The other day I commented on the Ten Second News sideblog on a NY Times regarding Houston's benefiting from the New Orleans disaster. I said:

I'm a little resentful of the tone of the article, though, as it seems to suggest that Houston has been a vulture at the gate. Rather, the Bayou City has been going far above and beyond the call of duty in helping New Orleanians. Is there an ulterior motive? Not really seeing as how the ones taken in are, to be frank, the ones it's probably least excited about keeping. As far as the scramble, I'd be upset with Houston officials if they weren't taking a longer view of things.

The thing is that these businesses have to go somewhere. It's not a matter of pilfering businesses and people that would otherwise be sticking around. Many of them will move back and I'm sure that we wish them all the best. But Houston has a lot to offer to those looking for a solution, temporary or permanent. It would be a mistake not to point that out.

The article in question was actually not in the NY Times but rather the International Herald-Tribune. This is significant because according to KTRK (ABC), there is some difference between the two:

Houston is home to the largest relief shelter in American history. From donating shelter, clothes, and food to making room in its schools, the city and its people have given of themselves.

So who could find anything bad to say about Houston? Apparently the New York Times could, which on Tuesday printed an article about Houston's response to Katrina in two different newspapers. In one, the article seems relatively even handed. But in the other, some say it is overly critical, ill-timed, and in poor taste.

In the Times, there's an above-the-fold article by Houston-based reporter Simon Romero. And apparently what's in the Times is not all the news that's fit to print.

In The International Herald Tribune published by the Times in Paris, Romero's article is on page 15 and it begins with a line not in the Times, which reads "No one would accuse this city of being timid in the scramble to profit from the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina."

It later contends, "A surge of business activity in Houston might lift the fortune of a city that is still struggling to recover from the collapse of Enron and two decades of job cuts in the energy industry."

The line about not being "timid in the scrable to profit" really sets a different tone for the entire article. Homesellers giving special discounts to families from Louisiana are not presented as charitable, but almost ambulance-chasing.

I don't know that I've ever been more proud to be a raised Houstonian or Texan as I have been this past week. Houston has gone out of its way to be hospitable to "desirable" and "undesirable" alike. Gov. Rick Perry, Mayor Bill White, County Judge Robert Eckles, and all else deserve a lot of credit not only for being willing to help, but showing a sort of competence that has been hard to find in this whole debacle.

Austin Bay suggests that the object of it might be to knock Houston down a peg:

Tempest in a teapot? Or another example of “mainstream” press bias with a slash and a dram of dishonest editing? It’s both. Call it small potatoes, but indicative small potatoes– and if dishonest is too strong a word, sub “adulterated.” This story (Houston’s business sector post-Katrina) deserved coverage, but not with the rhetorical editorialization. The truth is, an entire swath of the southeastern and southwestern US will eventually “benefit” in the same manner as evacuees arrive and businesses adjust– the first story acknowledges that. Why the editorialization? Here’s a theory: It’s also the NY-DC-LA media axis trying to take Houston down a notch or two. Houston opened its doors and hearts to evacuees. That’s too sweet of a story, especially from a Republican state and a swaggering Texas city. The NY-DC-LA axis responds with: “So let’s suggest that they are really being greedy, eh?” Unfair? Then offer another theory.

I think regional bias may have been involved, but I frankly think a lot of it is a belief that nothing good can come from this disaster. The Americans all have opened their homes and wallets to strangers has been somewhat muffled under the sound of axes grinding.