Fact-checkers are working overtime defending Vice President Kamala Harris from allegations she suggested hurricane relief should be distributed according to skin color.
On Sept. 29, Harris joined Indian actress Priyanka Chopra Jonas for a “fireside chat.” During their discussion, the issue of climate change came up, with the actress claiming countries that contribute the least to carbon emissions suffer the greatest consequences.
“The poorest countries are affected the most,” said the actress. “They contributed the least and are affected the most. So, how should voters in the U.S. feel about the administration’s long-term goals when it comes to being an international influencer on this topic?”
Harris responded meanderingly, segueing eventually into addressing Hurricanes Ian and Fiona, which ravaged Florida and Puerto Rico, respectively. It was at this moment Harris allegedly suggested “equity” should play a key role in the distribution of disaster relief.
The reaction to her comments was swift, with many in right-wing and right-of-center media accusing the vice president of promoting race-based emergency assistance.
Not so, said the fact-checkers in the corporate media.
“Harris comments on addressing climate inequity misrepresented,” ruled an Associated Press fact check.
Said Reuters, “Fact Check-Clip of Kamala Harris on hurricane relief and equity taken out of context online.”
“No, Kamala Harris didn’t say Hurricane Ian relief would be based on skin color,” ruled PolitiFact.
And so on.
But what’s the truth of the matter? As always, it’s best if you read for yourself exactly what was said [emphasis added]:
“The [climate] crisis is real, and the clock is ticking. And the urgency with which we must act is without any question.
And the way that we think of it and the way I think of it is both in terms of the human toll and — I know we are all thinking about the families in Florida, in Puerto Rico with Fiona — and what we need to do to help them in terms of an immediate response and aid, but also what we need to do to help restore communities and build communities back up in a way that they can be resilient — not to mention, adapt — to these extreme weather conditions, which are part of the future.
On the point that you made about disparities: You know, back when I was district attorney of San Francisco — I was elected in 2003 — I started one of the first environmental justice units of any DA’s office in the country focused on this issue. And in particular on the disparities, as you have described rightly, which is that it is our lowest income communities and our communities of color that are most impacted by these extreme conditions and impacted by issues that are not of their own making.
And so, we have to address this in a way that is about giving resources based on equity, understanding that we fight for equality, but we also need to fight for equity; understanding that not everyone starts out at the same place. And if we want people to be in an equal place, sometimes we have to take into account those disparities and do that work.”
Hmmm.
Harris continued, saying [emphasis added]:
“And to your point about the global piece: Among the leaders that I have been meeting and convening — just recently, in fact — and now this was, I think, the third time — I convened the presidents and prime ministers of the Caribbean countries; there’s an organization called CARICOM, and I convened them just a couple weeks ago, and the consistent discussion we are having is exactly your point, which is: We are one of the greatest emitters in the world, and the Caribbean countries, for example, are paying the biggest price. They are some of the lowest emitters, yet the erosion that they are experiencing to their island nations is profound.
And when you combine that with the fact that nations like that — their biggest source for their GDP is tourism, and what the climate crisis and extreme weather conditions do in terms of then plummeting their incoming resources, not to mention what we are expecting all good nations to do to contribute to mitigation and adaptation.
So there is still a lot of work to be done to recognize the equities. And I will say, for us, as the United States, to own responsibility for what we rightly should do to recognize these disparities and contribute in a way that is fair with the goal of equitable priorities.”
Judge for yourself whether the criticism of Harris is fair; judge based on the verbatim quotes provided above.
Swing and a miss:
The best proof that Republican Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis has done an excellent job of coordinating and managing hurricane relief in the Sunshine State following Hurricane Ian can be seen in the press’s coverage of the state’s rescue and relief efforts.
The reporting out of Florida doesn’t look anything like what we saw in the aftermath of, say, Hurricane Katrina. The coverage has been relatively light on death counts and stories of destitution and terror and heavy on desperate “gotchas” aimed exclusively at Florida lawmakers.
“Florida Leaders Rejected Major Climate Laws. Now They’re Seeking Storm Aid,” reads one particularly dimwitted New York Times headline. Its subhead reads, “Senior Republican politicians in the state have opposed federal action against global warming, which is making storms like Hurricane Ian more destructive.”
This wasn’t the New York Times’s only attempt at this type of “gotcha.” It published a separate story titled “DeSantis, Once a ‘No’ on Storm Aid, Petitions a President He’s Bashed.” Its subhead reads, “The Florida governor, who as a congressman opposed aid to victims of Hurricane Sandy, is seeking relief from the Biden administration as Hurricane Ian ravages his own state.”
Republicans oppose pork-laden bills largely benefiting left-wing activist groups and other entities totally unrelated to actual disaster relief. But now, they want disaster relief following a Category 4 hurricane. Hypocrisy much??
More seriously, if you want proof that rescue and relief efforts in Florida are being well managed, look no further than these headlines. If the state bungled its response, we’d hear about it. It’d be the only story leading the news. Instead, however, we have these lazy and mostly nonsensical hits pieces, criticizing state lawmakers for their entirely consistent opposition to special interest-benefiting spending bills. This lamebrained coverage is the surest sign state officials have everything under control.
“DeSantis has been a critic of Biden on nearly every policy front,” Politico riffed. “But he sure does like the president’s wallet.”
I beg your pardon — “the president’s wallet”? That’s not how any of this works.
By Thursday, many in the press had moved on from the climate change “gotcha” to merely making fun of the white waders DeSantis wore recently to survey a disaster site.
It’s not much, but it’s all they got.
Backtrack:
Few things in media are as funny as when a newsroom is forced to debunk its own “fact check.”
And the only thing funnier is when the “debunking” is authored by the same man who wrote the initial “fact check.”
On Oct. 4, New York Times reporter Stuart Thompson wrote a report titled “Election Software Executive Arrested on Suspicion of Theft.”
“The top executive of an elections technology company that has been the focus of attention among election deniers was arrested by Los Angeles County officials in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers,” the paper reported. “Eugene Yu, the founder and chief executive of Konnech, the technology company, was taken into custody on suspicion of theft.”
It added, “The company has been accused by groups challenging the validity of the 2020 presidential election with storing information about poll workers on servers in China.”
The article continues, reporting U.S. law enforcement officials “had found data stored in China.”
Well, this is awkward.
Thompson, you may recall, is the same reporter who wrote an Oct. 3 report (yes, just one day earlier) titled “How a Tiny Elections Company Became a Conspiracy Theory Target.” Its subhead reads, “Election deniers catapulted a Michigan firm with just 21 U.S. employees to the center of unfounded voter fraud claims, exposing it to vicious threats.”
The article opens with these lines, “Using threadbare evidence, or none at all, the group suggested that a small American election software company, Konnech, had secret ties to the Chinese Communist Party and had given the Chinese government backdoor access to personal data about two million poll workers in the United States.”
The report adds, “In the two years since former President Donald J. Trump lost his re-election bid, conspiracy theorists have subjected election officials and private companies that play a major role in elections to a barrage of outlandish voter fraud claims.”
Now, however, the same Oct. 3 story bears an editor’s note, which reads: “After this article was published, the chief executive of Konnech was arrested in connection with an investigation into the possible theft of personal information about poll workers.”
Ah, yes. Other than that.
“Outlandish.” “Conspiracy theories.” “Election deniers.” “Threadbare evidence [or] none at all.”
You’ll get it right on the first try next time. Surely!
