Flooding in the Midwest

[TexasWSP]

Now, I watch the news just as much as the next guy...FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC...I watch it all. I'm not sure if anyone will agree, but I thought I'd make a thread about it. Does anyone else think the coverage of the disaster that is Iowa and the Midwest is rather minuscule considering how bad it truly is? I've heard three different times from new outlets over the past two days that right now, at this point, it's three times worse than Katrina....yet it seems like it is far less publicized. Maybe it's because people up there aren't shooting at cops and helicopters...I dunno, haha.

When Katrina happened you would have thought the world was ending....chaos, mass hysteria.

I mean hell, I haven't even heard anyone blame the natural disaster on Bush yet.....something's gotta give.

[knight_shadow]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Now, I watch the news just as much as the next guy...FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC...I watch it all. I'm not sure if anyone will agree, but I thought I'd make a thread about it. Does anyone else think the coverage of the disaster that is Iowa and the Midwest is rather minuscule considering how bad it truly is? I've heard three different times from new outlets over the past two days that right now, at this point, it's three times worse than Katrina....yet it seems like it is far less publicized. Maybe it's because people up there aren't shooting at cops and helicopters...I dunno, haha.

When Katrina happened you would have thought the world was ending....chaos, mass hysteria.

I mean hell, I haven't even heard anyone blame the natural disaster on Bush yet.....something's gotta give.

I get most of my news from news websites, and there's been a good amount of coverage as far as I can tell. I have noticed, though, that TV isn't giving the flood that much coverage (at least not in the DFW area). Since coverage began, I thought the flood received less airtime because of the population density of the area (appx 1 million people in New Orleans vs. a seemingly similar amount spread over a larger area).

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Now, I watch the news just as much as the next guy...FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC...I watch it all. I'm not sure if anyone will agree, but I thought I'd make a thread about it. Does anyone else think the coverage of the disaster that is Iowa and the Midwest is rather minuscule considering how bad it truly is? I've heard three different times from new outlets over the past two days that right now, at this point, it's three times worse than Katrina....yet it seems like it is far less publicized. Maybe it's because people up there aren't shooting at cops and helicopters...I dunno, haha.

When Katrina happened you would have thought the world was ending....chaos, mass hysteria.

I mean hell, I haven't even heard anyone blame the natural disaster on Bush yet.....something's gotta give.

It's interesting, I've been thinking the same thing, that the coverage has been muted. The same thing happened a couple of years ago when there was massive flooding in upstate NY; a number of small towns were basically destroyed by the flooding, and yet there wasn't a whole lot of coverage about it. It seems like the same thing is happening here.

I really feel for the people in the Midwest, they're getting hit hard out there.

[UGAalum94]

I think the nature of the coverage is really different, and I don't know if it's the relative length of time it can take for a flood to happen and for waters to recede vs. a hurricane taking place in a much shorter span.

There doesn't seem to be the same sense of people in the Midwest being victims of bad government, but that can creep in overtime I suppose.

I'm not sure why there's not as much public outcry to provide assistance.

ETA: I don't really mean this post to seem so pessimistic. I think it's great that the flood disasters have been managed as well as they have, but it seems an opportunity to analyze the contrast in well-managed situations vs. chaos and we're not getting that kind of coverage.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

There doesn't seem to be the same sense of people in the Midwest being victims of bad government, but that can creep in overtime I suppose.

......or victims of their own stupidity.

[AlethiaSi]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

It's interesting, I've been thinking the same thing, that the coverage has been muted. The same thing happened a couple of years ago when there was massive flooding in upstate NY; a number of small towns were basically destroyed by the flooding, and yet there wasn't a whole lot of coverage about it. It seems like the same thing is happening here.

I really feel for the people in the Midwest, they're getting hit hard out there.

There was little coverage about this, I knew people who's houses floated away and people who disappeared... it wasn't quite on the same scale as this awful Midwest situation/disaster, but all the same, I haven't noticed as much media coverage either.

[PhiGam]

Wheres Kanye? Oh yeah, getting booed off the stage at Bonnaroo.

[UGAalum94]

This was the last paragraph in an article in the Atlanta paper:

"The American Red Cross said Monday its disaster relief fund has been completely spent, and the agency is borrowing money to help flood victims throughout the Midwest."

Seems like it would be worth pointing out closer to the lede.


Phi Gam: Maybe Kanye remains confident that Bush will continue to care about the predominately white people in the midwest, should it come to that level of federal response.

ETA: It just seems like we can learn from the successes even if they aren't as sexy, KSig RC. Evacuate early, etc.

[PeppyGPhiB]

Here's my take on why we're not seeing the desperate coverage and calls for assistance to the Mid West the way we did with New Orleans. Those of us over here on the west coast are used to seeing stories about the mid west getting flooded, and tornados. Of course this is far worse than what is typical, but many folks probably don't realize it. These photos of flooded out landscapes look the same to them as the flooded out landscapes we seem to see every year from that part of the country. They won't start to notice it until they go to the store this summer and wonder why the corn for their bbq is so expensive.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Here's my take on why we're not seeing the desperate coverage and calls for assistance to the Mid West the way we did with New Orleans. Those of us over here on the west coast are used to seeing stories about the mid west getting flooded, and tornados. Of course this is far worse than what is typical, but many folks probably don't realize it. These photos of flooded out landscapes look the same to them as the flooded out landscapes we seem to see every year from that part of the country. They won't start to notice it until they go to the store this summer and wonder why the corn for their bbq is so expensive.

