Well, your just showing your biases. As someone who does know a bit about such things, their comments are fair and accurate. NYT is well versed on things “Wall Street” so it’s not a hack job. Perhaps your own biases are preventing you from being open to any criticism of the administration, even when warranted. There are a lot of facts, not opinion, in the article that would be helpful for you to know if you aren’t familiar with municipal bonds and Puerto Rican debt.
Honestly, doschicos, I have no horse in the race here. Even though it may seem I support the current adminstration, I am actually politically independent. I just can’t stand the blatant bias and downright irresponsible reporting by some of these major news outlets. And yes, that includes Fox News at times. I feel leaving out critical information and context sows confusion among people looking for an accurate depiction of what is actually going on.
You have not said a single good thing (at least that I have seen) about how this administration has handled the situation. That is simply not a reflection of reality, IMO… there are many good things that the administration has done to help PR, and there are some things that could have probably been done differently. I think it’s important we try and be objective here. My goal is to try and balance all of the negativity here with some positive stories… that’s all.
So what specifically do you find offensive in the NYT article? Did you not learn anything new from it that you didn’t know fin an area you yourself admit isn’t your bailiwick?
For the record, I did state I had no issues with how things were handled in FL/TX. I don’t feel the same about PR, and to some extent, the USVI, but I think things have gone a bit better there, but smaller population, therefore the many private efforts (including from Puerto Rican residents), in the immediate days after Irma made a huge difference.
General Honore laid out a list of things that should’ve been done to achieve better disaster relief. Given his experience with Katrina, and what I’ve witnessed on television, I will take his word. It’s rare that a Lieutenant General would openly criticize the president. This administration failed miserably.
The Lt. Governor who was finally sent in seems clearheaded and a straight shooter. Too bad he wasn’t on island within a few days of the hurricane. He could have taken the helicopter tour he has since taken and assessed the situation and requested the resources. There was no reason to delay that by 7-8 days. I have no doubt that his arrival and additional resources finally being thrown at the issue were a direct result of the focus and criticism by the media and many individual citizens. Like it or not, a free press serves a vital and important function. That so many quarters are sending the same message is telling. It is not some vast conspiracy. It is too broad-based to dismiss it all as fake news.
It’s the general tone of the article that I object to. It’s written in such a way to make the reader feel that the administration’s plans to ease PR’s debt is hopeless, and that 45 is an idiot for even suggesting such a thing. Up until I read this article, the media narrative had been focused around Trump not caring about Puerto Rican residents, and now that Trump has shown signs of caring and addressing the crux of their financial situation, they spin it against him. A different, and more constructive way to write the article, IMO, would have been to address the reasons why his plan wouldn’t work, and then offer alternatives or solutions. I’ve read articles where the author does this, in particular with the North Korea situation.
Please explain why they “failed miserably” because the facts prove otherwise… a death toll of 34 (updated yesterday), nearly 15,000 workers on the island, and the vast majority of hospitals up and running would suggest that the situation is being handled pretty well given the level of destruction. How do you feel the PR government has handled the situation? Could they have done more to coordinate with local citizens and the federal government to improve responsiveness?
Ummm? Wiping out their debt, “Could…send shudders through Wall Street.”
“that includes Fox News at times.” But NYT at all times? Ha. When my brother pulled this, he got a scolding.
It’s fine to distrust the media. To my thinking, it’s both critical thinking and part of our role in democracy. But then you vet. Not just throw up your arms and then selectively accept.
Frankly, a number of us might have watched the PR efforts more patiently, if it weren’t for the extraordinary negative spin dished out from up top. For some of us, that led to questions. Not blind acceptance that it’s all hunky dory, ‘not a real catastrophe.’
The article provides background and context as to why the comments are both inappropriate and too simplistic - which they are. It’s a case of talking off the top of one’s head without understanding finer details. It also speaks again to an issue I’ve mentioned before - optics. Can you honestly say that this has been handled well in optics/PR terms? That is an important part of the response to a crisis as well - information management, the effective use of communication, a balanced, calming, and fair voice of leadership. Both what you do and how you do it/communicate it are important. For those who have worked in any organization, no matter how big or small, it does make a difference.
Doubling down when mistakes are made also doesn’t work with an educated population.
I think we’re both on the same page here, lookingforward. I totally agree that people should be critical of what they read in the news, and IMO, people should be open to reading news from both liberal and conservative sources as often you will find each source reports information left out by the other source.
