Guidelines for Katrina Posts

September 3, 2005 8:49 AM

It's definitely the most horrible tragedy (and biggest news event, too) to hit the US since 9/11, no question about that. I'm just curious: will the Katrina posts ever end, in the near future? what's Matt's policy in this case? In short: what's the difference between a Katrina post that stays up and one that gets deleted? I don't mind Katrina being a large part of the front page, these days, of course. I'm just wondering. Frankly, most of the Katrina front page posts I see could have been just posted as comments in other threads, no disrespect intended.
posted by matteo to Etiquette/Policy at 8:49 AM (47 comments total)

I dunno. I'd say that the current percentage of Katrina posts on the front page roughly equates to the percentage of news coverage and even face-to-face conversations relating to Katrina. It's a fucking huge event and it's still very much ongoing. More to the point, it is continuing to be fucked up by those in power very, very badly.
posted by Ryvar at 8:57 AM on September 3, 2005

I agree with Matteo, it's getting very hard to discuss or process new information with the volume of threads. Maybe some should be wrapped up into one megathread? I can't find half the links I was looking for because I can't remember what thread they were posted in. (Of course, there are problems with this approach too)
posted by loquax at 9:16 AM on September 3, 2005

If the server was hosted in India, and it was around in 1984, I would think we'd have Bhopal posts for a good couple weeks solid before moving on to other things.

I agree many could be comments in other major posts, but I think it's a bit early to corral everything into one big post.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:17 AM on September 3, 2005

It's not at all a matter of moving on, at least for me, it's that the quantity of threads and the fact that they're so spread out is making me move on to other sources. The front page is almost a news aggregator at the moment, and while that's what I'm looking for, I can get that from my RSS feeds. It also means that secondary information (which makes MeFi so important, I think) within the threads is being obscured. This isn't a criticism at all of the attention to the situation, I've been paying attention to almost nothing else, only a suggestion of how to best deal with the information.
posted by loquax at 9:24 AM on September 3, 2005

(not to put words in matteo's mouth)
posted by loquax at 9:24 AM on September 3, 2005

it's a bit early to corral everything into one big post.

clearly, 540 comments in taz's (excellent, as always) front page post are a bit too much and would probably damage the server if repeated in 4 or 5 500-comments threads, but I was interested in you stating your r opinion, Matt. the risk, as loquax put it (very well, imo) is that

the quantity of threads and the fact that they're so spread out is making me move on to other sources. The front page is almost a news aggregator at the moment,

and I agree with that.
posted by matteo at 9:31 AM on September 3, 2005

I think that MeFi shutting down for the past few days (leave a few normal threads) is a good thing for the site. First, it shows that we are involved not only here but in real life trying to help in other communities. Further, the attention we bring to the storm and its aftermath helps inform ourselves and other readers of the impact not necessarily being heard in mainstream media.

I do think that some threads have devolved into name-calling and viciousness, which should be addressed, but the bright side to that is that the devolution is represented only by those who seek to use politics in this time of tragedy, and their motives are clear. I think this community, in the future, will have a stronger ability to ignore single-minded posters because of these threads, since they reveal such a large amount of their character.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:34 AM on September 3, 2005

but I think it's a bit early to corral everything into one big post.

Sure, but can we limit it to 5 big posts a day? It's actually a little bit absurd. As of this writing, we've got 9 already this morning. There were 10 yesterday. All told, I count 28 posts on the front page right now.

Maybe there's too much for 1 big post, but there has to be a middle ground between 1 and 56% of all the posts in the past couple of days.
posted by willnot at 9:56 AM on September 3, 2005

First, I think Katrina was much worse than "9/11".

And second, I wonder if the Katrina threads have progressed from arguing about Bush to arguing about arguing about Bush. Can y'all members and advocates of the U.S. Democratic or Republican Parties save it for an election year? It's not that i'm "apolitical" (which boils down to Republican, as "this is not the time for finger-pointing" also does), it's that it's silly to ssee people taking that chimp puppet seriously enough to abuse each other so viciously over him. Can't y'all argue about Tom Cruise instead?
posted by davy at 10:03 AM on September 3, 2005

Davy. It's not advocacy or political argument. It's wondering how our leaders could have permitted this to happen. It's a fine distinction, but an important one.

