Katrina Aftermath coverage: Where's the Big Picture?

He was speaking over a cellular telephone connection, sizing up story ideas, juggling broadcast priorities and taping up a broken window all at the same time.

Still, NBC anchor Brian Williams found time to call me, two weeks after Hurricane Katrina and the flooding it brought had devastated New Orleans before a national audience, certain that the destruction and suffering we all had witnessed would bring important changes.

"We're going to be talking about this in someway for the rest of my lifetime and yours," he said, certain that the debacle of delayed relief and starving in the streets would kick off a new national dialogue on race, class and poverty in America. "I think my children will have children before this issue is over. I think this -- like it or not -- This will color our debates...color our coversations on these larger issues for a long time."

At the time, Williams expected to craft a prime time special, perhaps two hours long, to cover all the issues. He got a 30-minute documentary which aired on an NBC Universal-owned cable network, the Sundance Channel.

Indeed, the media world will turn its eyes to New Orleans this week, covering the twin events of the first post-Katrina Mardi Gras and the six-month anniversary of the storm which nearly destroyed the city. Every major TV network will anchor its evening newscasts from the Big Easy today and tomorrow; NPR's All Things Considered will be there all week; CNN's Anderson Cooper has already gone there to continue covering the story which helped make his national reputation. There will be lots of stories about individual suffering, government incompetence and the struggle to rebuild

But in all this coverage, that larger national dialogue -- the one where the nation re-examines issues of poverty, race and class in America, aided by strong journalism -- hasn't really happened.

I'll have a story in Wednesday's Times about why. But here's a few thoughts on the issue from people who should know.

Jim Amoss, editor of the New Orleans Times-Picayune newspaper: "I think it hasn't happened on a national basis, mainly because its not a topic by and large people are
comfortable with. It has to be forced on them. Once the dire circumstances go away, so does most people's willinness to have the conversation. In New Orleans, it is or will be happening, in part, because the city has to be reinvented...and all those issues are wrapped up in race in New Orleans.''

Michele Norris, co-anchor, National Public Radio's All Things Considered: "There are reporters chipping away at these issues, but it hasn't sparked this big thematic debate that we saw around poverty in 1968. More than anything else, that came out of political leadership. Hearings on the issue. Bobby Kennedy taking a bipartisan group of senators into the South....Many reporters have talked about the epiphanies they've had. I think that story will live inside them. And may change the way they look at the politics of poverty and the conditions of poverty. You may see the coverage change in more subtle ways based on what reporters have seen.''

Andrew Tyndall, network news analyst: "You'd have to say the majority of the coverage....is still on the level of human interest and focusing on the evacuees themselves, rather than on the underlying issues. There's no evidence that there's any increase in (network news) coverage, even by NBC, on the other issues -- urban policy, poverty, race relations, coastal environmental policy, including wetlands preservation and global warming, and energy conservation...In the abscence of news, all of this coverage has to be at the level of feature coverage.''

Tom Rosenstiel, executive director, The Project for Excellence in Journalism: "I think for history to have taken on a meaning about race and class and probably economic policy, that would have required some eloquent and continuing arguments by opponents of the Bush administration, and opponents of the Republican party. The Democrats weren't up to that...(and) there was enough blame to go around here....The first task ofthe press after Katrina was to find out what went wrong and what's happening on the ground now. The issue of what's to be done from here, even now, is probably beyond the skill set of the press. What we're talking
about now, trying to figure out in a larger sense what does this mean -- What did it expose about us as a country? -- That's pretty high order work. In the end, that comes down to "What is the American public ready to believe?'''

Jonathan Alter, columnist, author and pundit, Newsweek magazine and NBC News: "In some ways, it's another missed opportunity of the bush presidency. In the same way that after 9/11 he had a way to rally and unify the country, after katrina, he had the same opportunity. And in both cases, he squandaered it. . I do think that's what newspapers, magazines and TV networks don't recognize: there's a great interest in this. It was one of those television moments; kind of like when the dogs and fire hydrants were turned on the civil rights demostrators...(But) the images alone don't bring change.''

Jane Knitzer, executive director, National Center for Children in Poverty: "You ask why (no national dialogue)...we puzzle over that a lot. Americans don't like to talk about poverty. And if they do talk about it, they like to see it as an individual problem, not a structural problem. It's kind of blaming the victim, and not looking at what happens when you make policy choices which priviledge the wealthy."

History Channel gves $10,000 to Help Florida Historians Looking for Angola

Ever since TV producer Vickie Oldham left her job at Sarasota ABC affiliate WWSB-TV -- she was one of five black women who challenged the station's license renewal on grounds of racial discrimination -- she had the story of Angola in the back of her mind.

For years, she worked to unearth the story of an all-black settlement founded somewhere along the Manatee River by runaway slaves in the early 1800's; the oldest known instance of a black community in Florida. She raised more than $100,000 to further her research and make a documentary, Looking for Angola, which debuted on public TV last week.

Now she's got another $10,000 from the History Channel, to fund archaelogical digs and get students involved with the site excavation while learning about the community -- a most excellent way to spend five figures, preserving and unearthing a little-known chapter in Florida's annals of black history.

Straight Talk on TV's New Love Affair with Interracial Relationships

You know you've been around a while when other critics start calling you for quotes.

The topic most recently was the new uptick in interracial relationships on prime time network TV shows. Given that I covered TV for eight years, have written about the issue before and are currently involved in an interracial marriage, I guess that made me the perfect expert for my friend Chuck Barney of the Contra Costa Times.

Chuck -- along with a TV critic pal in an interracial relationship, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer's Melanie McFarland -- noted a surge in such pairings on some high profile shows. Dean and Cassie from the WB's Supernatural. Joy and Darnell from NBC's My Name is Earl. Christina Yang and Preston Burke on ABC's Grey's Anatomy. Rose and Bernard on Lost (or Shanon and Sayid). Neela Rasgotra and Michael Gallant on ER. The list, these days, is long.

It's a wonderful turn, and an improvement from the days when the only interracial couples on TV were Lucy and Desi and The Jefferson's Tom and Helen Willis. I was disappointed, however, to see that Chuck only quoted part of my problem with the way current interracial relationships are portrayed on TV -- which is that race or culture is rarely a factor.

It's been my experience that race and culture differences come out in unexpected, subtle ways in modern-day interracial relationships. Rarely will you have racists say something to your face -- though two of my wife's brothers-in-law refused to sit in the same room with me when I attended my first Thanksgiving dinner at her mother's home a dozen years ago.

