Helene is x times worse than Katrina, but receives y less coverage from The New York Times, The Washington Post, etc.
When we finally plug in the numbers, we will likely discover that the coverage difference is best explained by two factors: there are fewer reporters yet more “journalists” than ever before, and (you guessed
You see, Katrina coverage helped besmirch George W. Bush and the Republicans.
Covering Helene in the same way, or to similar extent, could hurt the incumbents (FEMA has been especially lame), and the presidential race is too close for the Democrats’ lackeys in the media to do that.
So let’s blame Helene on Trump.
Or, the low coverage on Trump. Trump’s the why of the y!
It’s just as sensible as blaming Helene on man-made climate change. Nearly every newsperson intones the plausible-sounding theory that the warmer the climate the more damaging the storms. It’s a great hypothesis. But pre-Helene studies have shown scant evidence for it.
Further, the oft-repeated line that “never before” has a hurricane reached so far inland is also untrue. Asheville, North Carolina, was destroyed by a similarly horrific hurricane in July 1916.
These are rare events. Or, perhaps, cyclical, on repeat by century.
The pity with all this theory and conjecture and political nonsense is: less coverage means less knowledge outside the hurricane zone of how horrible Helene is, and thus less sympathy elicited from the general population of generous Americans. Thus, less aid.
Making major media complicit — with the U.S. Government (FEMA, etc.) — in not helping relieve the suffering.
So maybe we should thank the climate change agenda. Without that devil to fight, we might get no coverage of Helene at all.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
Illustration created with Midjourney
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
