1 thought on “Planned Parenthood displays its humanitarian side”
Spreading blame from pillar to post
Posted by MaxPlanck to AForrest
On News/Activism 09/14/2005 3:42:45 PM PDT 16 of 17
Since we’re back on the blame game, I thought I’d re-post my comment here. Is Louisiana State currently being blamed too much for blocking the Red Cross? It seems that safety also had an important role to play?
MaxPlanck
Red Cross: “It Was Not Safe To Be In The City” (Video).
In a Larry King interview on Sept 2nd, Red Cross CEO Marsha Evans explained that the Red Cross were not in New Orleans because it was unsafe.
‘It was unsafe to be in the city.’
‘– it was not safe to be in the city, and it’s not been safe to go back into the city.’
According to other reports, Red Cross workers could have been shot or contracted disease if they entered New Orleans in the first days after the storm.
In addition, Evans mentioned concerns that relocating in the city would delay evacuation.
‘They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city, people wouldn’t leave, and they’ve got to leave.’
However, many reporters and news sources have failed to acknowledge the safety/security aspects of Marsha Evan’s explanation (an exception being Bill O’Reilly at Fox News).
It is not yet clear whether or not the Red Cross would have entered the city early on, given these serious safety risks, even if they had not been asked to stay out by the National Guard, the city and State emergency management.
See also this comment from samizdata. (Trey saw my comment first, before he wrote his). I don’t necessarily think Major Garrett was ‘majorly’ wrong. He may be 100% right. But we just don’t KNOW that yet?
MaxPlanck
Red Cross Story Update: Garrett’s Majorly Wrong Reason?
A possibly serious flaw in Major Garrett’s reporting is that he failed to emphasize the importance of SAFETY and SECURITY in deciding whether the Red Cross would enter New Orleans in the first days after the storm.
Both the Red Cross (in Larry King’s interview with Marsha Evans, Sept 2nd) and Bill O’Reilly (in his interview with Marsha Evans, Sept 6th) point out these important issues.
(See relevant clips here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509090002).
It seems that Major Garret was aware of the safety and security issues that might well have stopped the Red Cross from entering anyway.
‘But the state told us A) it’s not safe, because the water is dangerous. And we’re now learning how toxic the water is. B) there’s a security situation, because they didn’t have a handle on the violence on the ground. And C) and I think (my emphasis) this is most importantly, they wanted to evacuate out. They didn’t want people to stay.’
But for some reason Major Garrett assumed that the desire to evacuate was the most important reason the Red Cross were not in New Orleans, which seems contrary to what we know from Marsha Evan’s Interviews with Larry King and with Bill O’Reilly. Subsequently, this is what he emphasized in this reporting and now this is the story that is going around.
But isn’t it understandable that the Red Cross were blocked if it was simply too dangerous for them to be there?
And is it accurate to say the Red Cross were ‘blocked’ from entering New Orleans, if they would not have gone in anyway, because it was too unsafe for them to go in?
We know that the Red Cross really wanted to provide assistance. But would they have actually entered a highly dangerous New Orleans in the first days after the storm, risking the lives of their own members, if they had been given the opportunity?
Trey Monke Posted by Trey Monke at September 14, 2005 09:49 PM
Spreading blame from pillar to post
Posted by MaxPlanck to AForrest
On News/Activism 09/14/2005 3:42:45 PM PDT 16 of 17
Since we’re back on the blame game, I thought I’d re-post my comment here. Is Louisiana State currently being blamed too much for blocking the Red Cross? It seems that safety also had an important role to play?
MaxPlanck
Red Cross: “It Was Not Safe To Be In The City” (Video).
In a Larry King interview on Sept 2nd, Red Cross CEO Marsha Evans explained that the Red Cross were not in New Orleans because it was unsafe.
‘It was unsafe to be in the city.’
‘– it was not safe to be in the city, and it’s not been safe to go back into the city.’
According to other reports, Red Cross workers could have been shot or contracted disease if they entered New Orleans in the first days after the storm.
In addition, Evans mentioned concerns that relocating in the city would delay evacuation.
‘They were also concerned that if we located, relocated back into the city, people wouldn’t leave, and they’ve got to leave.’
However, many reporters and news sources have failed to acknowledge the safety/security aspects of Marsha Evan’s explanation (an exception being Bill O’Reilly at Fox News).
It is not yet clear whether or not the Red Cross would have entered the city early on, given these serious safety risks, even if they had not been asked to stay out by the National Guard, the city and State emergency management.
A relevant video clip from the Larry King interview can be found at this (liberal) site:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200509090002
MP
See also this comment from samizdata. (Trey saw my comment first, before he wrote his). I don’t necessarily think Major Garrett was ‘majorly’ wrong. He may be 100% right. But we just don’t KNOW that yet?
MaxPlanck
Red Cross Story Update: Garrett’s Majorly Wrong Reason?
A possibly serious flaw in Major Garrett’s reporting is that he failed to emphasize the importance of SAFETY and SECURITY in deciding whether the Red Cross would enter New Orleans in the first days after the storm.
Both the Red Cross (in Larry King’s interview with Marsha Evans, Sept 2nd) and Bill O’Reilly (in his interview with Marsha Evans, Sept 6th) point out these important issues.
(See relevant clips here: http://mediamatters.org/items/200509090002).
It seems that Major Garret was aware of the safety and security issues that might well have stopped the Red Cross from entering anyway.
‘But the state told us A) it’s not safe, because the water is dangerous. And we’re now learning how toxic the water is. B) there’s a security situation, because they didn’t have a handle on the violence on the ground. And C) and I think (my emphasis) this is most importantly, they wanted to evacuate out. They didn’t want people to stay.’
But for some reason Major Garrett assumed that the desire to evacuate was the most important reason the Red Cross were not in New Orleans, which seems contrary to what we know from Marsha Evan’s Interviews with Larry King and with Bill O’Reilly. Subsequently, this is what he emphasized in this reporting and now this is the story that is going around.
But isn’t it understandable that the Red Cross were blocked if it was simply too dangerous for them to be there?
And is it accurate to say the Red Cross were ‘blocked’ from entering New Orleans, if they would not have gone in anyway, because it was too unsafe for them to go in?
We know that the Red Cross really wanted to provide assistance. But would they have actually entered a highly dangerous New Orleans in the first days after the storm, risking the lives of their own members, if they had been given the opportunity?
Trey Monke Posted by Trey Monke at September 14, 2005 09:49 PM