Instead, it's less obvious frictions: my wife encountering a woman at the grocery who refused to believe our caramel-skinned daughter could be her child by blood; the waiter who seemed to dote on the white couples around us but ignore our table for long periods; the black people in my life who would get a certain look on their face once they realized my wife is white (once had someone insist in an email discussion among black journalists that I couldn't possibly love my wife).

It's a truism that TV doesn't do subtle well. And TV especially doesn't do subtle and controversial too well. And so, most every interracial relationship on network TV unfolds as if the race and culture differences don't matter (on Lost, where producers paired a white, priviledged blonde American with a former member of the Iraqi Army, the dissonance was so great they wound up killing off her character).

There are some who see this as an advance -- a sign that we've gotten beyond the race politics which kept Star Trek from actually showing Capt. Kirk and Lt. Uhura's lips touching. Perhaps. But, as an ever-cynical observer of the media industry, I think it is more a sign of capitulation from television; an unwillingness by mostly-white TV writers to try navigating the tricky waters of America's race differences on such a visible platform.

(To see an interesting take on the black male/Asian woman coupling trend, check here. For Wikipedia's list of notable interracial couples, look here.)

The real edges of our frictions over these issues appear on some of the romantic/dating reality shows, which rarely feature interracial couples -- except on the trading spouses programs, where the ultimate message seems to be that stepping outside your culture only brings conflict. (ABC's creaky franchise The Bachelor has had one: Tampa's Mary Delgado with whatever blockhead was the bachelor that year).

Which is too bad. Because, even as many in the real world are testing the boundaries of convention while following their hearts, TV remains a step or two behind -- unwilling to walk in the deep water, for fear of getting too real for prime time.

Pundit Alert #1:

Looks like the good folks at CBS' Public Eye blog are really desperate for material: They actually published my take on their new Assignment America series and what it might mean for the new world of digital-influenced news coverage. Feel free to check it out, if only to snicker at the lousy head shot they used (not their fault; unfortunately, I only have lousy head shots available these days). Sigh.

Pundit Alert #2:

I'll also be inflicting my opinion on the notables at Rob Lorei's public affairs show for WEDU-Ch. 3, Florida This Week. So far, the issues at hand seem to be the United Arab Emirates connection to a deal at the Tampa Port Authority, polls showing Crist and Davis ahead in the Governor's race and legislation making it a crime to be an illegal immigrant. Check it out at 8:30 p.m. tonight, 12:30 p.m. Thursday or here.

Olympics Glass Half Full for Me

I could remember when I watched the Olympics full of anger.

Gimpy, nauseating athlete feature stories. Sitting through events about which I could care less. Enduring jaunty patter from a score of empty anchor suits.

Fast forward to 2006, and I'm a much happier camper. Want to know whether Shani Davis become the first African American to win a gold medal in skating in Turin? Call up NBCOLympics.com (or, even, Sptimes.com, to make a blatant plug) and watch the video well before the network gets around to broadcasting it.

Want an alert when the U.S. men's hockey team takes on Finland? A replay of the tense press conference where Davis and American rival Chad Hedrick sat at opposite ends of a long table and eventually dissed each other mercilessly? An opinion from Project Runway expert Tim Gunn on which figure skating outfits look good? (okay, probably not that)

This is why I'm digging the digital media universe. For folks like me, who just want to know enough to look smart around the watercooler, NBC's move to spread coverage all over cable-land and the Internet is way cool. I can see what i want when I want and bypass -- or enjoy -- all the nonsense.

Which is why I never really understood all the to-do this year about NBC's prime time Olympics broadcasts slumping in the ratings. In this new digital media universe, of course the Olympics ratings will fall in prime time: prime time TV viewership is down in general, the events have happened hours ago and are available online or on cable, and people have more on demand attitude than ever.

The other thing I don't get, however, is the Today show's seeming ratings boost from its deluge of Turin coverage. I'm been starting my day with Good Morning America for the past 12 days because it's nailed just the right amount of Olympics vs. real news coverage for me. It's not really news to me that pidgeons like to poop on Katie Couric or Al Roker looks awful in speed skating pants. Some of us would prefer to leave that to our imaginations.

I'm probably maladjusted, but I've always dreamed of a media universe where you could consume just as much (or as little) of a candy-coated hype fest like the Winter Olympics as you could stand. Now that its a reality, why are people complaining so much?

Did You Hear the One About the Vanishing Newscast?

Why won't anyone at Sinclair or WTTA-Ch. 38 talk about the station's newscast?

As I noted in a post a while ago, rumors have run rampant for weeks locally that Tampa's WB affiliate is about to drop its ill-fated 10 p.m. newscast. Originally cobbled together as part of Sinclair's wobbly attempt to clone Fox News Channel on its station group -- and to help WTTA sell ads to customers who don't advertise on stations without a newscast -- the local broadcast has always seemed a little starved for resources and visibility.

The latest rumor is that executives have notified the staff that the weekend broadcast is history in a week or so. But calls to the station's news director, general manager and Sinclar corporate types have yielded a big goose egg for weeks. Not even a "no comment." Just nothing.

It is always ironic when people who spend their workdays trying to get others to comment on the day's news refuse to speak up when they are in the crosshairs (reminds me of recent news on a certain local tabloid going five days weekly. But I digress).

Sure, you could probably count their viewers for that weekend newscast on Captain Hook's fingers, but doesn't the community deserve to know if one of its newscasts is going away?

PUNDIT Alert:

Looks like CBS' Public Eye blog has accepted a new idea I pitched them for one of their Outside Voices essays. If all goes as usual, I expect the essay to be published Friday. Between these guys and the Huffington Post, I may end up writing as much for other blogs as my own.

Toilet Water Hits the Big Time

I remain amazed at how far the story about Jasmine Roberts -- the Hillsborough 7th-grader who proved in a science fair experiment that toilet water was cleaner than tap water in many restaurants -- has spread.

Today the Columbia Journalism Review's CJR Daily website takes on CNN for covering her results instead of a science journal piece noting that Greenlands ice caps are melting at a faster rate that previously known.

The day before, she appeared on the Today show; a quick Google search indicates her story has appeared everywhere from Good Morning America to the Hindustan Times (see video from WTSP-Ch. 10 here)

It's testament to the power of a can't-miss concept, paired with a cute, articulate teen can go in today's media drenched news environment. As CJR noted, CNN even put its impressive news resources to work, collecting 23 samples to reproduce this 7th grader's science experiment on a national scale.

A sample of how cable and morning TV news shows are increasingly held to the same news standard as local TV outlets? For sure.

But its also an interesting example of the momentum of a persuasive idea. And that's a lesson worth learning in a world where knowledge brings increasing levels of power every day.

