Bureaucratic bungling by the state of Minnesota had a heavy hand in the fatal Minnesota bridge collapse last summer, according to a new report commissioned by that state's legislature. The Associated Press has the story, but it's not as exciting as the initial "blame Bush" meme the media found so convenient as the tragedy unfolded. (emphasis mine):
ST. PAUL - A new report on the Minneapolis bridge collapse said money worries may have led to bad maintenance decisions ahead of the catastrophe that killed 13 people last August.
The report, commissioned by the Legislature, also criticized the Minnesota Department of Transportation for bridge inspections that were mishandled or not acted upon over the years, even when they called for immediate repairs.
[...]
The report found that MnDOT inspectors repeatedly failed to precisely measure the deterioriation of the gusset plates, despite MnDOT guidelines that they do so. Two MnDOT inspectors who wrote inspection reports on the bridge said they'd never even seen a written copy of those guidelines.
This meant the weakened condition of the gusset plates couldn't be factored in when the bridge's weight capacity was re-rated, most recently after renovations in 1998.
"These re-ratings were based solely on the Bridge plans and did not take into account the inspection reports or other information concerning the Bridge's condition," the report said.
Supervisors who should have made sure the reports were complete did not, the report said.
As NewsBusters Editor-at-Large Brent Baker noted last August, CNN's Jack Cafferty took to the air on CNN on August 2 last year to suggest that Iraq war funding was draining money needed for infrastructure.
The same day, "Hardball" guest host Mike Barnicle wondered if the bridge collapse was a boon to Democrats politically:
...Mike Barnicle, substitute-hosting for Chris Matthews, used the tragedy of the bridge collapse in Minneapolis to call for bigger government and wondered, "Does this help the Democrats?" All throughout tonight's show, Barnicle repeatedly pressed his guests to call for an increase in the size of government and at one point even demanded: "Government's gotta get bigger!"
—Ken Shepherd is Managing Editor of NewsBusters
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
"money worries?" that's
May 21, 2008 - 15:24 ET by TruthMonger"money worries?"
that's obviously from "tax cuts for the rich"
or money "spent on Iraq" instead of bridge inspection
yada
yada
yada
I interpreted that as the
May 21, 2008 - 15:32 ET by Ken ShepherdI interpreted that as the numbers crunchers in the state of Minnesota worried about not being able to make their budget requests at the state level.
But seeing as infrastructure is one of the fundamental responsibilities of local and state government, that seems to me incredibly weak.
Inspecting, reinspecting, repairing, and building new bridges is precisely what state and local governments should be doing with the tax monies they spend. Failure to do so is a moral failure of government to exercise its responsibility.
well Ken facts have never
May 21, 2008 - 15:51 ET by TruthMongerwell Ken facts have never stopped the MSM before - and still don't seem to get in the way much - despite that fantastic accomplishments of NB...
Ken, it all boils down to
May 21, 2008 - 16:16 ET by Dan The Man 2Ken, it all boils down to politics and who has control of teh spending. The rank and file workers, like me, want to do a bang up job but we dont run the train. But heaven forbid if the train derails we are to blame. Basically we work with what we have and most of teh time do a dang good job, much better than a private company would do. Heaven knows we have to ride some of teh contracters who design and construct the infrastructure. I cant tell you how many times I have been offered a bribe to look the other way. Sarc you are wrong.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Hold on
May 21, 2008 - 17:08 ET by Eileen RightEveryone knows the Transgender Roller Disco Kickboxing Center is more important than bridges and highways.
American Dream – 10,000 politicians swimming to Europe with a lawyer under each arm.
TruthMonger, "tax cuts for the rich" is a myth.
May 22, 2008 - 23:40 ET by fastfoodThe "rich" pay more than 96% of Federal income tax. In fact, under Bush tax rate on the "rich" has increased while rate for the bottom 50% of wage erners has decreased.
Bureaucracy fails, so the
May 21, 2008 - 15:32 ET by mattmBureaucracy fails, so the obvious solution is to spend more money on bureaucracy - Liberalism 101.
When I
May 21, 2008 - 15:40 ET by Meanderingmess up at work, no one blames the CEO, they blame me (not that I mess up). So why are the inspectors off the hook for being lousy at their jobs? Typical liberals, something goes wrong, blame the republicans.
