5 ms·

Red Cross response: http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPublica-Response-10-03-17 http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProP

by js2 9y ago

Red Cross response: http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPublica-Response-10-03-17 http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPubl...

hawkice 9y ago
Red Cross says they served a lot of meals, and the official in Texas says all the meals came from them. Not opposing statements, and Red Cross seems full of it. Walking the meal across a building isn't the same as really helping -- trying to conflate the two makes me extremely suspicious of them.
- wahern 9y ago
  Reading e-mails from the comfort of your living room isn't strong journalism, either. As the Red Cross points out, Finally, we would invite Justin Elliott to visit our Houston shelters with us—or any of our shelters in future disasters so that he can speak to shelter residents and to Red Cross volunteers to obtain a more complete context of the challenges and realities of disaster response. Writing a piece such as this one without broader context is, at the very least, dial-it-in "journalism." This isn't the kind of journalism you should put too much stock into without significantly more corroborating evidence from diverse sources. Sometimes it's the best that can be accomplished, but that doesn't change its credibility. Without knowing much about disaster response, it doesn't seem surprising to me that relief agencies might perform inconsistently in the immediate aftermath. The Red Cross is huge (as is their purview, geographically and functionally), and not everybody they send will be veterans. I've always seen the value of a large organization such as the Red Cross in it's ability to get enough people there in the beginning to at least prevent a spiral into chaos, even when execution is inconsistent; and in sticking around long after attention has moved elsewhere.
  - Stratoscope 9y ago
    Mobile friendly copy of the Red Cross statement: > Finally, we would invite Justin Elliott to visit our Houston shelters with us—or any of our shelters in future disasters so that he can speak to shelter residents and to Red Cross volunteers to obtain a more complete context of the challenges and realities of disaster response. Writing a piece such as this one without broader context is, at the very least, dial-it-in "journalism."
  - forapurpose 9y ago
    The information the reporter has is very newsworthy and should have been reported. If he had that info and didn't report it, he would be failing at his job. Attacking journalists when the subject of a report doesn't like the news has become almost standard procedure. Look at Trump, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Harvey Weinstein, much of the GOP, etc. etc. Journalists wouldn't be doing their job if powerful people didn't like what they read. Without more to substantiate them, I don't give much credibility to the attacks. In this case, why should we take the Red Cross at face value? Did they substantiate their claims? How do they know what investigations the journalist did?
evolve2k 9y ago
This press release is a pretty valuable read, gives a very different picture.
DrScump 9y ago
They are already under scrutiny for where their Haiti relief funds went. From 2 weeks ago, 170+ comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335
- pvaldes 9y ago
  Would be unfair to compare both situations. Haity has an endemic level of corruption and lack of civil organization. And there are frontiers to cross also. I don't think that red cross had to face the same level of corruption in Texas or would need to bribe texan autorities just to allow moving material from point A to point B.
  - hawkice 9y ago
    Conversely, the lack of bribing Texan authorities would explain why a (possibly) similar level of malfeasance led to more criticism and more immediate disappointment. I think, by your reasoning, it _would_ be fair to compare with Katrina response, and they were also criticized for financial mismanagement in their Katrina response.
ChuckMcM 9y ago
Propublica does seem to have an axe to grind with them, it would have been more effective if Propublica compared the Red Cross response with the response of any other charitable relief agency. Except if they had done so they would have exposed that no other agency. So far I have been unable to find any agency other than FEMA that did more than the Red Cross did for the people of Texas in this emergency.
- falcolas 9y ago
  Like local food banks, and charity organizations who helped fund them? I imagine if you looked, you would find a dozen, a hundred smaller groups who did a lot more work with a lot less visibility.
  - ChuckMcM 9y ago
    Sort of, there are some organizations that did a lot in their local community. There was a school for example that sheltered and fed a bunch of people. They benefit of course from already being there and having a building already that they have access too. This isn't a criticism it is an observation. In terms of other organizations that weren't FEMA that helped more people in Texas during Harvey? My point being to separate evaluation of specific anecdotes over how many total people were helped. And so far from the sources I've been able to look at (granted I'm not in Texas so it limits that) it seems that the Red Cross helped (and is helping) a lot of people. Since the Bay Area will, at some point, be the center of a major natural disaster when it has its 'big' earthquake. I'm trying to understand what helps and what hinders emergency response and aid response. We have had several examples now of Hurricanes so lots of input. And the government tried something new which was pre-deploying material and that was pretty successful. It would be more difficult for the red cross to 'pre-deploy' in part because they get donations generally after or during an event rather than before but there are certainly some things they might be able to do. Rather than try to make people mad at them when they were (as best as I can tell) the most effective aid organization after the Federal Government, how can they be even more effective than they are.