That makes sense to me in terms of the amount of attention the average person is actually paying to the story, but it doesn't explain why the press isn't doing a better job with actually covering the reality (500 year flood), unless we've all just kind of accepted that they feed us the news that they think we want to watch.

ETA: if you just pull up the basic front page of the Atlanta paper: ajc.com, I don't even think a flood story appears, but they've got room for a link on horse vasectomies, wth?

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by PeppyGPhiB

Here's my take on why we're not seeing the desperate coverage and calls for assistance to the Mid West the way we did with New Orleans. Those of us over here on the west coast are used to seeing stories about the mid west getting flooded, and tornados. Of course this is far worse than what is typical, but many folks probably don't realize it. These photos of flooded out landscapes look the same to them as the flooded out landscapes we seem to see every year from that part of the country. They won't start to notice it until they go to the store this summer and wonder why the corn for their bbq is so expensive.

I can't even describe to you how minimal yearly flooding is in comparison with what is happening. However, pictures could, so yeah - news.











Seriously, it's pretty much just because people didn't die - the extent of the damage is extraordinary.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

Now, I watch the news just as much as the next guy...FoxNews, CNN, MSNBC...I watch it all. I'm not sure if anyone will agree, but I thought I'd make a thread about it. Does anyone else think the coverage of the disaster that is Iowa and the Midwest is rather minuscule considering how bad it truly is? I've heard three different times from new outlets over the past two days that right now, at this point, it's three times worse than Katrina....yet it seems like it is far less publicized. Maybe it's because people up there aren't shooting at cops and helicopters...I dunno, haha.

I think quite a bit of this depends on how you view "worse" - it's "worse" in the sense that property damage will amount to billions, entire towns are demolished, and there is water over a comparably immeasurable amount of territory.

However, I believe the death toll measures something like five, total - and I feel like that is the real deciding factor for news agencies.

I live in downtown Des Moines, right off the river - not many problems in that part of town, but levees broke upstream and downstream. Pretty minor compared to what could have happened - then again, the National Guard and local volunteers put up something like 2.5 million sandbags. The real problems happened in Cedar Rapids, Iowa City and smaller areas between the Iowa/Cedar basins and the Mississippi. Property damage in small towns isn't nearly as "sexy" as dozens of deaths.

If you can, though, dig out coverage locally - it is truly insane. Cedar Rapids last week, Iowa City now, and basically Burlington to St. Louis from today to next weekend should get crazy. Here's my favorite shot:

Originally Posted by TexasWSP

When Katrina happened you would have thought the world was ending....chaos, mass hysteria.

Another major (MAJOR) difference: local officials, working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers, have generally had solid plans and a good idea of what was going to happen. Evacuations, sandbagging efforts and reinforcement of levees (including creation of entirely new dikes on the fly) has been borderline seamless all over the state, even in places where it ultimately didn't matter (see: Iowa City).

Of course, this makes sense, because the intense amount of rain over the last 3 months gave plenty of warning, and projections change much more slowly. Additionally, flooding 15 years ago forced a complete evaluation of all levees and rivers, leading to much better build-up (and crazy good ability to predict where breaks would occur).

All this leads to a much more calm scenario, even when 30,000 people are evacuated and an entire city of nearly 200,000 sits under 8 feet of water. It sucks, but it's been handled incredibly efficiently - again, making the story much less sexy.

Honestly, my major take-away from all this has been that I really think much more Katrina blame has to go on local officials than I would have imagined in the past - local government has been, for the most part, outstanding here in the Midwest, and I've changed my mind quite a bit with the way I view actions pre- and post-Katrina in that light.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Another major (MAJOR) difference: local officials, working closely with the Army Corps of Engineers, have generally had solid plans and a good idea of what was going to happen. Evacuations, sandbagging efforts and reinforcement of levees (including creation of entirely new dikes on the fly) has been borderline seamless all over the state, even in places where it ultimately didn't matter (see: Iowa City).

Of course, this makes sense, because the intense amount of rain over the last 3 months gave plenty of warning, and projections change much more slowly. Additionally, flooding 15 years ago forced a complete evaluation of all levees and rivers, leading to much better build-up (and crazy good ability to predict where breaks would occur).

All this leads to a much more calm scenario, even when 30,000 people are evacuated and an entire city of nearly 200,000 sits under 8 feet of water. It sucks, but it's been handled incredibly efficiently - again, making the story much less sexy.

Honestly, my major take-away from all this has been that I really think much more Katrina blame has to go on local officials than I would have imagined in the past - local government has been, for the most part, outstanding here in the Midwest, and I've changed my mind quite a bit with the way I view actions pre- and post-Katrina in that light.

......Definitely following everything you have said.

Also, it sounds like when people were told to evacuate....they actually did in this situation. Common sense is a great thing to have.

[UGAalum94]

I just read a story on ajc.com that had been edited to insert that the floods would have been much worse had FEMA not purchased land after the 1993 floods.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I just read a story on ajc.com that had been edited to insert that the floods would have been much worse had FEMA not purchased land after the 1993 floods.

I've never heard anything resembling this - link?

FEMA funds have been so awkward after the '93 floods that the biggest levee breach in Des Moines has been on a FEMA list since then as a "high-priority" failure point according to the ACE, but without any sort of Congressional action to enact the funding.