Attribution
May 21, 2008 - 15:42 ET by the curatorthe initial "blame Bush" meme the media found so convenient
Mr. Shepherd,
Having covered the bridge collapse in person, I'd appreciate it if you could provide a link to a story that blamed President Bush for the bridge collapse. I certainly don't remember any. Thank you in advance.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
»→ I'm not Noel
May 21, 2008 - 15:46 ET by Cool ArrowAnd I don't play him on TV.
Seems a "curator" would know how to google, but finding this nugget took all of 45 seconds.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
Cool... Wow, 45 seconds.
May 21, 2008 - 15:53 ET by Clear thinkerCool...
Wow, 45 seconds. And this person said they covered the bridge collapse story? Something tells me his story is pooh-pooh.
"Abstain from McCain"
I would argue this story
May 21, 2008 - 16:03 ET by the curatorI would argue this story wasn't the media throwing blame at President Bush at all. This was Sec. Allbright.
In fact, the story even points out the absurdity of the claim.
making some outlandish comments about President George W. Bush last week, Albright turned her attention to funding for domestic policy initiatives.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
The MSM is repeating
May 21, 2008 - 16:18 ET by Dan The Man 2The MSM is repeating gossip.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
Fine Opinion
May 21, 2008 - 16:21 ET by the curatorThe MSM is repeating gossip.
That's certainly a valid opinion.
In my estimation, when well-known political figures make accusations (even or maybe especially) outlandish ones, its is news and deserves to be covered.
Again, if you look at the previous story, the reporter goes to great lenths and painting the Secretary's comments as non-sensical. (outlandish).
But, it is still a legitimate news story.
But, I am glad you've agreed they were spreading someone else's opinion and not giving their own.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
You obviously miss the
May 21, 2008 - 16:58 ET by Dan The Man 2You obviously miss the idea of gossip and what the reporters who repeat such are, but considering your bent and previous comments I should be consoled with the knowlege of who you are.
Nuke em til they glow then shoot em in the dark.
"Again, if you look at the
May 21, 2008 - 17:02 ET by mofosesame"Again, if you look at the previous story, the reporter goes to great lenths and painting the Secretary's comments as non-sensical. (outlandish)."
Right, they voice their opinion by using statements like "some people say", or "popular belief..." or, "unnamed sources say..."
We understand.
You're right
May 21, 2008 - 17:18 ET by the curatorthey voice their opinion by using statements like "some people say", or "popular belief..." or, "unnamed sources say..."
I agree to a point. I'd like to think unnamed sources should be fireable offenses in the industry. And I have no problem with people who think that should be the standard.
But, without unnamed sources, scandals like Whitewater would have never been unearthed. It's a tricky area.
That said... ALL media outlets use the "some sources" say bit... from FOX to NBC.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
You asked for it, you got it
May 22, 2008 - 10:26 ET by CobraManYou asked for a link and you got it. Now you're dismissing that link because it doesn't meet YOUR standards! Your pro- MSM bias is showing!
curator
May 22, 2008 - 10:36 ET by Cool Arrowand your argument would be without merit. Let me refresh your memory:
If you had prefaced with "an MSM claim blaming Bush" I would have modified my search for same.
But you asked for "a story". Stop moving the bar.
LYDSEXICS UNTIE!
it's called
May 21, 2008 - 15:59 ET by TruthMongerit's called www.google.com
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bush+blamed+for+bridge+collapse
I LIVE in Minneapolis - and saw the blame Bush reports myself from local to international news
As per the previous story
May 21, 2008 - 16:08 ET by the curatorAs per the previous story that was submitted, I would argue the stories you saw were public figures, likely Dems or DFLers, who blamed President Bush. The media was merely reporting what they said. Clearly not the opinion of the media.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
oh, well you wanted a "link
May 21, 2008 - 16:20 ET by TruthMongeroh, well you wanted a "link to a story"
which I gave ya in spades
"doh"
so now you want a link to "the opinion of the media"
can you maybe give the next four or five goal posts now so I can save time continuing doing your research for you:)?
Mr. Shepherd was the
May 21, 2008 - 16:24 ET by the curatorMr. Shepherd was the one who made the claim... hence, his job to attribute it. So, you were actually doing his job, not mine.