I expect to be working for young Jasmine before too long.

My Ambivalence About Myspace

As a father of four who is a bona-fide cyberjunkie, I've always been of two minds about MySpace.

Yeah, it's the cool new social networking space for young folks, and just about everybody seems to be on it these days. The cybersurfer in me loves the fact that you can dip into a new universe with every mouse click -- one moment you're commiserating with fans of a cool new band, the next minute you're checking out the hotties who have applied for Playboy's Girls of MySpace pictorial.

As a musician, finding a site with the ability to post some of my music has been gratifying. And entering into a network with others with similar interests is a powerful, addictive opportunity.

But the parent in me knows that passels of 14-year-olds (and younger) running around unchecked in a service where porn stars and skin mags keep prominent pages is an awful idea. (before you shrug that off, think about it: Would you let your 11 or 12-year-old sibling/child run around Times Square with no adult supervision and any time of night?)

That's why I tried to cover the waterfront a bit in my story on MySpace from today's paper; presenting a little of good, bad and ugly about the site. The fact remains: If those who run MySpace don't figure out a way to keep the younger users a bit more isolated and protected, some awful incident will send advertisers running and shut down the service.

It's good news that the News corp.-owned site plans to install a safety czar to develop plans for safeguarding children on the service. But it's hard to know how they will make this vibrant, ever-changing landscape safe for kids without killing the volatile energy that makes it so much fun in the first place.

What do you think?

The Cold War Between Tampa Bay's Newspapers Heats Up

I've heard people say we are lucky in the Tampa Bay area to have real newspaper competition.

But, as a colleague of mine noted, we don't have a direct newspaper competition so much as a journalism cold war -- where the Tampa Tribune and St. Petersburg Times fight each other directly for subscribers mostly in a few select communities, like, Pasco County.

Still, the Tribune owns Hillsborough County circulation-wise, and the Times owns its side of the Bay -- for the most part. But that competition may be heating up following news that the Times has decided to expand publication of its free tabloid tbt* to five days a week, with a special pull out section on Fridays. The news prompted a federal lawsuit by the Tampa Tribune, which has complained that the tbt* name -- which I always thought stood for Tampa Bay Times -- violates a copyright they hold for the name Tampa Times.

The news comes as Media General released profit figures this week noting that advertising revenue at the Tampa Tribune rose 13.9 percent from January 2005 levels, including an 18 percent rise in classified advertising. That's interesting news in the wake of competition from online services such as Craigslist and eBay.

The news about tbt* had been rumored in the Times newsroom for many days. Advertisers seem to love the scrappy tabloid, which has developed a snarky, unique voice in presenting splashy stories about a porn video filmed at The Pier and media coverage of the Debra LaFave case. Already, the tab has become a significant competitor for Tampa's alternative newspaper the Weekly Planet; news that tbt* will be stepping up production can't be good news for them, either.

Industry convention says such tabloids are a combination starter kit/laboratory for newspapers -- getting younger readers to consider a regular newspaper habit, while acting as an incubator for fresh approaches which can be imported to the mothership publication. Much as I love my friends who work at tbt*, I worry that such publications really encourage young readers to see newspapers as irrelevant to their lives outside of entertainment. That's not a perception which will help traditional newspapers improve their brand much.

Still, with tbt* expanded to five days, the writing is indeed on the wall. Readers who complained about our front page story on Chuck Norris jokes or the big spread on allegedly gay strip club owner Joe Redner should steel themselves; the importation of attitude and coverage style from our youth-focused sister publication has only begun.

N-Word Controversy Reveals Our Own Stilted Dialogue on Race

In an odd way, it is a sign of how far we have come: A white teacher in Louisville, Ky. has made national headlines following his use of the word nigger to refer to a black student.

Paul Dawson is appealing a 10-day suspension for admittedly telling the student "Well then, nigga, get away from my window." He also said the student used the term first, and that kids all over the school use the term in the same way others might say "dude" or "man."

But the student, 18-year-old Keysean Chavers, said he didn't use the word first; a claim backed by other students interviewed from the class. He has told journalists he felt Dawson's actions were unwarranted and offensive.

The main part of this controversy is easily understood. Dawson, a teacher with a history of using clumsily offensive teaching techniques to talk about social differences, made another boneheaded error here. Even when I was in high school, students used curse words all the time; that didn't mean it was appropriate for teachers to stoop to their language level.

But this case -- as so many of these incidents do -- reveals something deeper: our inability to talk about or reconcile our deep ambivalence about the n-word.

That ambivalence is rooted in black culture, where we use the word with each other, often in endearing terms, but recoil when someone outside the culture uses it.

Those who abhor the use of the word often seize on this contradiction. But there are plenty of women who call their friends bitches who wouldn't appreciate a man they didn't know employing similar languages some homosexual men also call each other the f-word in a way they would never tolerate from a straight male.

Complicating things is the way rap culture has taken the n-word to new levels of visibility. Suddenly, something that was an in-crowd behavior among black people has been plastered all over the globe, with adherents insisting there is some distinction between the classic "nigger" and rap-ified "nigga." I must confess, I've never believed such a thing -- the word is the word, and couching it in a slang version doesn't answer the core question.

Can a non-black person use the word in general company without being considered racist? And if not, isn't THAT racist?

In considering this, I am reminded of a great quote by -- of all people -- Dr. Phil: "Do you want to be right, or do you want to be happy?"

I do think the double standard on the n-word makes little sense. But black folks have been talking that way since before I was born --finding power in a word originally used to demean them. So I don't think that behavior will change soon.

We can, however, change how we talk about these incidents in the wider public space when they happen. Hysterical anger serves no one; if someone who has a long record of good works makes a slip of the tongue, there should be room to conclude that a good person did a bad thing, without imposing a capital punishment. We have seen locally how the debate over teachers with good records who mistakenly use awful racial language can be hijacked by emotion and the drive to punish.

Dawson is seriously flawed teacher who probably shouldn't be working in a classroom -- not because he is a racist, but because he doesn't have the good sense to deal with difference constructively in a learning environment.

Learning how to make that distinction when we talk about such incidents, might turn Dawson's awful mistake into a powerful teaching tool for us all.

My Last Dick Cheney Media Post -- Maybe

One of the problems we have as a government is our inability to keep secrets."
--- Vice President Dick Cheney, to Brit Hume Wednesday on Fox News Channel.

I know you're tired of reading about it. I'm almost tired of writing about it.

But I can't let the vice president's recent comments on his shooting accident pass without noting the conduct of the source he chose to deliver his mea culpa -- Fox News Channel.

