CARRYING POLLUTED WATER FOR DUBYA
If you’ve been paying any attention, then you are by now aware of the video that proves just how much Bush personally knew about the developing Katrina disaster. In the face of such incontrovertible evidence that Bush is an ineffectual, lying sack of shit, what is a sycophantic corporate media outlet to do?
A moment ago, I was bringing up Comcast on Microsoft Internet Explorer (because Chainz2 won’t play on Firefox), and I saw the lead story for their ‘news’ page:
New Video Shows Blanco Saying Levees Safe
Hmm… what, pray tell, did Louisiana’s Democratic governor actually say? From the story below the headline, these are her words:
We keep getting reports in some places that maybe water is coming over the levees,” Gov. Kathleen Blanco said shortly after noon on Aug. 29, according to the video. “We heard a report unconfirmed, I think, we have not breached the levee. I think we have not breached the levee at this time.”
In the video of the conference call, Blanco appears uncertain about the reliability of her information and cautioned that the situation “could change.”
Okay, so the AP sourced story doesn’t say anything about Blanco declaring the levees to be “safe,” as the headline states. In the obvious confusion, Blanco says that she is not aware of any specific breach, but also makes clear that her information is unreliable and that things might be totally different (or could change even if her info was correct). This is a far cry from Blanco saying “the levees are safe.” This glaring semantic discrepancy leads to two questions:
First, why would someone place such an obviously misleading headline over that story? Second, who is responsible for the headline: AP, or Comcast?
I have a hunch about the answer to the first question: in the wake of damning evidence of Dear Leader’s fatal combination of apathy and incompetence regarding a developing situation of obvious danger to thousands of human lives and an unforeseeable (but most certainly substantial) financial stake, someone saw the need to point a diversionary finger of blame at a member of the nominal opposition party. The answer to the second question says a lot about the offending entity’s complete lack of journalistic integrity.
UPDATE (3-3-06; 0332 hrs):
The Comcast version of the story has been revised (this is standard for Comcast, nothing alarming there), and the headline changed to read as follows:
Video Shows Blanco Saying Levees Intact
Though this headline isn’t as shrill or slanderous as the previous incarnation, it still misrepresents the nature of what was happening at the time of the proclamation, and implies a certainty that Blanco never intended to convey.
Again, the question: what is the point of putting this headline over the story, when Blanco’s statements are such a small and tangential part of it?