As far as a "link to the opinion of the media."... I'm a little confused. I've already shown you they were reporting someone else's words. What more do you need?
But, if the media's opinion is what you want... fine. I'm a professional journalist. The blaming of President Bush was done by other people... the media reported what they said.
Sorry... again, that's not an opinion. Its a fact.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
curator
May 21, 2008 - 16:56 ET by mofosesameFair and balanced - can you send us a link ? I've been searching and searching but I can't find any articles from the MSM that debunk the claim that Bush was at fault. Surely the MSM have something from the other side.
Happily
May 21, 2008 - 17:04 ET by the curatorhttp://www.newsinferno.com/archives/1708
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/08/us/09cnd-bridge.html
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2008/01/15/bridge-minneapolis.html (someone did mention international)
This one makes the President look good.
Late last year, U.S. President George W. Bush signed a massive spending bill which included $195 million US to help replace the bridge. That came on top of the $178.5 million US the federal government has already given Minnesota for the project.
http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/01/16/gussets/
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/16/nation/na-bridge16
These are just a few. In none of them will you find, I believe, the words "president," or "Bush," except the one I mentioned, which notes him for increased spending to replace the bridge.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
"These are just a few. In
May 21, 2008 - 17:08 ET by mofosesame"These are just a few. In none of them will you find, I believe, the words "president," or "Bush," except the one I mentioned, which notes him for increased spending to replace the bridge."
But that's exactly what I'm looking for. I want to see the NYT headline that reads "NO, it's not Bush's fault"
Any idea where I can find THAT article?
I can sympathize
May 21, 2008 - 17:15 ET by the curatorI understand your desire to have the President vindicated. I don't entirely disagree with you. As an industry, the media does a poor job of follow up stories to begin with.
That said, it's not the media's job to defend the President. Especially when the media never accused him of being at fault to begin with.
However, I would have gone back to sources, like Sec. Albright, and asked her opinion about her previous statements that fault had laid with the administration after the real cause had been found.
So, again... the media could do a better job of follow up, I'll agree completely.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
it's not exactly their job
May 21, 2008 - 17:19 ET by TruthMongerit's not exactly their job to deliberately slander Republican presidents whilst covering for Democrat presidents either:)!
but they do it so well
well if you want to get
May 21, 2008 - 17:22 ET by TruthMongerwell if you want to get completely technical then Shepherd refers to the "media" "blame bush" "meme"
so Ken's assertion does not require an actual headline from the NYT with the exact words "WE, THE ENTIRE MSM OFFICIALLY BLAME BUSH COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY FOR THE MINNEAPOLIS BRIDGE COLLAPSE"
MSM publication simply suggesting or alluding to that idea is just fine:)
jack
May 21, 2008 - 17:09 ET by TruthMongerdude it was you who asked for an "opinion from the media" not me
how about jack cafferty?
http://www.mrc.org/cyberalerts/2007/cyb20070803.asp#1
that aside - journalists like yourself obviously "lead the witnesses" with leading questions you yourselves come up with - out of your own opinions
just another troll
May 21, 2008 - 16:50 ET by wizardjrTM, you should know by now that curator is just another troll. He spends too much bandwidth being "clever" in refuting your proposition.
The answer to troll is simple: google all the articles 'blaming' someone for the bridge collapse. You will find tons of them directly or indirectly blaming President Bush and damn few blaming anyone else. Unless someone saw President Bush pushing the button that blew up the bridge, all this finger pointing is political ennuendo and not fact. Ipso facto, the media rolled over for the BSD crowd and printed anything they could get their hands on that blamed the President. TM's case is made. Now go back to your bridge.
Is Keith Olbermann "a public
May 21, 2008 - 17:50 ET by Indiana JoeIs Keith Olbermann "a public figure," or is he "the media?" Check the Google link provided, and you'll find plenty of op-eds blaming Bush and Iraq for the bridge collapse, among other things. I presume you mean opinion pieces when you say "the media," so I think your question has been answered.
I wouldn't say Olbermann is
May 21, 2008 - 18:09 ET by the curatorI wouldn't say Olbermann is any more a journalist than O'Reilly, Hannity, Colmes, etc.
These people are 'opinionists.'
Do they drive 'public' opinion? I don't think that much. Olbmermann isn't convincing any conservatives any more than O'Reilly is convincing any liberals.