It is nice that the Veep decided to put the brakes on a spin strategy that involved blaming the 78-year-old victim for getting shot. And it wasn't news that Dick Cheney would defend his decision not to tell the national media of the incident for a day -- the purpose of this interview, after all, was to speak directly to those conservatives who were starting to question the V.P.'s secretive, non-sensical disclosure decisions. Throwing his supporters a few bones to help spin this issue, Cheney artfully blamed Elitist Eastern Media for the controversy, suggesting the New York Times is mostly upset over being scooped by the Corpus Christi Caller-Times.

But even given Fox News Channel's reputation as a conservative haven, I was a bit surprised by interviewer Brit Hume's spin in favor of preserving Cheney's reputation. Speaking with Shepard Smith soon after interviewing the vice president Wednesday, talking up clips of the interview which would play in full on his own 6 p.m. show, Hume began to sound a bit like the Mary Matalins and Fay Buchanans who have been trying for days to put the best face on this awful situation.

"One may not be as quick to blame him, as he is," noted Hume of Cheney's statement taking responsiblity for the shooting, not so willing to absolve Whittington of blame in the accident. "Obviously, he (Cheney) didn't do it on purpose."

Obviously. But tough questions remain. Why didn't he speak to police until the next day? Why haven't police filed an official report yet? Why hasn't Whittington's blood alcohol level been released or discussed? Why would he think that having the ranch owner speak to a local newspaper was the best venue to announce the vice president had accidentally shot someone?

These questions weren't directly asked. But viewers did get a dose of Hume's view of how the incident affected Cheney -- a humanizing effect that was also the likely intent of the interview. "My sense was that he is shaken...I've known him a long time, we're not close. He's not an outwardly emotional man...but he was, he's disturbed about this. He's troubled. This is a worried man."

Hume also made it clear that he wasn't asking about Cheney's delay in telling the press about the incident because he was interested in the issue: "If this is the only appearance he's going to make, I felt some obligation to ask as many questions as others might want asked. Responsible questions."

But of course. The whole sad display, which was repeated on John "Fighting the War on Christmas" Gibson's show an hour later, only highlighted what a sad political spectacle this event has become -- partisan to the point that even the guy who was shot has PR people from the hospital telling reporters this is "much ado about nothing."

But journalists' problem is that it isn't really "nothing." The vice president shot a man who later had a mild heart attack from his injuries. And the vice president apparently didn't disclose important information about the incident to the White House for many hours, didn't talk to the police for 14 hours and didn't make a public statement for four days.

As a metaphor for the Bush administration's other problems with imperiousness, secrecy and disclosure, it's irresistible. And it has consumed much of the White House press corps attention because Dick Cheney had to be forced by a tsunami of reaction into the most basic public disclosures about what happened -- including a brief admission that he did consume a beer at lunch on the day of the accident.

Unfortunately, Hume was too busy making a striking point -- a journalist in Washington defending Cheney's decision to keep the press in the dark for nearly a full day after the shooting -- to press on these other issues.

Hume's take: "It's fun to talk about the (American people as Cheney's) employers across the nation, and in sort of a broad constitutional sense that's true. If my email is any guide---I don't think much of the nation feels particularly deprived that they found out about this on Sunday afternoon or Sunday evening instead of Saturday night or Sunday morning...It's a question of timing...This is a private hunting accident."

I can only assume the next time a Washington politician makes a mistake in a private setting, Hume will be as accomodating in curbing his journalistic curiosity.

UPDATE - In between actually doing work, I stumbled upon a most excellent essay by NYU professor Jay Rosen on what he thinks is really going on here - Cheney and the Bush administration have refused to accept the mainstream press' longstanding role as surrogate for the public.

When they must make public statements, they will make them to friendly press organs - or create their own press organs, in the case of Armstrong Williams and the Video News Release scandals.

So when Cheney had a longtime pal call a friendly newspaper columnist, and he waited four days to speak with a supportive Brit Hume it wasn't a mistake. The Veep was openly disregarding the notion that he had any obligation to deal with the massive national press apparatus, which he and other conservatives view as just another partisan interest group.

Like Cheney himself, the essay is compelling and more than a little scary....

Public Relations 101: Silence Only Makes the Problem Worse

File this one under "Nice try, guys."

I got this email from the good folks at the conservative-leaning Media research Center yesterday: "Eric – In a conspiracy to tarnish the Vice President’s reputation, the liberal media is blowing this accident out of proportion. Some reporters are questioning whether the shooting was accidental, and the New York Times unearthed old, irrelevant incidents to further smear Cheney. The Media Research Center is tracking exactly how this bias is playing out as this story unfolds – more info at www.mrc.org."

Aside from revealing the astonishing manner in which partisans will serve as apologists for "their side," the MRC email also got the culprit wrong.

The ongoing controversy over Dick Cheney's hunting accident isn't hanging around because of a liberal-tilting media. It's because of the vice president himself, and his refusal to address the matter publicly.

Former Bush press secretary Ari Fleischer is among those who said as much in an interview with Editor and Publisher magazine, noting what others have been saying for days -- that the vice president's office should have announced the incident Saturday night or Sunday morning.

It has been a little disconcerting to see Washington reporters acting astonished that the news was leaked to a small paper first -- just as it was disappointing to see the editor of the Corpus Christi newspaper try to turn one columnist's personal connection with the ranch owner into a major reportorial triumph. (Yes, it was cool that the ranch owner thought enough of the local paper to give them the scoop; but taking a cellphone call from a friendly source is hardly investigative journalism at its finest.)

Attempts to shrug this off as a tempest in a teapot have withered following shooting victim Harry Whittington's heart attack yesterday due to a piece of buckshot lodged in his heart -- a development the White House also sat on for hours.

Unfortunately for Dick Cheney, this incident reinforces a multitude of negative observations about his approach: that he is too secretive; that he has too much autonomy; that he doesn't care about the public's right to know; that he is callous; that he cannot deviate from a mistaken approach, even when it is clearly wrong.

Cheney is expected to sit down with one of the most friendly national press outlets available, Fox News Channel, at 2 p.m. today, for an interview to be aired throughout the day and during Brit Hume's 6 p.m. newscast. Expect lots of tapdancing and obfuscation from a politician who has shown he has a tough time admitting the limitations of his power in the smallest instances.

CHAPPELLE's Point of view: It's Hollywood That is Crazy

Those lucky enough to see the two-hour Inside the Actors' Studio featuring comic Dave Chapelle got an earful of the lanky firebrand's take on race, stand up comedy, showbusiness and the appeal of controlled substances.