The entire devolution of taz's post is worth it when you see that it produced this from ericb. That sort of information aggregation is exactly what metafilter does very well. It justifies a thousand political trolls and a million "oh the humanity" posts.
posted by felix betachat at 10:33 AM on September 3, 2005

It's been fascinating and helpful to have so overwhelming an event refracted through various perspectives and intelligently discussed. I don't know about y'all, but I have trouble concentrating on almost any other subject. Anyway, this is why I posted my first ever FPP yesterday , in which I led with news from NOLA (Tulane University's impressive management of their crisis) but continued on with crisis and disaster management as general topics, with what I thought were compelling links on the subject of "can you manage disaster?" Indirectly, of course, I was hoping to spark a conversation that would push past the blame game (did "the government" at various levels plan properly for Katrina -- would that be possible, and thus is it appropriate to hold our leaders accountable for failure here) and advance the discussion here with a sense of what we were holding them accountable for failing to do. Maybe the defenders of FEMA/Bush/LA/NO govt. here are right -- the crisis is so large it could not have been foreseen or ameliorated. I don't believe that, but wanted to have a discussion about the art and science of doing it right in the abstract. The bait wasn't taken -- it was probably too many lengthy articles for people to wade through at the moment. But given that we are going to be talking so much about the crisis, we can do it in a way that continues the mission of the community to digest the best of the web and occasion reasoned discussion.

I don't think, in other words, this is an either/or question.
posted by realcountrymusic at 10:54 AM on September 3, 2005

I'd agree with you, matteo, if it weren't for the fact that the situation gets more absurd by the minute. Just when you think everything's starting to get under control, some new outrage emerges. Like how the National Guard is preventing people from leaving the city. Or how the authorities are preventing civilians from conducting rescues.

Yes, it's a bit repetitive to see "Day [x]: Still no help," but realize that every new day that passes with those poor bastards still stuck in that cesspool without food or water means an exponential amount of outrage. So, day one: no help... ok, I can see that. Day two: still no help... wow, what's taking so long? Day three: still no help... what the fuck? Day four: still no help... WHAT THE FUCK? etc.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 10:54 AM on September 3, 2005

I've learned a lot from the diversity of posts, and probably would not have if they'd been corralled into one thread. But I was also just thinking "Information overload!" looking at the front page - but that's not a fault or shortcoming, just a function of scale.

How many posts do you think MeFi would get and for how long if, say, Los Angeles or Seattle was nuked by North Korea? Or if a 9.0 quake shook almost everything from LA to Seattle to pieces? It's like that.
posted by loquacious at 11:17 AM on September 3, 2005

I'd agree with you, matteo, if it weren't for the fact that the situation gets more absurd by the minute.

I hear you. but then the site becomes a chatroom, or an online support group for people who are worried/shocked, or both, not a news aggregator
posted by matteo at 11:22 AM on September 3, 2005

Can y'all members and advocates of the U.S. Democratic or Republican Parties save it for an election year?

No.
posted by marxchivist at 11:27 AM on September 3, 2005

I agree that it's tough to differentiate between some of the threads, but I wonder if expectations that we manage that are, at this point, too high.

As I did in one thread, I recommend that people who think there are too many Katrina threads go back and view the September 2001 archives. When I did a rough count, I came up with 118 posts in the first two days. It was chaotic, redundant, and political. I would suggest that's just what happens in a disaster's aftermath. I would request that it be allowed to happen.

When all is said and done, this disaster is going to be much more disastrous than 9/11 was, from any angle -- direct financial loss, loss of life, loss of cultural heritage, loss to the economy, and political vitriol. We will be forever living this one down, folks. It's going to be a terrible, festering smudge on American history. Let's let people explore it.

