Writing New York: Posts from the Boroughs and Beyond

The concept of “good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism” indicates the emergence of a more serious type of niche media. I assume Carr intentionally chose brussel sprouts over say, simply leafy greens; the former is generally associated with stricter tendencies, such as the cliched portrayal of parents instructing their children to eat the allotted portion on their plates. As such, this form of media appears to cater to those with both sincere and serious interests. The publication will certainly lose out on readership if it chooses to not adopt strategies to broaden its appeal/coverage. That, however, is the essence of niche media.

Carr noticeably delves into the topic at hand, highlighting some of the caveats associated with this specific type of business venture. It appears that the article is well-geared towards our class, as a significant portion of our curriculum has focused on the untimely (and equally unpleasant) upheaval in the respective industry. I attribute our understanding of the topics at hand, the subject of the article and the underlying issue, to our class interactions. Those that have not been as well informed may find Carr’s article on emerging niche media to be equally niche-directed.

Carr’s subtle bias is evident elsewhere in his coverage, particularly in his casual neglect to remotely chastize the publication’s decision to not even mention the heinously tragic occurrence. At times, the article feels reminiscent of a fan letter, perhaps even a call to arms. He is undoubtedly familiar with the changing face of journalism, and likely holds his own beliefs regarding its sustainable future. Perhaps an article exemplifying new practices to test the waters?

As David Carr pointed out, the strengths of  “Brussels Sprouts Journalism” include its concentrated power working in one direction. The Texas Tribune did not cover the Fort Hood story, because while it was breaking news, and they were so close, it wasn’t theirs. The team has a job to do: to inform the public about about prominent political events in Texas. They are a niche, and that means having one focus, and there is definitely a positive effect of such a newspaper. Their job is to be concise, informative, and responsible in their reports about political affairs in the government. Additionally, when people know of the sites existence, they will visit to enhance their knowledge about politics. Sure, they are not a main news source, but Texans have regular newspapers for that.

I don’t know that David Carr includes enough background in the story, but he does have a lot of quotes. Even so, the article is not well rounded, because it only describes the Texas Tribune, rather than bringing up other examples of similar start-ups.

Leaving out the first paragraph about Fort Hood, I think that this article is almost a type of press release for a web site. Carr could have included other people’s opinions, other than the ones that worked in the Texas Tribune. Yes, there is a bias in Carr’s reporting in this piece.

When it comes to New Orleans many people envision Jazz players, dancing in the streets and of course Mardi Gras. The history of New Orleans would not be complete without those threads woven into that city.

However on August 28, 2005 a far more devastating act would occur in New Orleans which from now until forever will stay woven in its history. On that day the city of New Orleans was hit by Hurricane Katrina. At the time Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans it was considered a category 4 Hurricane.

What makes the events of that day more dreadful are the days that followed when the American government ignored the situation and acted like the city of New Orleans was a third world country.

On August 26, 2006 director Spike Lee’s film “When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts” premiered on HBO. The documentary showcased what happened during and after the impact of Hurricane Katrina. The film features interviews by journalist Soledad O’Brian, Kayne West, Reverend Al Sharpton, and the Mayor of New Orleans Ray Nagin.

The film shows the lives of many people who were displaced by Hurricane Katrina. People who had lost everything they ever owned… gone. Not only were they victimized by the hurricane, but they were also victimized by their own government TWICE. The first time occurred when President Bush and his administration seemed to completely ignore the crisis occurring in New Orleans. When the Bush administration finally decided to take action that is when the people became victimized once more. When the people of New Orleans were beginning to be reorganized they stopped being known as the people of New Orleans to “refugees”. This point is showcased well within the film. When they were being called “refugees” many of the people showcased in the filmed described how they felt that they had lost their American citizenship and became runaways from a foreign country. They were losing their American identities.

Even though this terrible event happened to them many people in the documentary who were in New Orleans said that they plan to stay there until their deaths, and many people who were relocated after Hurricane Katrina said they planed to return because they were born there and their family roots were there. Being from New Orleans will be with them forever and that is the way they want it to stay.

Spike Lee’s film not only showed the destruction left by Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, but it also showed the strength of its people.