Chapelle made headlines last year when he walked away from a $50 million contract with Comedy Central while filming the third season of his wildly popular Chappelle's Show series. Rumors flew that he was on drugs or crazy -- two theories which showbiz veteran Chappelle inexplicably found insulting and nonsensical (only in show business would a guy who walks away from $50 million be surprised when people call him crazy).

I've always felt Chappelle was a huge talent with an equally huge capacity for self-destruction. But he did make an interesting point
on that score Sunday, referring to mentor Martin Lawrence's well-publicized public meltdown.

"Lemme ask you this: what is happening in Hollywood that a guy that that tough will be on the street waving a gun, screaming 'They are trying to kill me?' What's going on? Why is Dave Chappelle going to Africa? Why does Mariah Carey make a $100-million deal and take her clothes off on (MTV)? A weak person cannot get here to sit and talk to you. Ain't no weak people talking to you. so what is happening in Hollywood?...These people are not crazy; they're strong people. Maybe the environment, is a little sick."

Wise words, even if they are coming from a guy trying to justify walking away from the biggest deal of his life.

Dick Cheney Shoots a Hunting Buddy and Tells No One

These are the moments that make me love the rhythms of a free press.

As I write these words, White House spokesman Scott McClellan is getting handed his head over the administration's lapse in informing the press corps that the Vice President had shot a man during a hunting trip Saturday.

Press Secretary Scott McClellan's story -- which he stuck to, despite a heated grilling from assembled media -- was that Dick Cheney agreed to let the owner of the ranch where he was hunting notify the press about the accident, in which he sprayed 78-year-old Austin lawyer Harry Whittington with buckshot about the face and neck around 5:30 p.m Saturday.

NBC reporter David Gregory, displaying his increasingly deft ability to sum up the total idiocy of McClellan's lame-o excuses, asked incredulously: The vice president let a private citizen deliver this news to the world? And she chose, in her infinite wisdom, to tell the 60,000-circulation Corpus Christi Caller-Times only?

Amazingly, for those of us who enjoy seeing McClellan twist in the wind, this was not the best tidbit. The press secretary then said that neither he nor the White House even knew the Vice President was the shooter until about 6 a.m. Sunday, 12 hours later.

McClellan should have known there is no fury like a reporter scooped. And a roomful of national reporters scooped by a small local newspaper under fishy circumstances was bound to generate a tsunami of pointed questions.

It's hard to understand why McClellan gets so agitated during these exchanges. He's asking the White House press corps to believe he went to bed Saturday night not knowing whether Dick Cheney shot someone, totally at peace with the notion that the woman who owns the ranch would release details of the accident to a local newspaper with no involvement from his office.

Dan Froomkin, author of the controversial WashingtonPost.com column Washington Briefing, asks the best question we didn't hear during today's press scrum -- Where the heck is Dick Cheney, anyway? Shouldn't he be explaning to America what happened instead of the administration's professional press pinata?

Of course, Fox News Channel followed the press conference with a lame-brained segment featuring an official from a hunting advocacy group, explaining how such an accident could occur and why it doesn't mean that hunting is unsafe (despite lots of prompting from the anchors, however, she wouldn't let Cheney off the hook totally for shooting without warning).

The jokes are flying already: a list of people others wish would go hunting with Cheney next (Dubya and Pat Robertson top many lists); quips that Cheney used faulty intelligence; and a photoshopped image indicating Whittington was a code name for Cheney's indicted Chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby.

I can't wait to see the Daily Show tonight, either. But what I'm really hoping for is an explanation for why this White House can't tell the world about a hunting accident without looking like a bizarre mix of the Keystone Kops and the Watergate conspirators.

UPDATE: You're listing them anyways in the comment section, so let's hear more -- Your coolest Dick Cheney shoots somebody joke. Best one gets some awful promotional item I have received in the mail (yet to be named)!

A Simple Answer to the Anchor Question

As proof that we in the blogosphere tend to stick together, I got an intriguing offer from the folks who put together CBS' Public Eye blog today.

Apparently, they saw my post about Brian Montopoli's essay on Dateline NBC and liked it enough to ask me if I might write something for their Outside Voices column -- in which they fearlessly allow knuckleheads like yours truly to take potshots at CBS on their cyberspatial dime. Way cool.

Unfortunately, they have been drowning in advice about how to choose their next anchor, so they weren't very interested in my first idea.

Still, I think its interesting enough for someone to read, so I'll post it here and you guys decide. It goes something like this:

They may not realize it, but CBS TV president Les Moonves, CBS News president Sean McManus and their minons already have a perfect example of how to draft the next anchor to lead CBS News.

And he's sitting at NBC News.

Think about it. Brian Williams was the heir apparent for years at the peacock network, groomed for the job over time through significant overseas assignments and lots of time subbing for the big guy. His transition was choreographed long in advance and the change only boosted the show's ratings.

By all accounts, Bob Schieffer has things well in hand at the CBS Evening News. His ratings are rising and his newscast has earned plaudits from critics across the country. So why screw that up by shoehorning in a famous face already burdened with his (or her) own baggage?

CBS News needs to turn to its bench. Take a long look at Byron Pitts, Lara Logan, Scott Pelley, Russ Mitchell, Troy Roberts, Rita Braver or someone else (they already lost a great contender, former 60 Minutes II correspondent Vicki Mabrey, to ABC in November). After they pick a person, they should spend the next two years publicly and confidently developing them into CBS' next anchor.

NBC showed them how to do this right. ABC, with its hasty moves and horrible luck stands to lose its second co-anchor later this year when Elizabeth Vargas has her second baby -- her pregnancy was announced today. The Alphabet Network moved too quickly and will likely wind up relying on the same two people who have propped up their news department for years: Charlie Gibson and Diane Sawyer.

What we know about TV news audiences is that they take a while to warm to changes. And the past 18 months have been about the most unstable the industry has seen in a while. CBS will be tempted to try swooping in with a big name, to take advantage of ABC's misfortune. But Sawyer and Gibson are still a potent duo, and personalities like Katie Couric are broadcast news' equivalent of Hillary Clinton -- popular with some, but polarizing for many.

Here's hoping Moonves and McManus aren't too proud to learn from the best move its competitor has made in a long while.

That's it. Lemme know what you think below. And if you have any ideas on what I should pitch to Public Eye next, feel free to post that, too...

Cartoon Controversy Hijacks Cable TV

I saw Wednesday that Fox News Channel anchor Shepard Smith was preparing to tackle the controversy that filled cable TV news that day -- the ongoing riots and unrest over cartoons satirizing the Muslim prophet Muhammed.

