The Chronicle posted this editorial earlier. For the most part, it's fine. The last line though is a load of shit.
Echoing (well, not quite) Galveston Mayor Lyda Ann Thomas, the Chronicle says "The Chronicle shares that hope. But that hope comes, too, with more than a touch of frustration and annoyance at the shocking self-absorption of people who thought nothing of putting their own lives and those of potential rescuers at risk to avoid the inconvenience of heading for safety."
That is, simply, snide. "Shocking self-absorption." That is a shameful thing to say and, if they have any decency, they will retract it.
Really, the Chronicle should know better, given the history. In 2004, nearly 100 percent of Galveston residents evacuated from Rita. And they found themselves trapped on highways for as much as 30 hours, in part because the State of Texas had, essentially, no plan for the evacuation of the Gulf Coast region. That is not a small point: sitting on a Gulf Coast Texas highway with nothing but Governor Good Hair assuring you that gas tanker trucks are on their way (and, for the record, they were not) in September with thousands of others is an extremely dangerous situation.
Add to that the following:
- Rita hit well east, over the Texas-Louisiana border, adding insult to the injury of the evacuation process
- Ike's unpredictability
Galveston residents had no reason to expect better performance from the state compared to 2004 or a more predictable landfall.
I'm sure some people made irresponsible decisions in choosing to stay. But I'm also sure that 40 percent of Galveston did not make decisions based simply on "shocking self-absorption." That phrase really turns up my blood pressure.
Further, the Chronicle doesn't know why these Galveston residents stayed. Had they interviewed even one resident when they published their editorial (notice the byline, showing a publication date of 7:40 a.m. on September 13)? They certainly don't quote any, other than Mayor Thomas.
Finally, the title of the editorial asks a simple and just question: "Why did thousands stay in Galveston?" And without a shred of evidence they criticize 20,000 people as being "shockingly self-absorbed"?
My main point is that we can all reserve judgment until later, when the facts are in. Is that the way journalism is still done?
Correction: Rita was in 2005, not 2004. Sorry.
1 comment:
Marty, Marty, where have you been? Wait until the facts get in? That was a long, long time ago in place far, far away. As inappropriate as the “shockingly self-absorbed” comment was, here’s my problem with it: Why publish it just a couple of hours before the brunt of the storm arrived? It was too late. Had they published a few hours earlier, maybe a few more folks would have evacuated.
On second thought, I heard an interview with a woman who said she wasn’t evacuating because she hadn’t been ordered by a high enough authority. Said she was waiting for Jesus to tell her to leave. She probably wouldn’t have listened to the Chronicle.
Post a Comment