One of the strengths of the good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism is it’s ability to shift the attention of readers from gossip news to news that has a direct impact on them and their community.  This type of journalism shifts the scope of the news from broad to narrow and it gets people more involved with things such as local politics.The coverage of this trend is is a little poor.  I dont think a strong enough arguement was made for the trend.  There was also little if any information given about who else is following this trend other than these journalist.  I think Mr. Carr focuses only one aspect of this problem and he doesn’t explain how this problem is afecting the rest of the nation.  This article is too specific to provide insight on the matter.  There are no references to how this problem is affecting other states and there is no mention of other journalist who are trying to solve this issue as well.  he writer shows a bias by presenting only a small portion of a large story.  It doesn’t seem like there was much outside information used to support the fact that there is a problem with the Media.  The lack of supporting information and the decision to only use quotes from one side if the conflict causes there to be a bias in this story.

David Carr’s article creatively discusses a new platform for reporting and journalistic media under the format created to be brussels sprouts journalism. This form of journalism involves the “shaving off” of certain aspects of the news, and only keeping what is good for public readership. I think ‘brussels sprouts’ will provide a stable, responsible and effective style of journalism that only includes stories that are ‘healthy’ and necessary for journalists and viewers alike. It will be the opportunity to cover breaking and important stories without the pull from other ‘colorful’ stories. On the contrary, the style of brussels sprouts will leave no room for creative journalism, and reporting will become way to serious. With the upcoming of brussels sprouts journalism, there will be no platform for what I would call ‘runaway news’ news in which individuals can report on the fun and interesting things in life and giving the audience a means to ‘runaway’ from the pressures and concerns of the society.
Carr’s lede was anecdotal, and that was very important in capturing our attention as he continued to article about the new model for journalism. Using Texas Tribune as a example of the bigger journalistic microcosm, he was able to strategically give his audience an explanation of this new found journalism. By mentioning the financial concerns of the media, the gap in journalism, and the fact that news outlets are constantly sharing the same breaking stories, he indirectly speaks of the problems facing media on a general scale. Carr includes a significant amount of figures and background information that makes his piece appear more accurate, and for this story that sort of information is in need for specifics.
I think David Carr is demonstrating some bias in his story. It is interesting because you really need to read between the lines because his bias does not stand out. There was one example when he talks about the gaps in reporting and that he could not find anyone to comment on that segment of the story. For a New York Times reporter I find that very hard to believe. Also, the majority of quotes and commentary from the people interviewed  mainly promote the change for new journalism but I don’t remember reading about anyone wanting to keep journalism the way it is now. How can a writer not be bias when they are only featuring one side to the story? The article as a whole was very informative, a kind of opinionated news piece, but what would have been even more interesting was to see the ‘debate’ on the prospective platform of new media.

The “good-for-you, brussels sprouts journalism” that is expressed in the story refers to journalism that is probably not the most attractive or flashy, but is “good for you.” Specifically, stories dealing with education financing, lobbying, bureaucratic priorities, civics and state government. The strength of this type of journalism is that it is consistent in its exclusive content. Readers always know what they are going to get from this type of niche media. However, the narrow focus on news content could also be a weakness because it does not extend itself to issues that people want to hear about, such as the shootings at Fort Hood.

Carr sort of captures both sides of the problem, both for and against the type of reporting that the Texas Tribune uses. Even though he uses a lot of quotes from the side that favors the Tribune’s style, he still mentions that nobody he spoke to would say anything on the record about the “gaps in reporting.” However, he could have asked other questions dealing with the negative aspects of the style. He also doesn’t mention this until the end of his article, after he has painted the Tribune’s style as a revolutionary form of journalism in which so many people put in hard work and effort. For this, there is a bias in the story as well as unfair coverage. Carr does not capture the different sides of the problem as well as he could have, making it hard for the reader to provide background for this story.

In David Carr’s Article “The Media Equation: News Erupts, and So Does a Web Debut,” he talks about this new concept of “good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism,” which is being tried out with the Texas Tribune in that it only covers issues having to do with public policy and has a narrow focus on issues solely within Texas state government, excluding anything other than healthcare, education, immigration and various other state policies. The strongpoint of this “brussel sprout” phrase is that it can appeal to readers in that it gives the notion that this type of niche media is healthy and offers a somewhat more “pure” form of news, sifting out all other forms of media coverage that gives the Texas state government more clean cut and focused news coverage. The weakness of it is that its focus may be too narrow, with a prime example being no coverage of the Fort Hood massacre, although it happened so close to home. Readers may want to read about this in a local newspaper, and being so limited in what a newspaper can cover may prove to be detrimental in the future since readers may want to read a better-rounded and broader newspaper.

