Centerfield

I found Fox and CNN even more repulsive than usual. CNN kept spinning what a horrible job the feds were doing, while Fox kept trying to apologize and direct blame at the democratic governor and the victims. An both channels reporters came off as clueless, self absorbed and overly dramatic. Instead of taking pictures of the trapped and desperate people why not try and help them?

I ended up watching the weather channel with the sound turned off.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 30, 2005 01:34 AM

Can someone just stuff Geraldo in a wood chipper?

Posted by: Marcus at September 30, 2005 02:10 AM

Can someone just stuff Geraldo in a wood chipper?

Posted by: Marcus at September 30, 2005 02:11 AM

"You're all mixed up like pasta primavera. Why'd you throw that chair at Geraldo Rivera?"

Beastie Boys

Anyway, I think part of the problem is the level of competition going on among the the numerous media outlets, which are, in the end, money-making enterprises. The more hysteria there is, the more compelling the story for the viewers and the more likely viewers will be to stay tuned.

I don't think individual journalists, at least not many, make conscious decisions to create hysteria. I think it's more systemic than that, in that what natural hysteria and hyperbole arises goes unchecked at some level. And we've all heard what is now a cliche - "If it bleeds it leads."

I guess it's symptomatic of some subset of the many flaws in human nature that are most pronounced at the mob level.

Posted by: WHQ at September 30, 2005 09:08 AM

My favorite stupid-but-highly-revealing observation from this week's stories about media reports being "less than accurate" in their reporting came from the closing quote in a WashTimes article:

The chaos in the wake of Katrina seemed to affect some reporters and editors, says Kelly McBride, who teaches ethics at the Poynter Institute, a journalism research and education center in St. Petersburg, Fla. "You get so hung up as a reporter on what the big picture is that you use generalizations that become untrue."

They become untrue? Uh uh. False generalizations start out being untrue, they don't devolve into untruths. Especially when the "big picture" you're "hung up as a reporter on" is the framing you wish to impose on the story, or your own inability to function as an investigative journalist rather than an on-screen celebrity emoter. This is the Big Picture of advocacy journalism and talking-head "reporters" chosen for screen presence instead of any journalistic ability.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2005 09:16 AM

What has frustrated me about the whole Katrina coverage is my own inability to decide what is truth and what is not. For example, depending on who you talk to, (and I was not an eyewitness to any of the behaviors in New Orleans or the occupants of the Astordome), you either get the impression that the victims of the hurricane, those left with no homes, no jobs, many with missing relatives..that these victims were either ungrateful and quite unruly or it was the complete opposite.

The power of the internet, as well as the existing power of network news seems to only contribute to the polarization of our take on what really happenned. Truth, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.

Posted by: todd at September 30, 2005 09:26 AM

There were certainly problems with the coverage and I thought all along it was hysterical and unfocused. However, I see some what seems to me to be some effort by the right to pin the blame for the fed's failures implicitly on the "liberal media." Last night, the News Hour had a discussion on the issue of journalism re Katrina that included a guy named Hugh Hewitt, also from the Poynter Institute. (He apparently also has a blog.) I don't know who this guy is, but he is clearly conservative (they had a liberal on as well) and I suspect he had an ax to grind against the "liberal" media. He played the game that a lot of conservatives play, ie, pinning the racism label on liberals, by saying that the media was willing to accept the stories of rapes, murders, etc, because the people were mostly poor and black.

The media certainly deserves a lot of opprobrium for how they reported the story--the rumors, exaggerations, etc. But let's not lose sight of the fact that they were reporting on what was indeed a human tragedy. The response was slow and inefficient. It's not like they made up the scenes of helpless people. My point is that there seems to be an effort to deflect criticism of the Bush Administration onto the media. While the media deserves criticism, I'm skeptical of some of the criticism, which seems to imply that any problems with the response were invented by the media.