More thoughtful, content-rich FPPs and less NewsFilter would be appreciated. It would be nice if we were exploring more angles -- but how can we, when on Day 6 we are still waiting for the crisis to be resolved? It hasn't ended within a few hours as the 9/11 attack did.But I've gotten quite a lot out of following the threads on Ray Nagin and on the change in the media's tone.
posted by Miko at 12:08 PM on September 3, 2005

For what it's worth, personally as someone living far away from the US I appreciate all kinds of commentary on the situation, including individual testimonies, immediate spontaneous reactions and personal views, as an extra to what I get from the news. It's all insightful. The arguments and political discussions too, they're inevitable, I would be fare more suprised if there weren't any or if people were more concerned about etiquette in such a situation. I don't really have anything to contribute but I've been browsing many of the threads on the disaster and have found a lot of interesting links and bits and bobs, some of which you may come across elsewhere too, but I also find it handy to get so much stuff here.
posted by funambulist at 12:33 PM on September 3, 2005

For those of us intrested in the tradgedy, I like having multiple threads. People can focus on one aspect in one conversation and another, in another.

That way we avoid 500 comment threads where people are refrencing back and forth, and are imposible to read.
posted by delmoi at 2:31 PM on September 3, 2005

I don't want to disrupt this thread, but I just want to give everyone a bit of good news. Please leave comments in that other thread, since Rachel has been reading that one.

Thank you.
posted by ColdChef at 3:23 PM on September 3, 2005

It's definitely the most horrible tragedy (and biggest news event, too) to hit the US since 9/11

I think that without a doubt 9/11 pales in the face of everything that has happened in New Orleans.
posted by angry modem at 3:34 PM on September 3, 2005

No offense, but I'm getting awfully tired of talk about which was a worse tragedy. It's not a contest. Both were horrible in their own way. Comparing the two just seems arbitrary and ridiculous to me. But that's just me, though.
posted by ColdChef at 3:54 PM on September 3, 2005

Let me say, that I do understand the need to compare the two, I just think that saying one is worse than the other seems to be arguing a moot point.
posted by ColdChef at 4:01 PM on September 3, 2005

Of course they're different, ColdChef; but they're both national tragedies. By asking people to reflect on what they did/said/felt in the last Big One, I'm trying to trip that circuit in people's brains that gets them to recognize what an appropriate response might be.

I'm concerned about the degree of under-reaction; not just by the government, but by us, the public. I find it a little eerie that, where I live at least, this isn't dominating conversation, and I'm not seeing much fundraising going on. It's a big deal, like those other big deals were, so let's pay attention -- that's all I'm saying.
posted by Miko at 4:04 PM on September 3, 2005

You beat me.
posted by Miko at 4:05 PM on September 3, 2005

What matteo said. I'm all for people being shocked, disgusted, outraged, etc. on metafilter, but if they could do it in 5 instead of 30 threads that would be nice.
posted by fvw at 5:55 PM on September 3, 2005

"I'm concerned about the degree of under-reaction; not just by the government, but by us, the public. I find it a little eerie that, where I live at least, this isn't dominating conversation, and I'm not seeing much fundraising going on."

I think, for a lot of people, the difference is that "natural disasters" happen fairly often, but big, televised terrorist attacks on American soil could be counted on two fingers.

Not trying to excuse the under-reaction, just trying to help understand it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:39 PM on September 3, 2005

if they could do it in 5 instead of 30 threads that would be nice.

Amen. And Ethereal Bligh's latest contribution to the melee is just moronic - an utterly pointless front page post that sets a horrible example for others. It would be the perfect place for Matt to start culling the herd.
posted by mediareport at 7:14 PM on September 3, 2005

It is quite like many posts I've criticized in the past. However, in this thread Matt says that this is an exceptional time. In the context of this exceptional time, I think the post is extremely relevant and important and so I decided to post it...knowing that I would be criticized for it. It is a link to a somewhat obscure government webpage that unambiguously refutes the lie of anyone that claims that it is wrong to have expected massive Federal help in New Orleans far, far sooner than it actually appeared. It refutes anyone's claims that in any sense this wasn't the Fed's responsibility because, clearly, this disaster both mimics and is within the mandate of the types of services that this government has promised us since that it would competently provide since 9/11.