The coverage of this trend doesn’t seem to be too fair since Carr’s main focus is the Texas Tribune and he fails to offer any other media outlets that may be partaking in a similar form of news coverage. There is not enough context to the story since he uses only the Texas Tribune as his example, and gets his quotes only from those who support this new niche.

There is bias reporting in this story because the article seems to work in favor of the way the Texas Tribune is handling their coverage. Perhaps a quote from someone who hoped to read about the Fort Hood Massacre in this newspaper or who disagrees with its narrow focus would be ideal, instead of Carr saying that reporters who do not support it declined to say anything on record.

“Brussels sprouts journalism” seeks to inform the public about public policy and the inner workings of the state  government. Some examples provided in the article include education financing and bureaucratic priorities. A major strength to this type of niche media is that it provides a narrow focus on issues that are relevant, important, and of impact to everyone. In this type of journalism however, a problem arises. Often, with such a narrow focus, it is hard for journalists to remain in the public eye when breaking news takes precedence.

Carr shows bias in his coverage in that his article is formulated around quotes spoken by individuals who are clearly favorable towards this trend. While this may not have been intentional, it clearly seems to me that it is biased in that way.

After reading the article, I was confused about why Carr did not include more examples, other than the Tribune, if it is indeed a trend in journalism. Nonetheless, I felt that the article, aside from this flaw, provided enough background information regarding the Tribune.

In his article, “News Erupts, and So Does a Web Debut,” David Carr looks critically at niche media like The Texas Tribune.  While niche media’s strength resides in its specialization, in its appeal to a highly specific audience for a very narrow field, Carr tends to focus more on its inherent weakness, namely, that it is limited by its exclusivity.  Although, in more positive terms, this very weakness may be its greatest strength; it is, after all, its defining quality.

Drawing on what recently transpired at Fort Hood, Carr provides the reader with an accessible context for the situation at hand.  However, this story as a backdrop sheds niche media in a negative light.  Carr writes:  “And as a niche site with a very narrow focus, it can’t afford to change its spots just because a national event erupts 90 minutes away.” 

“Can’t afford”?  What about “has no need”?  Niche media need not and should not “change its spots.”  That would make the same point in more positive terms.  But Carr does not take this stance.

Later, Carr writes, “The Tribune has yet to find a voice that makes state politics seem more like, say, the Oscars, but these are early days.”  This is clearly a statement of opinion.  Might not some seek political news presented as politics?  The niche audience demanding this niche media probably is not the crowd that needs politics to be portrayed like the Oscars.

The main problem I found with Carr’s article was that he analyzed the niche media in terms of mass media.  He could not grant niche media an independant life, an identity of its own.  This translated into a seeming pervading bias against the way niche media like The Texas Tribune operate, but I would say it was less a matter of bias, and more an indication a certain incomprehension of what niche media truly is.

In a time when many newspapers are being forced to fold or retreat to the web, and reporters and newsrooms are being cut at even the best known papers, the proliferation of niche media services is not an altogether surprising trend. Nor is it an unwelcome one in the opinion of many, including New York Times reporter David Carr.

The success of any news publication in their reporting and dissemination of news is contingent on their reliability, depth and breadth of coverage. So, it follows that when a newspaper is forced to cut its staff it is probably also sacrificing some of its “reporting horsepower,” to borrow Carr’s term.

Enter The Texas Tribune, The Gotham Gazette, and the growing force of highly focused boutique media companies using the internet as a medium to get the news out. To many, these sites are the forerunners of the future of journalism. To some, they are seen at best as unreliable and too narrowly focused and at worst as completely skewed and so specific as to be irrelevant.

But the real strength of these online upstarts actually lies in their narrowness of focus. It is unrealistic to expect a small organization to be able to cover a wide range of stories on an international scale in an accurate and cost effective manner, and niche publications understand this. By stringently filtering stories, even if they are of national interest and can easily be reported by the organization (as was the case for The Texas Tribune and the Fort Hood shootings in Carr’s article) the publications gain the advantage of being able to report the stories they do cover with real depth, something many of the larger media outlets have been doing less and less.

This kind of ultra-specific journalism inherently does not have a wide audience. People from Oregon or Italy will probably not be weekly visitors of The Texas Tribune or The Gotham Gazette. But this should not be the measure of the value of these publications. Producing only citizen journalism and “good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism” is far from a lucrative business strategy, but much closer to the basic theory of what journalism’s function is than what can be seen in some of the larger, more generalized news outlets.

