Should the mass media slap itself on the back?

The mass media has begun its self-congratulations for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina. The party may be premature.

In harrowing circumstances, news reporters from the wire services, major newspapers and TV networks did an outstanding job of trying to tell an extremely confusing and fairly unique story. There’s no substitute for the immediacy of TV pictures of the devastation and suffering in New Orleans, and little for some of the more comprehensive newspaper reports. But, to characterize the coverage as heralding a renaissance for the old media is exaggerated.

Endlessly replaying the same clips somewhat faded their immediacy. As most coverage focused on New Orleans, and comparatively little on the hurricane’s impact elsewhere in the Gulf region, much perspective on the bigger picture was lost. As news stories broadcast unchecked horror stories of barbaric behavior by some, and featured clips or anecdotes of the most blatant, they fed into excessive fears and racist stereotypes. As more complete facts emerged in blogs and were picked up in some newspapers, a more complete picture emerged.

The mass media’s persistence in broadcasting the dramatic breakdowns of civil order, real and imagined, after the first few days of such were quieted, caused the commander of National Guard troops patrolling New Orleans to bark at a reporter who suggested random gunfire and lawlessness were still hampering search-and-rescue. Lt. Gen. Russel Honore shot back: “Have you been to New Orleans? Did anybody accost you?”

The BBC’s correspondent, Matt Wells, writing from his on-the-scene perch in Los Angeles, opines that, “good reporting lies at the heart of what is changing,” in his dispatch titled “Has Katrina saved US media?” Wells ends by saying “the final word belongs to” the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s open letter to President Bush angrily blaming the federal response for failures.

Heritage Foundation’s media chair, journalist Mark Tapscott, on September 5, points out that the New Orleans Times-Picayune’s “reporters and editors performed heroically during the storm itself and in many respects in the immediate aftermath. But casting stones at others while ignoring the evidence of your Mayor’s incompetence is not distinguished journalism.”

Peter Johnson’s Media Mix column in USA Today applauds that, “Katrina rekindles adversarial media,” as if its performance throughout the Bush administration, indeed much of Clinton’s, were softball. With common sense, Boston University journalism professor, veteran journalist Bob Zelnick replies to Johnson, “I would hate to see it draw the inference from New Orleans that ‘in your face’ journalism is the panacea for restoring our lost credibility.”

England’s leftist Guardian had a correspondent in Baton Rouge, Gary Younge. Younge reports “During a week when communications were difficult, rumours have acquired a particular currency. They acquired through repetition the status of established facts.” Younge also cites several other mainstream reporters who debunked or couldn't substantiate several stories of runaway mayhem.

Richard Baehr’s piece at The American Thinker does yeoman work at shredding seven myths that may have grown from some of misreporting, moreso omitted reporting, especially in briefer commentaries, during the past week.

There’s still much to come out. We look forward to it, and it being a better job than appears to have been done in some emerging respects by the 9/11 Commission. As with 9/11, part of the analysis should include what and how much the major media really focused upon warnings and practical solutions in the years, months and days leading up to Hurricane Katrina and, moreso than in the case of 9/11, the extent to which the response to the unfolding tragedy was aided or not, or even misled, by the reporting that occurred. The role of the reporting plays a much more central role than in the case of 9/11 in the communications accomplishments and failures surrounding Hurricane Katrina and its sad aftermath.