Supplemental: Mayor calls for replacing the pipes!

WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 3, 2016

We call for an end to cartooning:
We got to have a lot of fun on last night's Maddow Show. For example, we got to enjoy seeing Maddow make the headshot of a Republican candidate disappear.

Candidate Huckabee was the hopeful in question. In one of her trademark entertainment events, Maddow made Huckabee's headshot go "poof:"
MADDOW (2/2/16): You have been waiting for this. It's been a long time since we got to do this.

Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee quit the presidential race last night after the Iowa caucuses, which is sad for him. But it does mean we get to "poof" him off our giant list of 2016 Republican presidential candidates.

We haven't been able to do this to anyone in forever. But here goes.

Mike Huckabee, going buh-bye in:

Three, two, one—poof!


[Off-camera chuckling]

I thought I would get to do a lot more of this today, but so far I only get to do it to that one guy. There are still eleven Republicans running for president. All the rest of them are apparently staying in, even the ones who just tanked in Iowa and Iowa was the state where they had the only chance of doing well anywhere.
That was fun! It's always fun when the fun-loving host makes a Republican headshot go "poof," complete with off-camera chuckling.

(It isn't done when major Democrats exit the White House race. Candidate O'Malley didn't get his headshot poofed.)

Last night, we got our standard dosage of the ridiculous sillies. Also, our usual dollop of utterly worthless political pseudo-analysis.

(At one point, Rachel said it would have been better for Trump if he'd finished third or fourth. "He probably would have been better suited, in terms of national attention, to have come in third or fourth with no apparent effort than to been seen to try and fall short." So Chuck Todd was told.)

We got to have a lot of fun; we got to waste a lot of time. Along the way, though, Maddow offered two short reports about events in Flint.

At one point, Maddow reported some news about Mayor Karen Weaver. Weaver wants to replace the city's water pipes right now:
MADDOW: [Mayor Weaver] convened a press conference this afternoon and said that she is calling for all of Flint's lead water pipes to be removed and replaced. She announced that she is convening a team of people headed by a retired brigadier general who will head up this effort to replace all of Flint's lead pipes.

She even proposed a faster, cheaper method for replacing pipes. She said the state's capital city of Lansing used this faster, cheaper method to remove and replace thousands of lead service lines in Lansing and she thinks they could do that in Flint, too. So, getting down to the nitty-gritty.

What Karen Weaver does not have is the ability to actually order something like this to happen. Flint certainly doesn't have the money to do it. Governor Snyder is in no hurry to replace any of Flint's pipes. He says he wants a lot more studying and testing before any pipes are replaced, if they even need to be replaced at all.

By God, Karen Weaver looks like she's going to get those pipes dug up by sheer force of her will:

WEAVER (videotape): This must happen immediately. That's what I'm asking for. I am morally obligated to use every bit of the power and authority my office has to make Flint's water safe and the city successful for the people who live and work here. That's what I intend to do.
Weaver wants the pipes replaced "immediately." By way of contrast, Governor Snyder "is in no hurry to replace any of Flint's pipes," Maddow said. "He says he wants a lot more studying and testing before any pipes are replaced, if they even need to be replaced at all."

Here's our question: Is it a good idea to replace the pipes immediately?

We ask that question for a reason. Last Wednesday night, at Maddow's town hall program in Flint, Professor Marc Edwards, a genuine expert, said this about that idea:
EDWARDS (1/27/16): Longer term in Flint, not just in Flint, but around the U.S., we have to figure out a way to get these pipes replaced. And what we're struggling with right now is there's really no precedent for this kind of man-made disaster. And we don't have a good roadmap to follow in terms of how to replace these pipes and do it right. And we could jump into this and actually do it wrong. Other cities have done it wrong and made the problem worse in the past. So we have to, we have to work with the EPA—
At that point, Maddow interrupted. Later, when Maddow asked Edwards to elaborate, the mayor jumped in to answer for him. For that reason, Edwards was never able to flesh out his statement, in which he said the current problem could be made worse if the pipes are replaced too quickly. For details, see our previous post.

Would it be a good idea to replace the pipes right away? Needless to say, we have no idea. Presumably, neither does Maddow.

We'd assume that Edwards does have some expertise on that point. That doesn't mean that he was right when he seemed to urge caution last week. It doesn't mean that Mayor Weaver is wrong in her current stance.

We don't know if it's a good idea to replace the pipes right away. Here's what we do know:

Last night, Maddow didn't mention the words of caution Edwards offered at her town hall. Based on her standard practice, she probably never will.

This is why we say that:

Maddow tends to present massively simplified versions of stories like this. She gives us villains, victims and heroes. All too often, she ends up sketching a type of fact-challenged cartoon.