For these reasons, I believe that it is a very relevant post, it is timely, and it is important enough to be on the front page. And, again, were this not an exceptional period and had Matt not explicitly stated in this thread that this was an exceptional period, I would not have posted it. But it is not hypocritical of me because I have always said that with some reservations I agree with and support Matt's "exceptional circumstance" policy on NewsFilter with regard to major events.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:21 PM on September 3, 2005

I understand your argument, EB, and find it unsatisfying. The link would've been completely relevant and a fine response to someone in a thread who actually claimed, "it is wrong to have expected massive Federal help in New Orleans far, far sooner than it actually appeared." But posting it to the front page instead assumes everyone here is part of that argument, which, to me, undercuts the notion that individual threads *matter* at MeFi. Again, I'd have just moved on if it was a newbie, but coming from you, it seemed a particularly pointless post. *shrug* That's all.
posted by mediareport at 8:51 PM on September 3, 2005

And I understand and appreciate your argument, too, mediareport. Especially that you're quite annoyed at what you think is my hypocrisy. I can imagine agreeing with you. However, upon second self-examination, I don't.

Not that I don't agree that under normal circumstances this would be a bad post.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:58 PM on September 3, 2005

Metafilter: you're quite annoyed at what you think is my hypocrisy
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:59 PM on September 3, 2005

I prefer Metafilter: I can imagine agreeing with you.
posted by mediareport at 9:07 PM on September 3, 2005

While it's true these unruly posts aren't as rarified or delightful or erudite as the usual "quality" Metafilter posts that got me hooked on this site in the first place,
their presence is simply an emergent property of an agitated community blog whose members are reacting in real time to an unfolding, unprecedented situation -- the destruction and chaotic abandonment of a major American city. As such they are -- at this moment -- a far more urgent and truthful part of the contemporaneous record we're creating on this site than would be another origami gallery, flash game or performance artist (as much as I like that stuff). The sheer number of comments under these versus the recent quality posts speaks for itself -- the string quartet kept playing while the Titanic sank, but you can bet the passengers weren't discussing Beethoven.

The raw emotion and incredulity aroused by the disaster will diminish in time. So too will the front page posts about it. And let's not forget that much of the chaff has been annoyance at the chaff -- it too will diminish.

On the subject of raw emotion, I should note that I've been one of the angry name callers, but, at the risk of sounding defensive, only in the context of a mutual heated exchange (well, ok not always). Unseemly sometimes, yes, but again, for now, more urgent and truthful than passing comments back and forth like Victorian calling cards.
posted by Toecutter at 9:17 PM on September 3, 2005

This the one time I appreciate NewsFilter posts more than anything else. There is just so much going on, it's impossible to pick up this information on your own from all the sources it's coming from.

The way things get politicized, and not to say that it's a bad thing. many threads contain the same arguments and often degenerate into namecalling. With that in mind, it's very helpful to have links put up as FPPs, so people don't have to sift through the noise in all the various threads to get information.
posted by kyleg at 9:30 PM on September 3, 2005

Shit, that first period in the second paragraph is supposed to be a comma. So much for preview.
posted by kyleg at 9:31 PM on September 3, 2005

many threads contain the same arguments and often degenerate into namecalling.

...so it's nice to have alternatives.
posted by Miko at 9:47 PM on September 3, 2005

felix betachat said "It's not advocacy or political argument. It's wondering how our leaders could have permitted this to happen."

You're accusing "our leaders" of permitting Hurricane Katrina to happen? When did "our leaders" acquire the ability to stop or prevent a hurricane? Or do you mean you're accusing them of making political decisions that made it worse? If the latter then yes, that IS "advocacy or political argument". That is the epitome of "advocacy or political argument", in fact.