Journalism was not built to be a business, but a system of keeping an eye on things in a more reliable and accurate way than individual citizens are capable of. It is meant to present an unbiased truth to readers, and in doing so to hold accountable all those it reports upon. And when news outlets are cutting coverage, showing bias, and possibly becoming as dependent on their advertisers as they are on their readers, niche media may very well be more of a grassroots return to real journalism than a trend.

David Carr seems to agree. Although he could have done more to cover both the concurrent struggles of large media outlets (which he may have kept low-key because the piece was, after all, written for the New York Times), and other niche media organizations, he does a good job of covering the Tribune and placing it in the context of the larger shifts in the industry. His bias is most obvious in his choice of quotes and interviewees– none who oppose or are critical of the web based niche media movement are present in the story beyond general mention (and are certainly not quoted). Though I agree with Carr’s position, I do think his article could have been made more powerful by mentioning or quoting specific opponents or critics of the movement, rather than glossing over their opinions.

The phrase “good-for-you, brussels sprouts journalism,” indicates that even though it may not be the juiciest or most interesting news, the Texas Tribune’s job is to provide coverage of politics and policy of the Texas state government. The strength of the phrase is that it shows that the Texas Tribune will stick by their standards even when a huge incident such as the Ford Hood shootings is happening in their vicinity. The weakness of it is that vegetables like brussels sprouts have to be force fed to children and many others eat it just because it is good for you, not because they like it; so the news that the Texas Tribune is providing may not interest many people if this phrase is true, but I believe that many people would be interested if someone was able to provide unbiased coverage of government.

David Carr doesn’t provide enough background on other news organizations and why the Texas Tribune feels that they can do a better job covering their section of the news than anyone else can. He also states that, “What really sets the Tribune apart is not a workable design and good intentions, but its effort to build a durable model for journalism in the future.” He doesn’t explain what that durable model is.

I think there is a slight bias in the article because of the people that he quoted (they were almost all from the Texas Tribune). I’m not sure if that was intentional, but since he had so many quotes from the Tribune, his writing was naturally bias to their point of view.

“Good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism” has a fairly idealistic mission – to educate the public on the workings of the state government. This drive encourages private donors to fund The Texas Tribune. Government officials are more wary of the watchdog function of the media. Nonetheless, this type of journalism is very narrow and attracts a very specific niche. As David Carr wrote, “State government would not seem to be the sexiest corner of the realm.”

Carr doesn’t specify what the business model is for The Texas Tribune, nor does he specify how the project will be sustainable. It is unknown as to how many people are on the staff of The Texas Tribune. It seems like every member of its staff abandoned their former publications for the latter.

Carr shows a slight bias in the story, and it shows in the people he chooses to quote. He quoted Emily Ramshaw, a rising reporter of The Tribune, and Brian Thevenot, both of whom had favorable outlooks on the project. When Carr quoted Thevenot, “But this is Texas, a place where people care a lot about their identity and their state,” Carr was saying that Texas is a great place to try this new media model. Carr mentioned newspapers that were unhappy that there was talk of “gaps in reporting,” but he only quoted newspapers that looked favorably to the new project.

“Good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism” is something that should not be limited to all people. Everyone needs a healthy dose of the truth in order to make educated, rational decisions in everyday life.  Even though newspapers are feared to be dying out and going belly-up in a business-conscious society, alternative methods provide the road less traveled as the route to success.

  This little snipet seems to sum-up the underlying message of the NYT article. Even though these are the words we all want to hear, the article left out the opposing side to independent news groups. All the sources seemed to be in favor of them, and no source was quoted saying anything about newspapers delivering a variety of news. In fact, Carr was unable to get anyone to go on the record to talk about how bad the newspaper business is doing, so how can anyone judge accurately?

“Good-for-you, brussel sprouts journalism” definitely provides a clear, untainted voice for the people to hear, not biased or slandered with big corporations’ view. However, they may be too small for anyone to pay much attention to them on a daily basis.

David Carr shows his own bias in the article, forming sentences to reflect his own view, like “What really sets the Tribune apart is not a workable design and good intentions, but its efforts to build a durable model for journalism in the future.”

The strength of “brussels sprouts journalism” is that it covers important topics of public policy and politics, things that are always relevant and that affect the public every day and in many ways. There is usually always something to write about as far as these topics are concerned. On the other hand, as the article mentions, once you determine a niche in this particular field, it is difficult to find ways to cover breaking news that’s not necessarily related to your niche (i.e. The Texas Tribune’s dilemma with the Fort Hood shooting).