Now, we'll see some interesting discourse, I thought. And they flashed to the single guest expected to illuminate this controversy for Fox News viewers in that segment: Weekly Standard editor Bill Kristol.

Kristol, an experienced pundit, was certainly a substantive guest. But as an U.S. magazine editor and passionate advocate for Israel who is also Jewish, he offered a perspective on the issue which should have been balanced by a Muslim and/or an Arab.

But that was the scope of conversation on many cable channels covering the controversy Wednesday, where the subtle nuances of this exploding controversy were often lost as outlets offered up a collection of clashing voices leavened by the host's own barely-informed opinions.

On MSNBC, NBC's chief legal correspondent Dan Abrams offered his opinion that the cartoon controversy was overblown, pressing his Muslim guest on the hidden agendas of extremists who may be encouraging the violence. On CNN, Lou Dobbs offered similar comments, disagreeing with his own employer for choosing not to broadcast images of the cartoons and similarly pressing a Muslim guest, the executive director of the Council on American-Islamic Relations, who tried to explain (and denounce) the violent reaction.

What concerned me most watching these morality plays unfold on TV were two things: the disregard for the opinons of non-violent Muslims who also may find the images offensive, and the inability to talk about the more complex issues at hand.

Of course, Muslims shouldn't be torching embassies and rioting over cartoon images. Of course, extremist Islamic demagogues are using the controversy to press their own agenda. Of course, Muslim newspapers have trafficked in anti-Semetic and anti-American images for decades.

BUT - Islamic militants have found acceptance on the Arab street because they describe a network of anti-Muslim forces which subjugate the common man, from Israeli-friendly Western countries to corrupt, oil-rich authoritarian leaders who align with them. This skewed vision of world politics is only reinforced when Western media marginalizes Muslim voices and declines to provide a nuanced perspective.

Pictures of George Bush sitting next to King Abdullah from Jordan, asking Arab leaders to rein in protests, can look like an awful double standard -- freedom of speech for Muslims, so long as they express opinions America can tolerate. If Western nations cannot convince ordinary Muslims that pro-Western institutions will protect their cultural priorities, then we can expect a spread of Democracy in the Arab world to bring the election of more extremists -- who present themselves as guardians of the Muslim faith, regardless of their true nature.

I'm not seeking to be an apologist for those who have resorted to violence in expressing their opposition to the cartoons. That kind of protest is harmful and only reinforces Western perceptions of Muslims as violently intolerant.

But it is growing more important for journalists and communicators to build bridges of communication with the Arab/Muslim world. Cheerleading for Western values without attempting to understand other perspectives not only produces a predictable, uninteresting story, it reinforces a cultural divide that mass media should be working hard to overcome.

Muhammed Cartoons: To Publish or Not?

The debate now raging in media circles is simple: Do you publish cartoons which have enraged Muslims enough that embassies have been destroyed and people have been killed? Or do you avoid presenting them, either to prevent futher violence or because the material violates your standards of presentation?

The issue has emerged in stark detail in recent days, as news organizations struggle to cover rioting and protests worldwide by Muslims angered over Danish cartoons satirizing the prophet Muhammed.

The Philadelphia Inquirer and Fox News have published the cartoons, one of which showed Muhammed with a bomb in his turban. The New York Times and USA today among others have declined to publish the cartoons and National Public Radio wouldn't even provide an online link to other Web sites which feature the cartoons. Four staffers at the New York Press resigned when top management insisted they pull images of the cartoons from an issue devoted to them.

My surprising conclusion about all this: Both decisions are right.

Given the severity of the outrage, I don't blame some news organizations for seeking to publish the cartoons, particularly if they act to blur sections which might violate their standards of content. A journalist's prime instinct is to deal in truth, and what could be more truthful than the images which started everything?

And I don't blame some editors for concluding that they would never normally publish such material, so the substance of the cartoons can be conveyed in ways that don't involve violating their editorial standards.

I think it is easy for some pundits to decry the thoughtfulness some editors are bringing to this issue, without acknowledging that a similarly brusque treatment of religious icons they value might push them to a different conclusion. The question each editor must resolve for themselves: are they making their decision to publish or not because of perceived intimidation, or because of the images' journalistic impact?

(The St. Petersburg Times hasn't published the cartoons, but our web site does have a link to a site featuring the cartoons. You can find them here.)

Fortunately, we have enough media making enough independent decisions that those who wish to see these cartoons can find them without much trouble. And editors who feel they can cover the controversy without further stoking the fires of outrage, can exercise their news judgment as well.

Isn't that what a free press is really all about?

Did DATELINE Cross a Thin Line?

CBS Public Eye writer Brian Montopoli has a compelling column posted about Dateline NBC's recent "To Catch a Predator" series.

He writes on CBS' blog devoted to media matters about the ethical questions raised by Dateline's reporting -- which involved the network utilizing volunteers to pose as minors online, engaging men in sexual talk and arranging a meeting at what was supposed to be their home. When the men showed up expecting underage sex, they were greeted by a Dateline reporter and law enforcement.

Montopoli talks about the questionable issue of entrapment -- since some of the volunteers brought up sex first and suggested meeting, aren't they guilty of enticing these men into breaking the law? (Anchor Stone Phillips says no on his Dateline blog) But I was more concerned about something the column briefly touched on: NBC News becoming an arm of law enforcement.

Journalism purists often feel their job is to observe news, not to create it. That line is blurred more often on TV, where an often-unspoken ethic involves placing the reporter at the center of the story, so viewers feel more attached to the report, the reporter and the station.

Usually, that just means TV types wind up doing silly stuff like taking shocks from tasers or getting a shot of tear gas in the face. But in this case, NBC News stood at the center of an operation which trolled online for sexual predators, set-up personal meetings with them and then got them arrested, capturing it all on videotape for a later story.

Montopoli asks whether Dateline is circumventing the natural process of justice by exposing the men's intent to commit a sex crime before they have been charged with one. But I think if NBC had simply observed the process of law enforcement conducting their own stings and arrests, such issues would be moot -- the audience could decide whether the men were guilty of anything.

Of course, you then wouldn't have the dramatic moment where the correspondent alone confronts the men, presenting them with evidence of their past explicit conversations and dashing their feeble excuses while the cameras run.

This is what worries me most about such stories: reporters forgetting that they are not partners with law enforcement, but observers of it (and yes, I'm aware that I admitted helping dump some trash during a house gutting I covered in New Orleans. My own feeble excuse is that the gutting is a small part of my story and doesn't involve an issue contentious as a felony criminal charge).

Sure, Dateline may have helped get some dangerous men off the streets. But they could have done so without making themselves such an intimate part of the story, and their journalism would have been stronger for it.

