some reason, if you thought we didn't do an adequate job maintaining civil order and securing weapons sites in the aftermath of the invasion, you were on the side of the terrorists.

Yes, rob, I'm pretty sure that my partisan blinders aren't deluding me about the surplus being large enough to cover Bush's tax cut and pay for a national emergency, even if there is a recession, which is what Bush said in 2000. And I'm pretty sure that, in fact, Saddam Hussein did not have any active WMD programs, or stockpiles of weapons, nor was anywhere near being able to reconstitute them.

[Phil Collins]

And yet, Joe, at least one of the stories about the piles of corpses in the Superdome quoted actual names of Guardsmen who supposedly saw them. Again--how do we determine what is and is not believable?

One tool is to look at motivations. Was there a motivation for helicopter pilots and their bosses to lie about the nature and/or existence of the gunfire. There sure was, because it provided a handy excuse for a basically non-existent rescue "effort." This does not provide all the answer, but it helps us set our skepticism level high when we here suspicious stories that are also self-serving. I had this skepticism in place on Sept 1 when chatting with you on Sept 1. Now that 28 days have passed, it is time to hop up on the skepticism bandwagon on this one, Jennifer. No, there will probably be no court martials (I mean, Christ, they gave Lynndie 3 years only!), but we don't have to presume anybody innocent, we have brains. We know a fishy story when we hear one. Military officials aren't necessarily any more truthful than strip bar patrons -- you just gotta go with your common sense sometimes.

[joe]

Phil, whaddya mean "nonexistent rescue efforts?" 30,000 people were rescued via helicopter. The Coast Guard's lifesaving missions were one of the only success stories in the whole sorry affair.

[Phil Collins]

When I speak about non-existent rescue efforts, I am referring to the helicopters that turned back because people that were supposedly shooting at them. Not about the helicopters that weren't shot and went ahead and rescued people. The helicopters that went ahead and rescued people did the right thing, of course.

[Jennifer]

Phil, I'm "on the bandwagon," as you call it, now. But I'm not going to feel that my believing the initial stories is somehow on par with believing that if I answer a particular Nigerian e-mail I'll become an effortless millionaire.

This does not provide all the answer, but it helps us set our skepticism level high when we here suspicious stories that are also self-serving.

Not unlike the suspicious stories used to justify our invasion of Iraq. There have been so many fishy stories floating around these past few years, it's hard to keep anything straight.

[joe]

Jennifer, you're the only one who knows your own mind, so you're the only one who can answer this question: is there any pattern to the stories you believed were true, that later turned out to be false? I think looking at the specifics, rather than drawing broad conclusions about "the MSM" or "the government" is more likely to be a useful exercise.

Sort of like, I was completely credulous when the story about the foiled (as in, executed) suicide bomber in the London subway hit the wires. I try to make a point of keeping my failure in mind when similar claims are made.

[rob]

"I'm not undeniably correct about Iraq's 'WMD arsenal' not posing a threat to us?"

I can't see how anyone could be truly, undeniably correct about the presence or absence of anything until you go and look. Unless you were psychic, it's kind of a Shrodinger's Cat deal. That's the nature of the "intelligence" business, which is often just the best educated guess that can be made.

"I'm not undeniably correct about the deficit?" - joe

That too, remains to be seen. Kind of like the accepted claims that Social Security will collapse - while I might agree that's a likely outcome, who knows what the future economy looks like?

So, no, I don't think you're undeniably right on all of those claims, tho yes, I agree that partisan nonsense should stay out of military decisions like troop levels.

Also let's not forget, when you say that "if you thought we didn't do an adequate job maintaining civil order and securing weapons sites in the aftermath of the invasion, you were on the side of the terrorists" it was usually people with very pointed political agendas making those comments for their own gain.

Thus far, I'd say that considering the successes in Iraq versus the costs, the troop levels aren't exactly devastating the mission performance. I do think that we should probably should have thrown more manpower at the problem, but I think that argument gets less compelling as the Iraqis stand up their own police and miliatary forces.

In other non-news, it's discovered that rob and joe rarely agree.