David Carr seems to provide a very minimal background to this trend and I still find myself wondering how this new kind of journalism developed, and what exactly the innovation is. He does seem to emphasize the possible downsides of the situation by questioning the stability of this kind of venture and field, as well as the certainty with which reporters have left their newspaper jobs for jobs at the Tribune. This may be where the bias is evident, where Mr. Carr portrays not only a journalistic skepticism but perhaps his own doubt at the longtime success of “brussels sprouts” online publications.

In this New York Times article, David Carr discusses the “gap in reporting,” or niche media sources that do not cover explosive, breaking news stories like the Fort Hood shooting.  One of the strengths of this kind of journalism is the ability to build up a fan base.  If you are a reader looking for a specific kind of news, you will know what this website (in this case, www.texastribune.org) is offering.  Since they run on donations, they are guaranteed to have some sponsorship.  A weakness, however, as Carr points out, is the scarcity of such media outlets.  A quote from a Texas Tribune writer acknowledged the risks of entering into such an unstable journalistic field. 

One problem I find with this article is that Carr only focuses on one of these kinds of sources, the Texas Tribune.  If he is trying to make the case that this is a kind of media that is growing, there should have been more examples of this in the article.  The background of this type of journalism is not thoroughly explored in the article; not only does it only focus on one publication, it only focuses on one area of coverage, politics.  Carr does acknowledge that other businesses like this exist, covering news in “crime, gossip or entertainment,” but he does not delve any further into these differences. 

I found bias in the fact that Carr opened the article with the fact that the Texas Tribune did not cover the story of the Ford Hood shooting.  If you were to only read the beginning of the article and not go on, you would naturally think less of this website, since the Fort Hood shooting was such a shocking and nationally important event.

I think David Carr is pretty balanced in his article. Niche media outlets have limited resources and they cover the news for specific demographic. Not paying attention to Fort Hood incident was a good example to show that priorities of niche media outlets should not change.

I think Texas Tribune is a good effort to save the news, when newspapers are dying out or merging across the nation. Newspaper need to move with the times and their audience. In next generation, we will only have major papers like New York Times still available in print.

I think Carr paid very little attention to business model of Texas Tribune in his article. I would like to have seen more detailed information about the business model of Texas Tribune. Paper are dying out, because they are not making the bucks. I would like to have known the view of Texas Tribune Editor of Google, which is killing news business. There is slight bias in the story, but it is still a well balanced story as I stated earlier. You cannot be a writer without any bias.

I believe the most important strength of “brussels sprouts” media is that it is an outlet that is way less dependent upon other media sources. In fact, it is a sort of anti-media outlet, and so when one major news source (CNN, Fox, the NY Times, etc.) reports on a story, they are less likely to piggy back on what that source has already said, or in the example of the David Carr article, not talk about the source at all. However, its main disadvantage is that because it is such a grass-rooted campaign, media consumers might find the source to be less credible simply because it is an unknown source. This is why jump-starting a brussels sprouts media outlet is so risky: if you have no history of hard-hitting independent journalism, then why should people want to listen to what you have to say?
I believe David Carr did a pretty good job of covering this news trend without too much bias, although he only mentioned one of these websites  TexasTribune.org). It would have been interesting to see if more of these non-profit journalism sites are on the rise. After all: one website doesn’t necessarily indicate a trend. Also, I want to know if the website has accepted any donations from politicians or groups who are affected by Texas politicians, because this could completely influence what the writers would write about Texas law-making. Is there any sort of firewall to separate the writers’ viewpoints from the sources of donations that they are receiving?
To Carr’s credit, he did play ball interviewing with the site’s contributers, who told him that starting a new news source was less risky than staying at a newspaper. The in-your-face irony is that this Carr writes for the New York Times.

*Note: Does anybody know how I can fix the font sizes of this entry?*

New York Times article “News Erupts, and So Does a Web Debut” discusses the growing trend in journalism of web publications created to cater to a specific area of the news, only covering issues and events that fall within that area.