So, to answer your question, 'no.' He's not the media.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
dear friends, hence the
May 21, 2008 - 19:10 ET by TruthMongerdear friends, hence the need for dear old NB
and again Ken referred to the "media" up above anyways - not "journalists"
but curator doesn't consider olby to really part of the "media" I'm sure...
probably would call him a "sort-of'media-ist-sometimes-maybe-it-kinda-depends..."
what is it with the left and the fear of commitments anyway?
You conveiniently (sp) left
May 21, 2008 - 20:39 ET by the curatorYou conveiniently (sp) left out my mention of conservatives I don't consider members of the media as well. But, if you need to do that to make your point, you're welcome to it.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
Okay, so your definition of
May 22, 2008 - 20:31 ET by Indiana JoeOkay, so your definition of "the media" doesn't cover reporters ("just reporting what people say") and it doesn't cover "opinionists," to use your word. I take that to mean columnists, editorialists, essayists, etc.
So, exactly, who DO you consider "the media?" Put another way, under your rules, is there ANY answer to your original question?
It would appear not.
Media vs. Journalists
May 22, 2008 - 20:48 ET by the curatorYou bring up a good point. What is the 'media'?
I guess I would consider the media any objective manner in which news is disseminated (sp). Which would certainly disclude Olbermann, Hannity, OReilly, etc...
But, there are grey areas. OReilly, Matthews... even the Daily Show provide very accurate accounts of current happenings. But, with their own obvious tilts.
I'd like to keep media to journlists with training and degrees. Just because I think you need an education to have a full grasp of what you're doing.
I'll agree completely, though... the line between opinion and reporting has become somewhat blurred (in some cases, very blurred). Probably one of the reasons for this website.
But, I think my original point still holds. The media was reporting other people's opinion. I don't think you can 'blame the messenger' as it were.
"I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building."
-George W. Bush, October 11, 2000
You raised the issue...
May 23, 2008 - 15:57 ET by Indiana Joeand you keep moving the goal-posts. You asked for an example of "the media" blaming Bush for the bridge collapse. You won't accept reports of people blaming Bush, which some editor decides whether to run/air or not. And you won't accept opinion pieces, wherein a commentator, with the blessing of his medium, offers the opinion. You're asking for concrete proof of an opinion, but now are arguing there is no media to have an opinion.
You're asking us to choose black or white, then claiming the answer is neither. It's a purely circular argument, a waste of time, and the last refuge of a lost cause. Your "original point" was merely your attempt to define the debate, which you quickly abandoned when the proof you were wrong was so easily found.
Suffice to say the media had no problem disseminating the falsehood that Bush had anything to do with the bridge collapse, be it by reporting or by opinion. And that's been demonstrated ad nauseum. If you don't get it, well, you don't get it.
Thirty
wasted money by the billions, literally
May 21, 2008 - 17:01 ET by wizardjrFor those of you who don't live here, the wack jobs in St Paul have literally wasted billions of tax dollars that could have gone to bridges and roads.
We built a light rail line here for over a billion dollars instead of the $400 million estimated. Ridership is averageing 20%. It goes from the airport to the Mall of America and then downtown Minneapolis. Totally useless for most of us as the commuting population lives along four corridors that look like a letter H laying on its side and extending over 30 miles each way from the center with high density at the ends, not distributed along the corridors. Already it has killed five people (as of November).
In addition they take road money and spend it on bicycle paths and other non-road nonsense. And then the bridges fall down. What a surprise. We have temperatures from 10 below to 100 above in the Twin Cities and greater extremes up north. We use tons of salt and urea all winter long. Surprise! Metal corrodes in this atmosphere. Duh!
urea poor design
May 22, 2008 - 10:45 ET by CobraManThat bridge was badly designed to begin with. Who puts welded steel-box bridges on top of wet clay, limestone, and sandstone that tend to MOVE with the underground water flows? That's a recipe of disasters. And before you ask, yes, I live in Minneapolis.
It's rather telling that a riveted iron structure, the old Lake Street Bridge, lasted 100 years and was VERY difficult to bring down via controlled demolition, yet a "modern" welded steel-box bridge fell down on its own after only half that time. I guess those old engineers really knew what they were doing.