Their argument, lame as it is, goes this way:
The media reported false information from New Orleans, especially in the first few days after the storm. The country saw these reports and turned against President Bush, who did nothing wrong. So any lingering belief that Bush didn't respond well after Katrina is the fault of reporters who lied to make Bush look bad.
(One more thought about those early reports. Anyone who's been a reporter, or been involved in spot news, understands that the first flashes from breaking news are notoriously unreliable. By nightfall on Sept. 11, 2001, some 20,000 people had died in the World Trade Centers. No one suggests that this early, false toll was created to make the Bush Administration look bad. How is this any different than the early reports from New Orleans?)
On Free Republic -- haven for the most radical right-wingers -- posters are taking delight in sliming reporters. Said one Freeper:
[I]n the interest of furthering anything that might make Bush look bad, liberal reporters were quick to accuse Black refugees at the Thunderdome of all manner of violent and sick behavior. So, who's a racist again?
I wonder how many children and women were raped and killed because (Gov. Kathleen) Blanco needed more time to make a decision about getting the feds involved?
Of course not. That would be logical behavior by rational humans who understand when they're being hypocrites.