FWIW, I like to get my news from Google News which pulls news from both liberal and conservative outlets. I know many people though who just go to one source like WaPo or CNN and that’s it… not surprisingly these people are always negative about the current administration. Similar problem with people who only go to places like Fox news, Breitbart, etc…
^^ not “pandering to the least common denominator.”
Spin. Look for it. Mocking, gamesmanship, diverting attention to a t-shirt, are not truly informative. They’re manipulative. Not to mention, dismissive and disrespectful to us.
And if we’re bright enough to, eg, suspect one source, be smart enough to make inquiry (vetting) routine.
My issue with reports on what’s been delivered to ports , eg, is the question: but what’s gotten to the people?
“The island has 69 hospitals. But as of Monday, just one of those facilities has been declared to be fully operational, according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).”
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/puerto-rico-one-fully-operational-hospital-right-now#2
Well, think about it, doschicos, the media is largely in control of how the “optics” are presented to people. If I read Fox News, everything is going swimmingly over there, and the articles usually do a pretty good job pointing to reasons why they are going swimmingly. On the other hand, if I read WaPo or CNN articles, everything is a complete disaster… total chaos, people dying left and right, Trump playing golf, etc. etc. etc.
Obviously the truth is somewhere in the middle. The facts so far (death toll, opinions from various mayors around the island, governor, etc.) show that the federal response has generally been very good. There were likely ways certain situations could have been handled differently in hindsight, but overall it has been a pretty good effort given the level of destruction, and again given the somewhat unusual circumstances surrounding the PR situation.
Xposted. As for "always negative, " watch that that’s not a superficial reaction. He says opponents are all fake news, slanted, that the Dems told Cruz to jump him, etc. Does that mean there’s no real problem?
Consider whether, despite the rahrah, the adage holds that, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire.”
The death count is also inaccurate. At this point there are portions of the island that haven’t been reached. The procedures to legally declare someone dead are also not fully operational. The reporters on the scene have been invaluable.
^ "… However, nine have had power restored, and 59 are “operational to care for current patients or receiving patients.”
If you’ve ever been in charge of spin, you never lose the wariness. I know how easy it is to manipulate perception, the psychology.
People hear the sound bites, eg, about the number of containers of food in port and self congratulate, “See what a great job…” But they miss how much is stuck there. They hear, say, 35000 water bottles and miss that the population is 3.5 million.
Check what “operational” means.
Yes, the official death toll of 16 was way off. The current official update of 34 is also likely very low. According to this reporter in San Juan it’s closer to 60 and likely to rise to hundreds.
https://www.vox.com/science-and-health/2017/10/2/16392670/puerto-rico-death-toll-trump
At this point I personally think we have good resources in place. It’s just going to be a lot of long, hard work to dig out of this disaster. However I think it’s perfectly valid for the people suffering in PR to complain and ask for more and faster help. That should not be willfully misinterpreted as complaints about the relief workers or the relief effort or the guy in charge, it should be interpreted as people in distress asking for more and faster help.
If you’re trapped in an upside down car about to burst into flames and you see fire trucks pulling up you’re going to scream “hurry up! I need help!”. That doesn’t mean you’re telling the firefighters they suck, it just means you’d really like for them to please hurry. And the correct response for the fire chief is not to tell you that you’re an ingrate who’s lying about the fire crew’s response, the correct answer is to say, “we’re here now, we’ve got the right guys working hard and we’re going to do everything we can to help.” If that had been the response from the guy in charge of PR disaster relief, this thread would probably be 20 pages shorter.
@anomander Your last sentence sums it up!
“Can you honestly say that this has been handled well in optics/PR terms?”
“Well, think about it, doschicos, the media is largely in control of how the “optics” are presented to people”
Actually, the administration is largely in control. I judge by what I hear and see directly from the WH myself - the tweets, the press conferences. I have eyes and ears. So do others. I can make my own assumptions. For the record, I read and watch from all corners (too much) and formulate my own opinions. I know hype and bias comes from both sides. But, when the words are coming directly from individuals in the administration and we are parsing them as they are delivered, don’t blame the media for bad optics.
@fractalmstr wrote,
Even Fox News, among Trump’s staunchest supporters, does not paint a terribly rosy picture. What are those people among the 55 percent without access to potable water doing? Are they drinking from polluted streams?