I have to challenge the basic premise of your first few paragraphs, gb. The news media is not a part of the official emergency response system, beyond its obligation to pass on official announcements. Whether the media knew less than the government, as was occasionally the case; or it knew more, which seems to have been the case more often than not; the government's response can't legitimately be measured against the media's response. To the extent that disaster officials knew less than the media, we should be outraged. If the media got something wrong, we still have a right to expect the government to get it right. CNN doesn't issue evacuation orders.

This should be appalling to everyone:

Brown: "Every person in that uh convention center, we just learned about that today."

Paula: "Sir, you're not telling me" [Brown tries to talk over] "Sir, you're not telling me you just learned that the folks at the convention center didn't have food and water until today are you? You had no idea they were completely cut off?"

(long pause)

Brown: "Paula, the Federal government did not even know about the convention center people until today."

Can you honestly say that you think that Brown's words were tricked out of him by some media game? And in the clip that follows that one, when Sam Donaldson says

Don't you guys watch television? Don't you guys listen to the radio? Our reporters have been reporting about it, and more than just today.

...do you seriously believe that his remarks weren't from the heart and were merely a move in some media game? If he and his colleagues hadn't expressed their outrage they'd be employed by Fox News. The events that reporters witnessed firsthand in New Orleans and all along the Gulf Coast would have caused a stone to bleed. I concur with Stewar in congratulating the media on finally growing a spine.

The number of times the phrase "blame game" is being used is relevant, first of all, to our discussion of propaganda techniques. It's not just the number of times it's being said, but the number of people saying exactly the same thing. Second, in the present matter, I and many other people find it offensive because it's a pathetically obvious attempt to preempt a serious investigation by trying to ridicule the questions. The harder they try to prevent being questioned, the guiltier they look.

As for whether they should have focused efforts on areas below sea level, well, 80% of New Orleans ended up underwater. I'm not sure their focus would have been any sharper for focusing on 80% of the city.

80% of the population in New Orleans managed to escape. But because the remaining 20% translates into about 100,000 human beings, I can't accept 80% as good enough. If the DHS had foreknowledge of a WMD attack against a major city, would you find it acceptable for only 80% of its population to be evacuated? What is the moral basis for writing off hundreds of thousands of lives with a shrug because some lower-level government official failed to file all the proper forms?

I'll ask you what I keep asking Tom: Do you think the principle that "the buck stops here" doesn't apply to Bush?