PUNDIT WATCH

It's not my best appearance, but I did surface on NPR's News and Notes with Ed Gordon today, discussing Coretta Scott King's funeral and a white teacher thick enough to use the n-word in reference to a black student.

Coretta Scott King Coverage: What Does it Take to Get BET's Attention?

I am watching the Coretta Scott King funeral coverage on CNN and marveling at Bill Clinton's amazing ability to be our most magnetic ex-President ever, when I get the urge to channel surf a bit over the coverage.

Fox News? Check. C-SPAN? Check. MSNBC? Yup. Black Enetertainment Television?

Um, hold on.

As Clinton roused the house by reminding the congregation that there was a woman inside that casket who made tough choices throughout her life, BET was serving up a Busta Rhymes jam -- communicating their priorities in a single, searing instant.

I've never been one of those who thinks BET should be all things to all black people. But as the oldest black-focused TV outlet in the country, their priorities have an impact. What they cover says something.

And when they don't cover something, that makes a statement, too.

The cable channel has admitted choosing not to cover King's funeral live today, instead scheduling brief update reports and a special later in the day.

Why should Chris Matthews and Kyra Phillips be the only one dissecting the impact of the political speeches made at Mrs. King's graveside? Why shouldn't BET gather some strong, black intellects to dissect the meaning of her passing at this crucial time? (I'm told another black-oriented channel, TV One, did feature the funeral coverage live, but it's only avalable in the Tampa Bay area via digital cable)

As a subsidiary of Viacom, they don't even have the excuse of limited resources. Surely the death of a civil rights icon could bring a halt to the booty shaking videos, just for a moment?

As someone who badgered local cable systems to feature BET when I was a young college student, I gotta say I never imagined a day when the channel would pass up coverage of presidents speaking at Coretta Scott King's funeral for the umpteeth play of a Common video (oh yeah, you can watch streaming video of the coverage at BET.com).

Time for Black Entertainment Television to find a new dream, I think. One that involves educating our young black people as much as entertaining them.

SMOKINGGUN Goes Too Far?

My pal and author Bob Andelman weighed in on the mug shots currently filling the SmokingGun web site from a stripper bust in Pasco County.

Already featured on Keith Olbermann's Countdown show last night, the Smoking Gun has an array of 25 mug shots from strippers arrested at six different clubs, all holding up makeshift booking signs with their alleged crime written along with their name.

Bob felt the whole display was somewhat exploitive, with no pics of the male strip club patrons. I felt it continued TSG's well-established fondness for the Stripper Mug Shot, second only to the Celebrity Mug Shot.

What do you think? Might they have gone too far this time?

Getting the Look: Journalism in New Orleans

NEW ORLEANS -- It's an expression every experienced journalist gets to know before long. Some of us call it The Look.

It's a tightening of the eyes, especially at the corners. An uneasy, self-conscious laugh. A slightly startled look, quickly covered by an awkward smile.

It's the expression journalists sometimes see when they walk up to someone who knows they are about to report on them. And it's an expression I saw a lot while walking the halls of the New Orleans Times-Picayune. (photo credit: Willie Allen Jr. -- Times Staff)

Not to slight the great staffers at the TP. Indeed, they opened their newsroom and their homes to me and photographer Willie Allen in an admirable, selfless way. Hip deep in covering the biggest story of their lives, they nevertheless made time for a journalist who wanted to cover them -- sharing stories of courage, loss and survival that has united them in an awesome task; putting out a great newspaper, day after day.

So, too, did various residents of New Orleans open their lives and their hearts to us, sometimes pulling us aside after seeing our notebooks and camera lenses. Given the slow pace of federal aid and the nation's wandering attention span -- an incredulous Times Picayune story noted Bush devoted 163 words in his State of the Union speech to New Orleans -- they know attention from outside media is their surest chance for jumpstarting new relief efforts.

If we heard it once, we heard it 1,000 times during our brief stay in the Crescent City: You have to see it to believe it. Walking at the 17th St. Canal breach near the city's tony Lakeview neighborhood, Willie and I learned the truth in that statement. While workers struggled to repair the levee, a trickle of water continued to leak onto streets filled with destroyed cars, demolished homes and worse. One house stood in the middle of a residential street, washed from a spot a half block north and several yards east of its current location.

Willie and I spent our final day in New Orleans following a group of TP staffers who gather on Saturdays to help gut the homes of colleagues who need the help. When a home is destroyed by flooding, the owner needs to have the destroyed contents removed and the ruined wall materials pulled off the studs, a service which can cost upwards of $6,000 if done by hired hands. Gathering with breathing masks, heavy tools and a lot of goodwill, about 20 TP staffers convened at two different homes Saturday, breaking up ruined furniture, pulling moldy sheetrock off the walls and helping still-stunned homeowners salvage whatever they could.

It was an infectiously open-hearted scene, emotional enough to inspire Willie and I to help a little after our reporting was done. It may not have been the most objective move -- but after helping lift a few loads of trash onto the curb, we had a better sense of how hard they all are working to get back to zero -- and how long they have left to go.

Delayed by the work and a brief stop for a delicious lunch at the Gumbo Shop -- yes, it's open again, with limited hours -- Willie and I found ourselves scrambling to make the return flight to St. Petersburg. Running into the airport terminal, we knew we were too late for the plane, which was the last flight to Florida that day. But the airline staffer checking bags had wonderful news: the flight we were to board had been delayed 20 minutes at its previous destination. We wouldn't be sleeping in Armstrong Memorial Airport after all.

I like to think it was a reward for some of the good Karma we earned earlier that day.

A FEW QUESTIONS....

Given that I was mostly out of the loop last week, I've been catching up on my media news today and found myself asking a few pointed questions. Such as....

1) Don't ABC execs know that getting Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson to back up Elizabeth Vargas while her co-anchor recovers from an attack in Iraq only undermines her authority as the show's anchor? And if Bob Woodruff were the healthy one, would they have called in the old school A-Team like this?

2) What's dumber: a Tampa Tribune reporter admitting she skewed her vote for a prestigious sports award to make sure the candidate she liked won? Or the newspaper pretending that her skewed vote violated a rule that they don't "influence the things we cover," while allowing her and other sportswriters to vote on sports awards -- which, presumably, affect the athletes they cover?

3) As the stories about pedophiles using Myspace.com to troll for victims increases, how long will it be before the online services figures out some way to keep kids out of its raciest features?

