Let the blogosphere investigate Katrina reporting

Two men of tempered judgment today made recommendations for an investigation of the mainstream press’ performance in reporting on Katrina.

John Hinderaker of the powerline blog calls for a Congressional investigation of “how could the mainstream media have done such a poor job in reporting Hurricane Katrina.” As Hinderaker points out, and then corroborates, “the lurid reports of widespread criminality in New Orleans, and especially of crime and chaos at the SuperDome and Convention Center, were almost entirely untrue.” This raises important questions to Hinderaker, as it should to anyone who cares about best helping these or future catastrophe victims, of how rumors came to be treated as facts, the failure of journalistic procedures to control this, the extent to which such reporting had political purposes, and whether misreporting damaged the rescue effort.

John Hinderaker has a bit more faith than I in a Congressional investigation. Both Republicans and Democrats are too deep into blame games at this point. Also, Congress is not famous for defying the major media, the treatment from whom so affects their re-election.

Experienced conservative journalist Mark Tapscott’s alternative suggestion is for an investigation led by the press. “MSM’s several professional organizations would do well to call an emergency meeting, appoint a commission of respected editors, academic journalists and knowledgeable non-journalists to get to the bottom of what could become a blow to media credibility from which there will be no recovery.”

I’d add to the list of inquiry the extent to which misinformation from political and rescue leaders is at fault, and the extent to which their innocent ignorance, incompetence or political motivations are at fault. Although raising the question will lead to the press finding reasons – probably correctly – to reduce its culpability, the failure to raise this question is unfair to the press, to understanding the whole story, and to finding worthwhile answers and remedies.

The New York Times and the Washington Post did major retrospective reporting of their own decisions and performance leading up to the Iraq War. Two hundred billion dollars later, this only accomplished increased skepticism that anyone can see through the fog of war, rather than recognition that the press needs to commit more resources, knowledgeable reporters, and frontline experience to foreign reporting. We’ll be two hundred billion dollars into Katrina spending before the same result, increased skepticism, comes from a Congressional or press investigation of Katrina reporting, but the expectation of the shrinking mass media committing more resources, knowledgeable reporters, and frontline experience to major disasters, of nature or man-made, is equally bleak.

So, let both alternatives investigation paths come, for whatever worth.

However, I suggest a third investigation path. Let several major foundations, from left, right and center, fund a commission of investigation drawn from the blogosphere, which contains as much or more expertise and experience and less institutional conflicts of interest than either Congress or the mass media. From this, I would expect a substantial step forward in maturing the perspective and in professionalizing this new media, moving it further toward its potential of a greater check on the old “estates.” That will have more lasting effect than either of the old estates’ investigations.