 The primary example of this trend used in the article is the recently created Texas Tribune, a web-based newsroom that only covers politics and governmental issues in Texas. When word broke out about the November 5^{th shootings at the Fort Hood military post, the Tribune did not do any coverage of the incident. Editor Evan Smith explained to writer David Carr that this was because the news is outside of the range of topics that the Tribune was created to cover: “We’re about public policy and politics. What I wasn’t going to do was send someone racing up the interstate to cover something, however important, that wasn’t ours.”}

This type of specialized journalism has its strengths and weaknesses. One strength of such publications is that they are streamlined and focused, where broader publications tend to lose the plot sometimes. Concentrating on specific topics may also result in more comprehensive information and accuracy of reporting in these topics. However, one weakness of these publications is their narrow appeal. When a large-scale incident such as the Fort Hood shootings occurs, many people will be looking to news sources to learn about the latest developments in the case. In situations like that, having a limited-scale coverage of news is isolating for a publication.

The article is somewhat biased. Throughout the story, Carr seems to imply that this trend in journalism is soulless and profit-motivated, and more of a business model than a vehicle for delivering information to readers. The article does not contain enough of a balance of opinion about specialized publications, and not much context is provided.

Since niche publications already have a built-in audience, it is likely that specialized publications like the Texas Tribune will survive in the journalism industry. The question of whether such publications are incomplete or lacking, though– as the article seems to insinuate– is completely a matter of opinion.

In Spike Lee’s documentary When the Levees Broke, Lee depicts a story of the ultimate devastation that Hurricane Katrina caused to all of its victims in New Orleans. Through the lens of the camera, the director is trying to make us feel as close as possible to the people living there and to make us resonate with the unfair treatment they have been put through at the hands of the unresponsive government, along with the sadness felt by all those who have lost not only their homes, but also their livelihood. Lee is representing how the government is supposed to protect and aid its people and FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency did nothing in the way of helping all those effected, white or black, in the realest form of film expression possible, a documentary.

In what is almost an ongoing display of emotion throughout the film, from anger to sadness to helplessness, Lee does not hide anything or downplay the sheer devastation that is New Orleans right after the hurricane. The whole film shows a great deal of turmoil, and exemplifies the notion that because many of the victims are African American and many are living along the poverty line, the government response was slow to help all due to this.

In one scene where Vice President Dick Cheney is present to survey the destruction in one town, the aggravation that is conveyed by one of the victims is nothing less than powerful in him cursing at the Vice President, and the viewer can definitely sense the frustration felt by not only that person, but by everyone collectively. It conveys the general message of anger between the people of New Orleans and the government that is supposed to help them.

Toward the end of that section of the documentary, Lee also demonstrates the strength of the people and how they can still come together to find happiness when he films Mardi gras. With all of the chaos and destruction around them, they can still find hope and a way to express themselves through art and shows just how even in going through such trauma; everyone can still come together in celebration.

Act III, “When the Levees Broke,” by Spike Lee, aims to convey the aftermath of hurricane katrina.  It gives accounts of the U.S. government’s response as well as that in the media and the devestation experienced by New Orleans residence.

I found particularly horrible the facade the media created when former president Bush came to survey the disaster of the aftermath of the hurricane.  To create a semblance of a return, of rebuilding, the media basically prepared a set so that the president could speak in front of a building with lights, working electricity, as though the government had things under control and everything was returning to normal.  The government might have benefitted from this propoganda, but the residents of New Orleans certainly did not, as one resident recalled feeling deceived and disappointed upon returning to this building with newfound hope at the prospect of it again being functional, only to discover that the electricity was temporary, for the president’s media appearance, and would not be maintained for the residents of New Orleans.  The people of New Orleans grew to abhor the government’s apathy to their plight. 

Another point that Spike Lee conveyed was the agony of displacement.   While former president Bush’s mother acted like the rellocation of New Orleans residents “was some forward, upward mobility,” many residents felt otherwise.  They identified themselves with the state of New Orleans and only longed to return.  What further upset these people was the term the media used to refer to them, “refugees.”  “We are calling on the media to stop calling them refugees… These are American citizens… and the connotation of refugees is others who need charity.”

A final point I wish to note is the utter devastation experienced by New Orleans residents, and a certain surrender to the futility of everything.  People’s life’s work amounted to nothing once the hurricane swept through the town.  It decimated everything they had invested themselves in, anything they identified with, and left them with nothing to come back to.  Suicide became a viable option for people to escape the ravaged remains of nothing, and it is noted in this documentary that those who committed suicide in the aftermath, therefore, aught to be counted among hurricane victims.  These people endured an unfathomable horror and were met with insufficient sympathy or aid.