4) As I peruse the latest lineup of lame-o Super Bowl commercials -- a Godzilla-like creature which gives birth to Hummer? -- I'm compelled to ask: Why do we keep pretending these spots are any better than the crappy commercial come-ons we endure 364 other days of the year? (My handy AOL service offered the chance to page through all the big Super Bowl commercials this year, confirming my snarky query).

5) Are the guys at GoDaddy.com absolute geniuses for cultivating acres of free publicity by getting their Super Bowl ad rejected by ABC more than a dozen times? You know the Super Bowl ads are lame when journalists spend as much time writing about the ones that may not air.

Fields of Destruction: New Orleans' Lower Ninth Ward

NEW ORLEANS -- Imagine the worst disaster movie you've ever seen.

Deep Impact's vision of a tidal wave crashing into New York City. Planet of the Apes' post-apocalyptic Statue of Liberty buried in the sand.

Now imagine a place where scores of cars sit turned over on their roofs, large trees lie upended, their roots exposed to the baking sun, and the floors of kitchens sit isolated -- as if they were installed in the middle of a rubble field.

Welcome to New Orleans' lower Ninth Ward.

The Lower Nine, as locals call it, has a troubled history in the Crescent City. Largely devoid of grocery stores, banks or other instruments of social infrastructure, this was New Orleans' poorest region -- the most deprived area of a city known for its crushing poverty.

Walking through the area Thursday, Times photographer Willie Allen and I saw an area that seemed mostly untouched since the Industrial Canal levee breached five months ago. The infamous red barge, which broke through the canal wall and brought a torrent on floodwaters into the neighborhood, still sat atop two houses -- a small yellow school bus wedged beneath its western side.

Gwen Filosa, an energetic, 35-year-old Times Picayune staffer given the task of covering the Lower Nine post-Katrina, was actually a bit heartened as we drove past long blocks of debris, pulled from houses crushed by floodwaters like beer cans. Someone -- likely a group of young bohemian volunteers camped out in the neighborhood called Common Ground -- had been "mudding" the abandoned structures; pulling out furniture and debris, ostensibly so the Army Corps. of Engineers can cart it away like they are doing elsewhere in the city.

But there is little evidence any trash has been removed yet in this place -- despite the presence of scores of uniformed security officers Filosa derisively describes as "feds." A hardnosed news junkie who came to New Orleans to cover race and poverty, even she had to stop coming to this area, after visiting the site every day for weeks.

"You imagine your home pushed off its foundation and your personal stuff lying around everywhere," she said, gesturing to a nearby toy fire truck which has landed, improbably, on the hood of a Ford Crown Victoria half buried in sediment and debris. "Somebody's bedroom is laying right over there. To me, it just looks like a horrible graveyard."

You look across the horizon, devastated homes and piled-up cars stretched out far as the eye can see, and you wonder: How can this ever be righted? What trash dump is big enough to hold the contents of a neighborhood which once housed 14,000 people?

Watching a small crew of workers scurry across the canal, employng a crane and four backhoes to some mysterious purpose, you also wonder: Why are they rebuilding the levee behind this huge barge if they plan to remove it? And what could anyone do with this ground if they don't?

That is the question which continues to bedevil New Orleans. Some former residents of the Lower Nine -- poor folks who nevertheless owned their now-destroyed homes for generations -- want their neighborhood back. But who will pay the billions needed to clear and rebuild such worthless land?

And even as local politicians dither over a consultants' report which recommends shrinking the city's footprint to exclude this poor, black neighborhood (and the poor, mostly white neighborhood of St. Bernard's Parish just beyond the Lower Nine), these acres of destruction stand as silent testimony to the capricious power of Mother Nature.

"In the first month, this was a Media Circus -- cameras everywhere and National Guardsmen on every street," said Filosa, looking around at a space now occupied by a clump of workers and a small trickle of disaster tourists. "Now, I can't blame people for feeling a little neglected. I mean, who is going to do anything about this?"

Media in New Orleans: Struggle and More Struggle

NEW ORLEANS -- Preservation Hall is closed. And that's a worrisome symbol of work left to be done.

I'm in New Orleans on assignment, spending my first evening in town Tuesday at dinner with Dave Walker, TV critic for the Times Picayune newspaper and an old friend. And despite the fact that the French Quarter didn't flood much and bounced back quickly, reminders of the remaining destruction from Hurricane Katrina are everywhere.

In times past, the grand Preservation Hall music club only closed for Mardi Gras. But its doors are padlocked shut now, one of many New Orleans institutions which haven't found their way back to health, five months after the storm flooding which nearly knocked the city off the map.

That's the way Katrina impacts those who traverse the city now, surfacing in unexpected ways. French Quarter clubs party on as if nothing happened, but drive out of that neighborhood and you can travel miles without seeing a habitable house. Loads of traffic signals sit dark, portable stop signs posted hastily to keep motorists from crashing into each other.

One block might feature a bustling restaurant, with workers restoring homes or other businesses; the next block might feature little but mounds of debris and gutted houses, abandoned cars still sitting streetside -- ignored by a city still struggling to cope.

In the middle of all this, journalists like my friend Dave are struggling to keep working while facing a blizzard of personal needs -- phone calls to contractors, hassling with federal aid bureaucrats, fighting to find a decent school for their children. All the while, Dave and his compatriots at the Times Picayune are producing the kind of journalism likely to win Pulitzers and more.

I remain awed by their resolve and the obastacles they've overcome just to reach this point. And I'm honored they're willing to let me document their struggle. I apologize for the laxity in postings this week, but even as I attempted to log onto Blogger Wednesday morning to write this, the city's long distance system wouldn't connect my calls.

Just a fact of life for folks in a city that's grateful to still be alive. I'll try to post updates when I can...

TIDBITS

I'm encouraged to see my friend and former Ft. Worth St. Telegram TV Critic Ken Parish Perkins bounce back with an incisive piece on the implications of the CW/UPN/WB project for black-centered TV. I've always wondered whether the world would really care if mediocre shows such as Half and Half wernt away; I doubt the new network would be dumb enough to cancel the most successful black-themed show on its air, the quality Everybody Hates Chris. Ken left the Star-Telegram after admitting he inserted a paragraph from an Entertainment Weekly story in his own work; he has said that instance and others were mistakes made while writing quickly. I remain torn between my friendship for Ken and the insufficiency of that explanation.

Passed over anchor guy John Roberts finally got the hint, bolting CBS for a senior reporting job at CNN. New CBS president Sean McManus all but told the world Roberts wasn't getting the network's top anchoring job, after years of speculation that he was the next in line. Rather than wait for the disappointing announcement of a deal with Katie Couric -- or worse -- Roberts has fled to the network of Anderson Cooper and Larry King. Might not be much of an improvement.