The Mistlethrush ([info]gairid) wrote in [info]neworleans,
@ 2006-07-22 20:38:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Current mood: cynical

Katrina victims “not allowed” to talk to media
Not very surprising, is it?


The Federal Emergency Management Agency prohibits journalists from having unsupervised interviews with Hurricane Katrina victims who have been relocated to FEMA trailer parks, according to a report in the Baton Rouge Advocate (7/15/06).

Read the article here:

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=2924


(Post a new comment)


[info]roadwarrior220
2006-07-23 01:05 am UTC (link)
Our tax dollars at work. Ugh.

No wonder so many people still have no clue what happened to people who had to clear out. I'm not a resident, but I volunteered for a while in New Orleans and the government continues to shaft the people of the city, and just to save face (which is beyond saving anyway). I've heard too many horror stories to believe otherwise. And this just adds to it.

~Adam

(Reply to this)


[info]kitty_muffin
2006-07-23 01:16 am UTC (link)
what kind of fucking shit is this?

it reminds me of what a friend was telling me about FEMA trailer camps being turned into detention centers/camps ...

crazy shit.

(Reply to this)


[info]runningfutility
2006-07-23 01:33 am UTC (link)
this is pretty scary. looking through the article i see only FEMA trailer parks in Lousiana mentioned. NPR in the last couple of day (Thursday or Friday) interviewed several people in a trailer park in Mississippi. perhaps this is just a problem in Louisiana? or maybe NPR has been "approved" to interview people in the trailer park? i can't say that NPR's report was particularly flattering... it was about drug problems in that particular camp.

(Reply to this)


[info]dorisp
2006-07-23 01:39 am UTC (link)
Um, freedom of speech?

(Reply to this)


[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 01:55 am UTC (link)
Seems like they are just *trying* to squeeze a juicy story out of an already sour lemon.

Imagine being in a hotel. You are renting a room - the media shows up and the hotal manager says, 'nope! I don't want cameras allowed in here - it's part of our policy and you must leave.'

They have that right, ya know. The parks are similar - it *is* subsidized federal property and you can't go walking onto other federal properties with cameras and stuff. If they wanted to be interviewed, why not LEAVE and conduct the interview elsewhere?

These are not detention camps, they aren't prisons. C'mon - this is stretching the issue, don'tcha think?

Meanwhile - anyone else hear of the homicide that occured at the FEMA park at Leonidas/Claiborne? ....it'll never end...

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]tiffrobyn
2006-07-23 02:35 am UTC (link)
You are awesome. I feel like you always bring reason and common sense to these situations.

That is all. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 04:56 am UTC (link)
"bring reason and common sense"

Well, in a perfect world, that IS my job.
But here in NOLA, I wouldn't stretch it *that* far.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bitsofmymind
2006-07-23 02:46 am UTC (link)
Voice of reason, I adore you. :)

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 04:55 am UTC (link)
Haha, thank you... : : blushes : :

I just like being the devil's advocate when I can and when it's something I think smells fishy.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]annamarie84
2006-07-23 02:48 am UTC (link)
You always bring up good points and to be honest I wouldnt have thought about that but its just some of the things that they said ' “You will not give her a business card,” the guard said. “She’s not allowed to have that.” ' is what I dont get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 04:54 am UTC (link)
See below -

Unless I witness something, I read it with a grain of salt.
And that goes for BOTH sides. I somehow doubt it went down exactly like that -

I've been the subject of quite a few articles and believe me - even to great, noteworthy ones I've read about myself are 50% bullshit. Everything gets twisted and convoluted to fit someone else's agenda and views.

:D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]everyinchofme
2006-07-23 05:13 am UTC (link)
Having seen the shit that'd happened in my middle school way back when get covered on the news and how things came out. I can certainly attest to things being 50% bullshit.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 03:05 am UTC (link)
Did you actually read the whole thing, or just skim it?

At first, the resident talking to Goodman was told by the guard, “You can go get interviewed as long as it’s off post.” But when the resident offered to continue the interview outside the camp, the guard said, “Yes, you can be interviewed... if they had a FEMA representative with them, but since they don’t and do not have an appointment....” Interviews are allowed to proceed, the guard noted, when “they have the FEMA public relations officer with them.”

