In August of 2005, a Category 5 hurricane called Hurricane Katrina destroyed the Gulf Coast of the United States, causing over 160$ billion in damage and costing over 1,800 lives. On September 15th, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from Jackson Square, New Orleans to discuss the current state of the country and the steps being taken to address the natural disaster and the damages it was causing. His goals were to assess the damages caused by the hurricane, and unify and strengthen the nation, reassuring it that the issue is being addressed and those affected by the hurricane will get the help they need. He is addressing the population being impacted by the Hurricane, but also the rest of the country in order to inform them of the situation and let them know that he is working to get people the help they need.
Bush opens his speech by explaining where he is, and appealing emotionally to the audience by using diction such as "waiting for life and hope to return," and "cruel and wasteful storm." He discusses the way the storm has impacted the lives of those living in the areas affected by it, in order to address the seriousness of the situation. He outlines his plan to help those impacted by the hurricane, by listing what he intends to do, and clearly states his goals and hopes for the future. He uses simplified language to make his message clear and avoid confusion. He proposes plans such as the Urban Homesteading Act, with the intention to get people "back on their feet." He concludes his speech by giving hope to his audience, talking about a "bright future" and "triumph of the spirit over death."
The speech alone had a clear message and addressed the severity of the situation, but according to an article from CNN, his approval rating dropped to 40% after the hurricane. During the hurricane, Bush had a planned vacation to his home in Texas, and did not remain very informed with the state that the country was in as a result of the hurricane. He eventually did cut his vacation short, but only by two days, and returned to address the country. According to an article by the the New York Times, Bill Clinton stated that Bush's plan of action to aid those impacted by the hurricane only provides relief to those in the middle class and up. The article describes how the storm highlighted the class divisions under Bush's presidency, and played a role in his failing popularity. Bush also did not address how he plans to help those that had no property insurance that lost their homes in the storm. An article by the Washington Post also discusses how Bush's plan of action "prioritizes the privileged over the working poor." The article also includes how Clinton, as mentioned earlier, believed that Bush was doing nothing for the poorer class, which would disproportionately hurt people of color as a consequence. The article explains how many believe that the hurricane exposed "a truly systematic effort to distort and disable the people's government and devote it to the interests of the privileged and the powerful."
When listening to the speech, it sounded to me like Bush was taking necessary steps in order to address the issue at hand. However, I was lacking a lot of background information which came to light when reading articles written in response to his speech. I had been unaware of the vacation he was on in the midst of the crisis, and had not realized how his policies and plans to move forwards were disproportionately favoring the more privileged. The media frame in my opinion was an accurate interpretation of Bush's message, because it included background information and hindsight that I did not have by only watching the speech and doing shorter research on the hurricane and the president. Politicians come across differently when delivering their message compared to media coverage because if you are not informed, you will most likely agree with what they say because it sounds good as a result of your lack of in depth background information ability to see the holes in their story and their political plans of action. The media, however, and the other politicians they interview will likely have a somewhat broader understanding of the subject as a result of direct involvement or hours of in depth research. Of course, this is not always true as media is always biased to some degree, which is why it is always important to do your own research and explore opposing sides in order to have a clearer view of the big picture.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YJpcbV6FNc8
https://www.britannica.com/event/Hurricane-Katrina
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/09/19/AR2005091901427.html
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/19/bush.poll/
https://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/us/nationalspecial/clinton-levels-sharp-criticism-at-the-presidents-relief.html
