In the wake of Katrina, most of the media has abandoned the fawning, deferential and sycophantic stance that they’d adopted towards Bush. At first they were inclined to withhold judgement: after all, Bush is known for being slow off the mark. But as one example of cluelessness and insensitivity followed another – the stupidity of the FEMA hack, Bush’s awful speech, Condi’s Imelda moment, Bush’s jokes about Trent Lott’s house, his expressions of support for incompetent subordinates – things reached a tipping point. Most of the media joined in the upwelling expression of anger towards Bush: Stop screwing around smirking at the cameras; fire that unqualified loser Michael Brown that you put in charge of FEMA, cancel Cheney’s vacation, and all of you roll your sleeves up and get down to work, doing the job we pay you to do!!

As Andrew Sullivan points out in the Sunday Times

“The president’s approval ratings were already in the very low 40s. The tracking poll of his response to the crisis showed discontent rising fast. By Friday, 70% were saying the government had not done enough; and a majority disapproved of the president’s handling of the crisis. At times like this, people normally rally round their president. This time, many are turning on him. And my sense is that this is just the beginning. On Friday the Republican Senator Susan Collins announced her intent to launch an investigation into what went wrong. “

But not all of the media has sensed this trend. Case in point: David Broder in the Washington Post, still drifting in Bush’s cloud-cuckoo-land:

“The challenges posed by this natural disaster are in some ways even more difficult than those of the terrorist attack, with anger and frustration now being expressed about the response of governments at all levels. But for a president who believes that actions speak louder than words, this is an advantageous setting.”

An “advantageous setting”? A fortunate distraction from Iraq and Plamegate? Sorry, David: when even Fox News is turning on the President, things are not “advantageous”. Perhaps, like the head of FEMA, you should pay attention to what’s going on in the real world…

[UPDATE] Howard Kurtz has a piece in today’s Washington Post commenting on the new-found passion of [some of] the journalists covering Katrina. Money quote:

For once, reporters were acting like concerned citizens, not passive observers. And they were letting their emotions show, whether it was ABC’s Robin Roberts choking up while recalling a visit to her mother on the Gulf Coast or CNN’s Jeanne Meserve crying as she described the dead and injured she had seen.

Maybe, just maybe, journalism needs to bring more passion to the table — and not just when cable shows are obsessing on the latest missing white woman.

From yesterday’s Gawker:

“According to Drudge, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has recently enjoyed a little Broadway entertainment. And Page Six reports that she’s also working on her backhand with Monica Seles. So the Gulf Coast has gone all Mad Max, women are being raped in the Superdome, and Rice is enjoying a brief vacation in New York. We wish we were surprised.

What does surprise us: Just moments ago at the Ferragamo on 5th Avenue, Condoleeza Rice was seen spending several thousands of dollars on some nice, new shoes (we’ve confirmed this, so her new heels will surely get coverage from the WaPo’s Robin Givhan). A fellow shopper, unable to fathom the absurdity of Rice’s timing, went up to the Secretary and reportedly shouted, “How dare you shop for shoes while thousands are dying and homeless!” Never one to have her fashion choices questioned, Rice had security PHYSICALLY REMOVE the woman”

(Via Salon.)