Last night, we had the hero, Mayor Weaver, squaring off against Governor Snyder, the villain. Professor Edwards' words of warning weren't allowed to intrude.

Would it be a good idea to replace the pipes right away? Could doing so make the matter worse? Maddow didn't raise those questions. Most likely, she never will.

We have two more days this week to analyze Maddow's reporting on Flint. Tomorrow, we'll offer a list of the basic questions which seem to remain unanswered.

On Friday, we'll look at Maddow's basic reporting of this matter. In our view, she's grossly simplifying this story, almost in the manner of a cartoon.

18 comments:

  1. You really need to see a doctor about your Maddow obsession.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What is funny is the Maddow obsession grew out of his Chris Matthews obsession which grew out of his Al Gore infatuation.

      Unrequited love breeds liberal blogger loathing. Academic Experts call 1998 - 2016 the Era of Obsessed Liberal Loathing.

      Delete
    2. Speaking of Matthews, he was sure throwing softballs to Hillary during an interview yesterday afternoon.

      Delete
    3. Projection? I love it. You guy(s) want to discuss metal health issues or how to take out! ISIL or ISIS? Yeah, I would read and not put much stock in what you were saying about those issuses. Hey! Glen Beck is still around if others are "too reasonable" for you.

      Delete
    4. Cable new is produced for fools, by fools. Maddow and her defenders here don't know any better and haven't read Bernays and don't yet understand.

      Delete
    5. 1:57 AM doesn't know any better than to mistake people who are making fun of Somerby for a defense of anyone.

      Now, @ 1:57, did I just belittle you or did I defend any earlier commenter.

      Delete
  2. Poor Bob! Caught between journalists who don't explain things well enough for his and our lizard brains, and journalists who explain things too well and thus "over-simplify."





    ReplyDelete
  3. I visited your site a couple times in recent days and noticed your obsession with Rachel Maddow.

    She may well deserve your comments, but who cares? Wouldn't your time would be better spent focused on Chuck Todd? Nobody watches Maddow, but millions see/hear/believe Todd every day.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Todd is not female and never said anything nice about Chris Matthews that Bob demanded him to explain.

      Delete
    2. It's not true that nobody watches Maddow.

      Delete
    3. Many more watch Megyn than Maddow. Bob would describe Megyn as comely.

      Delete
  4. What a hypcrite Mr. Bob Somerby is:

    "At that point, Maddow interrupted. Later, when Maddow asked Edwards to elaborate, the mayor jumped in to answer for him."

    According to Bob's previous post, this was the exchange:

    EDWARDS: And we don't have a good roadmap to follow in terms of how to replace these pipes and do it right. And we could jump into this and actually do it wrong. Other cities have done it wrong and made the problem worse in the past. So, we have to, we have to work with the EPA—

    MADDOW: Are there best practices out there about how to get corroded and, therefore, dangerous pipe out, replaced with good pipe?

    EDWARDS: There are, absolutely. The hurdles we face, the records are so poor, not only in Flint but all around the U.S., we don't know where these lead pipes are. The records we have are oftentimes wrong. So simply identifying which homes have the lead pipes is kind of a monumental task."

    What a prevaricating peddler of preposterous piddle.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Maddow didn't even mention it wasn't the saving of money for the reason Flint wasn't using Detroit's water. Journalists should keep digging to find out the real reason.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for telling us that Maddow engaged in a double negative (didn't mention that which was not).

      Perhaps your critique would not seem Boblike (flimsy) if you didn't even mention what you think the reason was.

      Delete
  6. Anybody want to speculate on what will be the new topic format of the Howler? Press coverage of aging issues?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I hope he will announce Chapter 7 is finished.

      Delete
  7. Dave the Guitar PlayerFebruary 4, 2016 at 1:27 PM

    I think Bob makes a legitimate point that "replacing all the pipes right now" conflicts with previous statements made on her own show. Bob reasonably speculates that Rachel did not bring up this conflict in this subsequent show since it conflicts with the "story" of villains, victims and heroes. Bob then criticizes Rachel. Most of the comments here (so far) just insult or make fun of Bob and pretty much ignore the point of the discussion. What Bob says here doesn't matter, but what Rachel says is taken as "gospel" by lots of people and worthy of criticism by Bob and anyone else. Making points about Bob here is just clowning and pretty much a waste of everyone's time.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Actually Bob's own expert, who he falsely accuses Maddow of interrupting, says this:

      "we have to figure out a way to get these pipes replaced."

      Then it is Bob who disappears this point in favor of stressing, over an over, Edwards caution that you could do things wrong and make things worse when you make the replacement, which he nevertheless endorses.

      You want to talk about wasting time? And being a total hypocrite?

      Delete