4 ms·

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.

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?

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?