Things We Lost In the Fire: 'Anti-Katrina' Efforts A Day Late and a Dollar Short

While he's yet to offer his amply-demonstrated brush-clearing skills to Californians in need, President Bush is bound and determined to make the California Wildfires the 'anti-Katrina.' At least that's what the wee-bit-late-to-the-story New York Times will have you believe. Yet as you make your way through Sheryl Gay Stolberg's "With Katrina Fresh, Bush Moves Briskly," it becomes clear that you're staring in the face of a fluff piece. The article documents phonecalls, declarations, travel plans and promises, but very little mention of precisely what substantive assets are currently being deployed to aid the firefighting efforts.

And if you need any indication that this article isn't just as silly as a balloon animal, marvel at this paragraph, which we can't believe was actually printed. What is it that the wise men say speaks louder than what again?

And if actions were not enough, Mr. Bush also served up words, interrupting a speech on Tuesday morning about the global campaign against terrorism to talk about the disaster. After warning of the threat of a ballistic missile attack, he segued into the wildfires, saying, "We send our prayers and thoughts with those who've been affected, and we send the help of the federal government as well."

Statistics on how many homes were saved by the President's heroic segue were not available at press time.

Yes, the article makes mention of the Pentagon sending "helicopters and troops", and that "homeland security secretary and head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency were on their way," but is the truth of this confirmed? Do we get numbers, detailing the deployment? Is the actual arrival of such assets documented? No, no, and no. That's when this article morphs into a process story, which weirdly seems to position Bush's struggle to reclaim lost "relevance" as a pre-eminent concern.

In truth, the battle to forestall Katrina comparisons may already be lost. Editor and Publisher runs down what local papers are saying about the disaster response, and the contrast to the sunny picture painted by the Times couldn't be more stark. The San Diego Union Tribune speaks of an "urgent need for federal and state lawmakers and regulators to get their acts together and take a far more aggressive approach in heading off such blazes." The Orange County Register bemoans the lack of "game-changing" converted DC-10's that can offer significant aid in fighting fires. The Los Angeles Daily News held up the firefighters in the trenches as the antithesis of government "waste, corruption and special-interest favoritism." And, in these pages, Michael Roston documents that the shortfall being experienced throughout the Southland today was known about in advance by administration officials.

Criticism of the federal government, decrying the paucity of resources, evidence of advance warnings that went ignored - these are all hallmarks of the political aftermath of Katrina, and all three are in play in California right now. That doesn't necessarily mean any of these issues will balloon to hurricane strength, and everyone in their right mind hopes that the resolution of this disaster won't be as genuinely scarring as Katrina was for the Gulf region. But the Times is trumpeting 'anti-Katrina' efforts that already appear to be insufficient.

Comments

[GreeneMusic]

As for the article's conclusion, it really needs to be said that San Diego, for reasons one might want to address elsewhere, was much better prepared to contend with a massive fire event than New Orleans was with a hurricane. There really is no comparison, and I think the stark disparity of socio-economic circumstances of the two communities is a huge reason for the distinction. Thus, the better comparison is San Diego in 2003 (when the last massive fire burned) and today. From my vantage point, this has been far better, despite the fact that the fire was larger.

This does not mean the Feds have necessarily learned since Katrina -- the success (thus far) of local (City and County) and State authorities in managing the resources to fight the fire and deal effectively with the evacuation of more than a half million people is a credit to their efforts over the past several years to create a collaborative approach to disaster relief.

[GreeneMusic]

San Diego, October 24: It's not clear whether this article is more concerned with the NYT article or with the Bush administration's chronic incompetence. I think it is reasonable to be circumspect about anything regarding the capacities of Bush's leadership; however, the questions asked in this piece regarding the actual results of any "heroic" talk are easily answered. By declaring San Diego (and several other regions) federal disaster areas, Bush allows several streams of financial relief to flow. As for other resources, Chertoff was here yesterday as was the FEMA director. I think recovery efforts will reveal the success/influence of their involvement.

As for the technical aspects of fire fighting, there appears to be a massive misunderstanding of the capacities of aircraft to fight fires. For the first couple of days, wind conditions and the visibility issues caused by smoke prevented the air assault altogether. I am told that, along with the Santa Ana winds, a huge fire creates its own weather system that further complicates conditions for flying. Thus, some helicopter flights began yesterday and large planes (converted DC-10s and C-130s) are dropping massive amounts of fire retardant today. This is welcome news, of course, and late for those whose homes have been lost, but the danger involved with low altitude drops made earlier action impossible.

The San Diego and Orange County papers cited above are notoriously slanted ideologically to the right, thus it is somewhat bizarre to see them held up as avatars of journalistic integrity in contrast to the Times. Certainly, despite their local privilege and interest, it is worth giving them the same sort of critical assessment as you would give the Times.