Reuters Leaves No Question As To Who Is Responsible for the Deaths Caused by Hurricane Katrina

Reuters News Service left little to the imagination of its readers as to who they believe is responsible for the death's associated with Hurricane Katrina. The story, "New Orleans collects dead as officials dodge blame" reads more like an opinion piece than it does a news report.

The opening paragraph is about as sneering and partisan as I have ever seen: "New Orleans began the gruesome task of collecting its thousands of dead on Sunday as the Bush administration tried to save face after its botched rescue plans left the city at the mercy of Hurricane Katrina."

Later in this "news" account, Reuters again takes a swipe at Bush over remarks given on September 2, reporting: "President George W. Bush, who in a rare admission of error, conceded on Friday that the results of his administration's relief efforts were unacceptable..."

In fact, President Bush made no such distinctive admission. Here is the exact text: "A lot of people are working hard to help those who have been affected, and I want to thank the people for their efforts. The results are not acceptable."

When one reads the entire accompanying statement, Bush is clearly talking about the State and local governments response to Katrina, not the Federal response. This would include the Democratic Governor and Mayor of Louisiana.

Reuters than takes umbrage with Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld: "Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld toured a medical facility at New Orleans' international airport on Sunday. He spoke and shook hands with military and rescue officials but walked right by a dozen refugees lying on stretchers just feet away from him, most of them extremely sick or handicapped.

After Rumsfeld, it was Sec. of State Condi Rice' turn to be labeled as uncaring and unconcerned: "Rice was slammed by critics on the Internet after she attended a New York performance of the Monty Python musical "Spamalot" on Wednesday, a day after New Orleans flooded."

The most vocal "critics" here seem to be the very organizations that are supposed to report news, and not make it, and Reuters certainly falls into this category. Savvy political heads know and expect liberal Democrats to try to take political advantage of any situation that hurts the party in power. News agencies like Reuters seem bent on aiding the party out of power as much as possible with-- to say the least--questionable journalism (bias) and convenient, out-of-context quote placement (omission)

It is why sites like NewsBusters, and the site that led me to this story, Little Green Footballs, are so integral to getting the facts as they exist.