Katrina polls.

Yesterday, I blogged about a poll that showed a surprisingly low number of persons blamed Bush for the problems in New Orleans after the hurricane. Now there are more polls, and commenters say I'm obliged to update. I responded that I thought the new polls were asking a different question. It's different to ask the usual job approval question than to ask people to assign "blame." I'd answer those two questions differently. I wouldn't just "approve" of what any level of government did, but I'd also hesitate to assign "blame."

But let me turn to Mystery Pollster for an explanation of the different polls:

[B]y probing the dimension of blame and responsibility, this question applies a tougher standard than the job ratings summarized above. One may conclude the President or others are doing a "bad" or "terrible job," yet still not hold them "responsible" or "to blame" for the problems following the Hurricane.

Yeah, that's what I thought. And Mystery Pollster has two more posts on polls that came out today: here and here.

ADDED: I'm not one to follow the polls day by day. I blog when I find something striking or that I have something to add to. I'd hate to think that once I've blogged about something, I then have an obligation to blog about futher news stories on the subject, when they don't meet my normal blogging standard. An old blog post is what it is under its time stamp. I hope people understand that concept. I think they do, even when they decide to go ahead and attack you for having some inaccurate or incomplete old post. I can't monitor everything!

MORE: And I mean "inaccurate" in the sense of something becoming inaccurate because further news stories have come in. This was the case with an old post of mine about the London police shooting a man. There is also the problem of misreading the news in the first place, which I try not to do. I'd be most concerned about making corrections in that case. I'd like the think the posts are in good shape with respect to their original time stamps.