That sounds pretty clear to me. It also sounds like absolutely outrageous bullshit more appropriate to some third world shit-hole than a supposedly 'free' country.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 04:52 am UTC (link)
And what, pray tell, is that 'security guard' going to do if you continued walking away from the park and conducted the interview at a coffee shop? Chase you? Call the cops? bwahaha...

And seriously - do you believe "every" single thing you read in quotes? I mean, I would *like* to be able to believe what's in print, but hey - everyone has an agenda, right?

Who knows....

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 05:39 am UTC (link)
And what, pray tell, is that 'security guard' going to do if you continued walking away from the park and conducted the interview at a coffee shop? Chase you? Call the cops? bwahaha...

Gee, I don't know. Kick you out of your trailer maybe? Just because you know they can't do that doesn't mean everyone does.

What you seem to be saying is that it's perfectly okay for some jerk with a gun and a (toy) badge to make outrageous threats. I mean, hey..it's all a big joke, right?

And seriously - do you believe "every" single thing you read in quotes? I mean, I would *like* to be able to believe what's in print, but hey - everyone has an agenda, right?

Putting aside the fact that this is about the lamest excuse I've heard for an agument all day ( what you're saying is basically "this would be outrageous if it were true, so I'm going to choose to believe it's not. Case closed") do you think that no further investigation is warranted? These people are representatives of the federal government. Since they wouldn't lie to us about anything, and they never, ever have, I guess it's okay then.


You're a much more trusting soul than I.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 06:20 am UTC (link)
Outrageous threats!? Some jerk with a gun and toy badge?
What are you talking about?

The security guard, according to the 'story', was doing what he was instructed to do - and that is prevent media from gaining access to the FEMA OWNED trailer parks, in which they have ALLOWED people to live in *** free of charge *** under certain conditions. If they can not abide by the rules governing their own trailer, it's understandable that a security guard would escort them or their media friends off the property.

Why make a hysterical scene about "no cameras allowed" when they can conduct their interview elsewhere - and I somehow DOUBT that any trailer resident is under an obligation to immediately contact a FEMA rep should ANY media EVER want to interview them somewhere outside of the FEMA owned property. That is absurd and proposterious and realllly stretching for a story.

And finally, I agree with your obviously college educated reading skills - that in fact I WOULD think this is outrageous if it were true. Case Closed. I don't believe it is as bad as this story is making it out to be and that is my opinion. I believe if this investigation were to go any 'further' - it need only go in the direction of false reporting and outlandish journalists.

Maybe they can go find a REAL story that would change things instead of rushing for a deadline and using *this* as their "big discovery" - breaking news! Uh OH! Cameras aren't allowed on FEDERAL property without written or express permission of a federal representative. OMG! nooo!

Cheers

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 07:35 am UTC (link)
I WOULD think this is outrageous if it were true. Case Closed. I don't believe it is as bad as this story is making it out to be and that is my opinion.

Well I guess that settles that.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 08:25 am UTC (link)
As they left, the guard refused to let the reporter give Devall a business card so she could contact the newspaper later by phone.

“You will not give her a business card,” the guard said. “She’s not allowed to have that.”

When the reporter persisted, the guard ordered Devall to return to the trailer, saying the reporter was “not allowed” to talk to her.

The guard then called the police.


The full story is available if you click on the link in the first graph.

Apparently FEMA leases the land the trailers are on from the city. Whether that makes it 'federal property' or not I couldn't say. I'm not a lawyer. There is a quote from a lawyer saying that what's happening is unconstitutional, and the mayor also seems to think it's public property.

I suppose you could ultimately make an argument that they're reaching for a story that's not there if you wanted to, but you'd need more information than is available here, and you'd also need legal opinions and knowledge of constitutional law that neither you nor I possess ( I gather from your crack about 'college educated reading skills' that you've got me pegged for an academic lifer. For the record, I never set foot on a university campus as a student before age 37. Before that I was, in no particular order, a bartender, longshoreman, taxi driver, school janitor, alcoholic, heroin addict, and pimp).

What is crystal clear is that there are some assholes in uniform throwing their weight around, and these assholes are representing the federal government, and, by extension, you and me. I don't know about you, but I prefer not to suborn institutional bullying on my behalf. This should be looked into. If nothing untoward is happening, no harm no foul.