"It's a fine distinction, but an important one."

It's important only if you maintain a distinction between "splitting hairs" and "dividing hairs into longitudinal parts". In other words, it's a bullshit "distinction", which is to say an invisible, insubstantial, imaginary one. In fact it's no distinction at all.
posted by davy at 3:31 AM on September 4, 2005

Davy stop trolling. The "this" is the post-hurricane catastrophe. The "distinction" is the one between axe grinding and reasoned diagnosis. You may very well be incapable of perceiving the distinction. That makes it no less real.

A lot depends on the minority party's ability to make this sort of diagnostic case in a calm and measured tone. Here's hoping a few of them can think their way through this problem with more sophistication than you seem able to muster.
posted by felix betachat at 4:47 AM on September 4, 2005

I dunno, Ethereal Bligh. I'm not sure slapping "because Matt said" and "because this is a time of crisis" justifications on that post of yours gives it the pass you imagine. There are myriad Katrina posts, all of them containing myriad links in the FPP and in the threads. All of them are in their own way important, some moreso than others. Everyone is surrounded by this crisis. The suggestion matteo hints at is that there be something of a consolidation, you know, say 15 instead of 20 in arbitrary terms. Just because you think highlighting one political angle to this grave situation is extremely important doesn't make it so and in fact the question you perhaps should have considered was not whether it should be posted but how could it be best posted to MeFi at the moment.

That criticism could of course be levelled at some of the other Katrina FPPs as well and gawd knows we don't want a bunch of 500+ comment posts. But generally speaking, at a time like this, when a lot of people are justifiably upset at events and there's probably more traffic than normal and more people are moved to be involved, it will reach just as wide an audience if it's posited in a thread couched in the most inviting/descriptive fashion possible. And there is I suppose also the argument to say that there's a slam-dunk justification for news of the humanitarian crises to be the lead stories at the moment.
posted by peacay at 5:37 AM on September 4, 2005

Not that this MeTa talkfest will likely make much of a difference to the front page in reality but.......just sayin'..
posted by peacay at 5:39 AM on September 4, 2005

When did "our leaders" acquire the ability to stop or prevent a hurricane?

well, one does not want to get Jesuitical about this, but what if God is your leader? She could have prevented the hurricane. I was recently reading Leopardi on the nature of evil and the silence of God, and he mulls exactly over this very problem
posted by matteo at 9:40 AM on September 4, 2005

I think posting a daily Katrina thread might be a good idea. As in, "Please consider adding your Katrina-related post as a comment here."

Not a requirement, but a helpful creation that might at least get folks to think a bit before starting a new hurricane thread. The bar's been set pretty low for the last few days; it wouldn't hurt to raise it just a little.
posted by mediareport at 9:41 AM on September 4, 2005

I blame the lack of nested threading.
posted by mischief at 11:39 AM on September 4, 2005

Outstanding idea, mediareport.
posted by Toecutter at 5:47 PM on September 4, 2005

I was contemplating a similar suggestion myself, mediareport, but I've got a feeling it wouldn't work--it didn't when the Iraq war broke out and likely didn't after 9/11 either.

There will, however, be a natural falling-off of hurricane-related threads as there just won't be that much more to say as time goes on.

Unfortunately, the lack of things to say probably won't stop some people. You can already see the faint beginnings of that point where a political discussion stops being two sides talking to, or debating with, each other and starts being two sides talking past each other.
posted by arto at 6:34 PM on September 4, 2005

We could at least try it. I mean, I'm as glad as anyone that Alex Chilton's alive, but that's really one lameass front page post that would've been perfect as a comment in a daily "Katrina updates" thread.
posted by mediareport at 7:00 PM on September 4, 2005

Well, it can't be all bad. This thread resulted in two lurkers becoming members, so at least it's worth $10.
posted by Miko at 9:18 PM on September 4, 2005