[Jennifer]

I don't know, Joe. I don't think there's any hard rule to fit all situations. Certainly I disbelieved the Nigerian e-mails long before I ever knew about "phishing." (The old rule about "too good to be true.") But despite the Grand Guignol feel to the New Orleans stories, I don't think that alone was enough to set off the smell alarm. Not in context. Were the Superdome stories any more incredible than the idea that people in New Orleans would be forbidden to try and walk out of the city afterwards? Yet that was true. And think about similarly insane stories that have turned out to be absolutely true: young girls forced to burn to death rather than go outside without an abaya? Hell, the whole thing about the Taliban refusing to let women see doctors sounded too insane to be real, and yet it was.

[Dave W.]

I don't know, Joe. I don't think there's any hard rule to fit all situations.

When the gov't is involved, be it FEMA, the SAS, Flt 93, the Tube, or the Taliban the rule is that the interpretation that makes government look worst is the correct one.

[rob]

Nicely put, Dave W.

[Jennifer]

the rule is that the interpretation that makes government look worst is the correct one.

But there's a corollary: when dealing with Bush fans, any interpretation which makes the administration or the military look bad is an obvious lie propagated by liberals who hate America and want Bin Laden to rule the world.

[rob]

Jennifer,

Your corollary stinks of straw. You've got an obvious inability/unwillingness to see reason anytime the subject has anything to do with the Bush administration, the war on terror, or the military.

The fact that you think everyone who disagrees with you thinks that anyone who opposes your views are from the "liberals hate America and want Bin Laden to rule the world" is sad.

Other than that, you seem pretty cool. (The previous sentence courtesy of the kinder, gentler rob - but he may be around for a limited time only...)

[rob]

Previous post should have read:

The fact that you think everyone who disagrees with you thinks that anyone who opposes your views are from the "liberals hate America and want Bin Laden to rule the world" camp is sad.

[Jennifer]

Rob--

Indeed. Almost as sad as your inability to distinguish straightforwardness from hyperbole.

[Jennifer]

In all seriousness, Rob, do you think my comment WAS a strawman? It wasn't the left wing who said "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists," nor was it them who made "Why do you hate America?" the cliche it is today.

[rob]

Sorry, I sometimes find it hard to tell "straightforward Jennifer" from "hyperbole Jennifer."

Maybe it's a problem with the medium, maybe it's that both Jennifers pretty similar...

[Jennifer]

Well, Rob, "liberals want Bin Laden to rule the world" sounds pretty hyperbolic. But is it inaccurate to claim that a member of a right-wing administration said "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists?" I wish it were.

[rob]

In all seriousness, yes, it's a strawman. That's why those statements are a cliche running joke here at HNR.

BTW, you're taking "If you're not with us, you're with the terrorists" out of context: That's a parpahrase from a speech Bush gave warning other nations not to harbor/shelter terrorists who have attacked or intend to attack the U.S.

Of course, the whole "Why do you hate America?" line is a straw man fallacy deployed by the right.

But, has anyone ever said either of those things to you on this board? Much less in real life? Attributing the use of such a BS straw man argument to everyone who disagrees with you is a straw man argument in and of itself.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html

[Jennifer]

But, has anyone ever said either of those things to you on this board?

Yup.

[Jennifer]

Also, Rob, I've been told that people like me (questioning the wisdom of the Iraqi invasion, for example) are the reason we're doing so poorly in Iraq. Because, you know, before the insurgents try to attack soldiers in their midst, they first check Hit and Run to see what Jennifer's been saying.

[joe]

Jennifer,

You are arguing with someone who answers "There's no way to know" to the questions "Was George Bush telling the truth when he said the surplus was big enough to afford his tax cut, even in case of a recession?" and "Did Saddam Hussein's WMD programs pose a threat to us in 2003?"

[Jennifer]

Joe--

Good point.

[rob]

joe - Yep. That was the whole gist of it. Not that there's any gray area. Not that there was any reason to believe that there were WMD's. Not that anyone knows what the economy will do over the next 20 years (believe me, I hate deficit spending too!). No wonder everything you see and read reinforces your particular view of the world.

Jennifer - Even if it were true, that someone had said that to you, it wasn't said by me. The closest I've ever come is to point out that threre are some unconventional warfare principles that make use of dissension. It's a far cry from either of the cliches you used as an example.