Posted by
Andrews on Saturday, April 12, 2008 4:28:53 PM
I have written before about the fact that sometimes the media focuses on
one aspect of an event, and then chooses to present a report on a disaster, when, in reality most events are much less clearly either a problem or a benefit. In the case at hand, though, I have found something even worse, a case where the media is taking something wholly beneficial and presenting it as a problem.
The news report that inspired this essay was on BBC America, but I have seen similar reports on American news as well. These reports commonly take the form of "X months/years after Katrina, so many neighborhoods remain abandoned." The implication being that the government is failing in some duty to rebuild these communities, because Republicans hate either poor or black people, or else are just generally incompetent.
But I think the media is, in this case, absolutely missing the point. The report should actually be "Hooray! These neighborhoods are still empty!"
Why is that? Simple. Most of the neighborhoods whose condition they lament rest many, many feet below sea level. The only reason humans live there at all is because of massive, expensive, and, it turns out, untrustworthy construction projects. As we have now learned that the system of levees will not provide adequate protection under certain circumstances, doesn't it make sense to ask that no one live in these areas?
Then again, I am actually arguing this from the wrong perspective as well. I am buying into the media contention that it is the function of the state to provide shelter. Rather than letting their argument set the terms of the debate I should instead have asked the obvious counter question, "So what?"
After all, if the neighborhoods are empty is it not most likely because the former residents think returning to a flood plain is a bad idea and have moved to safer homes? Or, perhaps, they have not found adequate money to rebuild? Or have decided that the money they do have is better spent building above sea level? Is this not a question for the residents who are not returning rather than the government?
Of course, even if we accept the contention that it is the duty of the state to rebuild for everyone and insure them all against all losses (a contention I DO NOT endorse), the question remains, why should the state pay to return people to an unsafe, flood prone area? Would it not be better to put them somewhere safe? As I argued when writing about
federal flood insurance, isn't it a better idea to move people out of flood plains rather than rebuilding again and again in an area certain to flood over and over again?
Then again, given the chance to beat up on the Bush administration, the press will rarely ask questions. It is some sort of Pavlovian reaction, at the sound of a Bush mistake, the salivation begins. Even if it proves later to be nothing of the kind, the attack will still continue.
Do you doubt that the press will attack Bush even when they lack a real foundation? Do the words "fake but accurate" ring a bell?