by js2 9y ago

Red Cross response: http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPublica-Response-10-03-17 http://www.redcross.org/news/press-release/Red-Cross-ProPubl...

hawkice 9y ago

Red Cross says they served a lot of meals, and the official in Texas says all the meals came from them. Not opposing statements, and Red Cross seems full of it. Walking the meal across a building isn't the same as really helping -- trying to conflate the two makes me extremely suspicious of them.

wahern 9y ago
Reading e-mails from the comfort of your living room isn't strong journalism, either. As the Red Cross points out, Finally, we would invite Justin Elliott to visit our Houston shelters with us—or any of our shelters in future disasters so that he can speak to shelter residents and to Red Cross volunteers to obtain a more complete context of the challenges and realities of disaster response. Writing a piece such as this one without broader context is, at the very least, dial-it-in "journalism." This isn't the kind of journalism you should put too much stock into without significantly more corroborating evidence from diverse sources. Sometimes it's the best that can be accomplished, but that doesn't change its credibility. Without knowing much about disaster response, it doesn't seem surprising to me that relief agencies might perform inconsistently in the immediate aftermath. The Red Cross is huge (as is their purview, geographically and functionally), and not everybody they send will be veterans. I've always seen the value of a large organization such as the Red Cross in it's ability to get enough people there in the beginning to at least prevent a spiral into chaos, even when execution is inconsistent; and in sticking around long after attention has moved elsewhere.
- Stratoscope 9y ago
  Mobile friendly copy of the Red Cross statement: > Finally, we would invite Justin Elliott to visit our Houston shelters with us—or any of our shelters in future disasters so that he can speak to shelter residents and to Red Cross volunteers to obtain a more complete context of the challenges and realities of disaster response. Writing a piece such as this one without broader context is, at the very least, dial-it-in "journalism."
- forapurpose 9y ago
  The information the reporter has is very newsworthy and should have been reported. If he had that info and didn't report it, he would be failing at his job. Attacking journalists when the subject of a report doesn't like the news has become almost standard procedure. Look at Trump, Sarah Palin, Hulk Hogan, Harvey Weinstein, much of the GOP, etc. etc. Journalists wouldn't be doing their job if powerful people didn't like what they read. Without more to substantiate them, I don't give much credibility to the attacks. In this case, why should we take the Red Cross at face value? Did they substantiate their claims? How do they know what investigations the journalist did?

evolve2k 9y ago

This press release is a pretty valuable read, gives a very different picture.

DrScump 9y ago

They are already under scrutiny for where their Haiti relief funds went. From 2 weeks ago, 170+ comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15326335

pvaldes 9y ago
Would be unfair to compare both situations. Haity has an endemic level of corruption and lack of civil organization. And there are frontiers to cross also. I don't think that red cross had to face the same level of corruption in Texas or would need to bribe texan autorities just to allow moving material from point A to point B.
- hawkice 9y ago
  Conversely, the lack of bribing Texan authorities would explain why a (possibly) similar level of malfeasance led to more criticism and more immediate disappointment. I think, by your reasoning, it _would_ be fair to compare with Katrina response, and they were also criticized for financial mismanagement in their Katrina response.

ChuckMcM 9y ago

Propublica does seem to have an axe to grind with them, it would have been more effective if Propublica compared the Red Cross response with the response of any other charitable relief agency. Except if they had done so they would have exposed that no other agency. So far I have been unable to find any agency other than FEMA that did more than the Red Cross did for the people of Texas in this emergency.

falcolas 9y ago
Like local food banks, and charity organizations who helped fund them? I imagine if you looked, you would find a dozen, a hundred smaller groups who did a lot more work with a lot less visibility.
- ChuckMcM 9y ago
  Sort of, there are some organizations that did a lot in their local community. There was a school for example that sheltered and fed a bunch of people. They benefit of course from already being there and having a building already that they have access too. This isn't a criticism it is an observation. In terms of other organizations that weren't FEMA that helped more people in Texas during Harvey? My point being to separate evaluation of specific anecdotes over how many total people were helped. And so far from the sources I've been able to look at (granted I'm not in Texas so it limits that) it seems that the Red Cross helped (and is helping) a lot of people. Since the Bay Area will, at some point, be the center of a major natural disaster when it has its 'big' earthquake. I'm trying to understand what helps and what hinders emergency response and aid response. We have had several examples now of Hurricanes so lots of input. And the government tried something new which was pre-deploying material and that was pretty successful. It would be more difficult for the red cross to 'pre-deploy' in part because they get donations generally after or during an event rather than before but there are certainly some things they might be able to do. Rather than try to make people mad at them when they were (as best as I can tell) the most effective aid organization after the Federal Government, how can they be even more effective than they are.