NYT's cigarettes and cocaine reporting on the LA fires

Here's how we defined a cigarettes and cocaine argument back in 2020:

The basic form goes something like this:

    Our household spending is out of control.

    Between your cigarettes and my cocaine habit, we're spending hundreds of dollars a week.

    You definitely need to cut back on your cigarettes.

The key to the approach is to take two things, related but of wildly different magnitudes, and conveniently aggregate then disaggregate them to reach the desired conclusion.

For years (post Reagan and pre-Obamacare), pundits and politicians pushing for entitlement reform relied largely, perhaps primarily on C and C arguments. Dire projections for the combined finances of Social Security and Medicare were presented to justify severe and immediate cuts in Social Security. Of course, the horrifying shortfalls were coming from the Medicare side of the ledger, but that pea was inevitably lost among the shells.

 

 The generalized form of the argument goes like this:

1. Claim about A, usually negative (A is dangerous/costly/unsustainable);

2. Supporting evidence about A and B where B is the source of most of the problems (more expensive, causing more deaths, trending in a worse direction, etc.);

3. More arguments against A.

While the classic C&C example is Social Security and Medicare, another reliable source is LA city and LA county. Countless articles and op-eds about the failings of the city and its government will throw in county-wide statistics to make their case. (Keep in mind less than half Angelenos live in the city).

The NYT is a longtime offender on this front and their coverage of the recent fires does not disappoint.

From Los Angeles Fire Chief Faces Calls for Resignation

Now, as Los Angeles reels under an extended onslaught of wind-driven wildfire, its fire chief is being buffeted by challenges in and outside her ranks, tension with City Hall and questions about her department’s preparedness. The fires, which are still unfolding on the city’s west side and in the community of Altadena outside the city, have so far leveled nearly 40,000 acres and claimed at least 27 lives.

Pay close attention to that number of fatalities. 

Southern California is looking at an extraordinary dry spell with almost no precipitation for eight or so months, well into what is supposed to be the rainy season. Under these conditions, the huge windstorm of a couple of weeks ago was unsurprisingly followed by a number of fires, two of which became major, Eaton and Palisades. Eaton was located in an unincorporated part of Los Angeles County north of Pasadena, making it the responsibility of the county government. The Eaton Fire was significantly more deadly with a toll of 17 out now 28 deaths. 

Interestingly, there has been virtually no criticism of the county fire chief, certainly not a wave of calls for his dismissal. 

There do appear to have been some instances where the response to the fires in the city was mishandled, but as we have said before, the blame for these disasters lies almost entirely in decisions made outside of the mayor's office. The current narrative is a costly distraction, driven by regional ignorance, political agendas (Murdoch organizations have been pushing it heavily), and a juvenile fascination with the travails of wealthy celebrities.

Given recent history, the New York Times meekly going along with Fox News/NY Post spin is hardly out of character and, of course, identifying with the rich and powerful is practically in the paper's DNA.