I tend to skepticism in these matters too, but my bias is usually that of someone who is suspicious of the motives of authority. You, on the other hand, seem to think these folks should be given the benefit of the doubt. That's fine if you have an argument to make, but that's not what you're doing. You're just saying "this is bullshit because the reporters are probably lazy and have an agenda." That's not an argument, it's an opinion.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 09:35 am UTC (link)
....Fair enough.

Seriously - I'll give credit where credit is due, and what you just wrote has some weight to it. It's also a little more 'middle of the road', a place I feel more comfortable with and could agree with.

Here - the land that the trailers occupy are leased from the city, yes - therefore, assumably, it has at least 'some' federal guidelines to govern it. It is public property to the extent that if you have an interest, ie a friend living there, family, etc, you may enter the gates. If not, it is similar to a gated neighborhood. The local police, whoever they may be, do have jurisdiction within the park and can enforce local and state laws upon it.

My biggest problem is that I know how a lot of these security guards are and I'm not doubting that the security is trying to act like a prick. My only quarrel is when people living in those parks attempt to rise against whatever type of 'authority' is pressed on them and resist. Just smile and realize that the security guard does not understand nor enforce law and that his last job was probably McDonalds - much like our beloved local force (not naming names, cough cough). Why does it need to be such a global issue when a few rent a cops say that a camera is not allowed?
It seems the worst issue discovered here, is that the guard acted unprofessional and overstepped his limited authority - not a secret FEMA conspiricy to turn these trailer parks into a Nazi style detention camp. There is no big brother trying to keep these people from leaving their 'homes'...there is no civil rights violation and their freedom of press and speech are not being violated. Only under "color of law" can that occur, anyway! Guards are NOT law enforcement, therefore it is strictly civil - and to that extent, merely unprofessionalism.

Either way - I didn't want this to garner even more attention or make this into a federal case - I just wanted to play the devil's advocate for a minute and suggest the other side of the conversation. 'tis all.

Cheers...and I'll end my comments here. I applaud your response above - very civil and like I said, more middle of the road - which is where I like it. :D

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 04:06 pm UTC (link)
It seems the worst issue discovered here, is that the guard acted unprofessional and overstepped his limited authority - not a secret FEMA conspiricy to turn these trailer parks into a Nazi style detention camp

No argument there. From what I've seen of FEMA (and the feds in general, from the white house on down) they couldn't organize a two car funeral, much less a far reaching conspiracy of any kind. I have no doubt that they'd like to keep their various fuckups and inconsistencies secret, I just figure if they can't even keep Brownie's dinner plans under wraps, the secret memo on restricting trailer residents 1st amendment rights is not going to be too hard to find.

But that's exactly my point. If you don't look, you don't find, and dismissing bad behavior by various government minions as unimportant is exactly how much larger transgressions get ignored as well, although I would certainly agree that screaming 'facist!' at the slightest provocation is a pretty good way to discredit yourself. I'm old enough to remember the 60s, when people did that a lot, and it was always embarrassing and detrimental to their aims. However I'm also old enough to remember that Watergate started with an 'inconsequential' little burglary.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]dark_law
2006-07-23 09:36 am UTC (link)
"I gather from your crack about 'college educated reading skills' that you've got me pegged for an academic lifer. For the record, I never set foot on a university campus as a student before age 37. Before that I was, in no particular order, a bartender, longshoreman, taxi driver, school janitor, alcoholic, heroin addict, and pimp"

Oh, btw...wow, you were a taxi driver? Interesting...

lol, cheers...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

[info]jdquintette
2006-07-23 03:54 pm UTC (link)
Oh, btw...wow, you were a taxi driver? Interesting...

Quite possibly the most horrible job I've ever had.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

[info]bettyboot
2006-07-23 02:06 am UTC (link)
well i wrote my letter and emailed away

(Reply to this)


[info]martianstar
2006-07-23 05:45 am UTC (link)
my dad is in a camp in Baker, LA. he gets his trailer "searched" like clockwork...

too bad they can't focus that manpower on giving him his life back.

(Reply to this)


[info]misterbeans
2006-07-23 08:00 pm UTC (link)
Anyone want to start a pool to see how long it takes for the ACLU to get involved?

I can't believe this... this country is just going down the damn tubes. How can anyone NOT be allowed to talk to the press?

(Reply to this)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…