Posted by: Marc at September 30, 2005 09:50 AM

The power of the internet, as well as the existing power of network news seems to only contribute to the polarization of our take on what really happenned. Truth, I suppose, is in the eye of the beholder.

People now can choose the presentation of the news that reinforces their own world view. We can all go deeper and deeper into our own divergent wildernesses.

Posted by: WHQ at September 30, 2005 09:53 AM

Some relevant info here.

The biggest denial I see in the media is denying that they themselves were partially responsible for impeded response. With local communications totally gone, officials at all levels relied on the media for information. And that information was so often exaggerated, or just plain false, leaving the responders wasting time preparing for situations that didn't exist.

Juliette of Baldilocks blog has some relevant discussion on the "media racism" angle here and here.

The media believed ugly rumors about black people told to them by black people: by the evacuees and by the (black) New Orleans police chief. And, in the media mindset, why would these sources say things to make other black people look bad unless it was true? That’s laziness (on the media's part), not racism.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2005 10:43 AM

Many of the problems are intrinsic. Some parts of disasters are more videogenic than others. TV news coverage will naturally seek out the most videogenic portions and repeat them over and over creating a distorted perspective.

A good start on improving things would be to fire all the J-school grads and graduates of radio, TV, film departments.

Posted by: Dave Schuler at September 30, 2005 12:19 PM

Nagin was a total failure at NON-use of buses for evacuation, BEFORE NO was flooded.
Where was the news on exactly WHAT the evacuation plan was, WHO had authority and responsibility, and WHAT those people were saying.

The MSM was after Bush far too fast -- 72-96 hours is the normal FEMA response time.

See Katrina for more thoughts, links.

Posted by: Tom Grey - Liberty Dad at September 30, 2005 12:38 PM

I took the coverage as just further evidence that today, information you get from the media can't be trusted on its own merits. Way too many "stories" these days are blatent opinion pieces. I find it fairly sad, actually...

Posted by: Justin at September 30, 2005 02:00 PM

I find this topic particularly interesting today because I just finished grading about 40 student papers that explored source "credibility." My students had to explore the crediblity of Newspapers, Magazines, TV News, etc.

One of the more interesting things to emerge from their observations is that TV News "must be true because they show visuals." Newspapers are also credible "because they are written by professional journalists." I found myself writing the same thing over and over--"If all TV News is true because they show visuals, how do you explain this weeks reports that the rapes, murders, etc. in the New Orleans Superdome didn't really occur? Didn't they provide us with great 'on the scene' shots?"

Justin is absolutely on target. Not only are many "stories" really opinion pieces, but the headlines are even more revealing. For example, during Bush's second trip to NOLA, CNN.com had a headline that read "Bush Finally on the Ground." A simple reading of that headline would lead one to believe that this was Bush's first visit on the ground, when he had actually been there about three days before. If you want to absolutely roll on the floor laughing about leading headlines, just visit Arianna's website. She absolutely cracks me up! She manages to pull something out of a story that the rest of the world doesn't see and turn it into a headline. (Not that Drudge is perfect either.)

Posted by: AR at September 30, 2005 02:53 PM

One more thing...in reference to the comment that expressed a wish for Geraldo to be placed inside a wood chipper. While I think that's a creative idea, I think it might also be quite entertaining to place him live where the bullets really are actually flying over his head. Lol.

Posted by: AR at September 30, 2005 03:13 PM

Yes, the media followed unsubstantiated rumors of murders and rapes in the Superdome and Convention center. The news media is "the first draft of history" afterall.

But the media also performed a great service to the people in the disaster area. They lit a fire under federal, local, private, and citizen's butts to get the response moving. The media reported a disaster area and people responded to the media... that was a good thing.

Let's not forget that Michael Brown didn't even know there were evacuees staying at the Convention Center before a reporter told him there were in an interview. Without the media, how much longer would those people have gone without aid? What's more important: a lone reporter and camera crew handing out bottled water to a few dozen victims or that same team informing billions worldwide that a several hundred thousand victims need their help?

Posted by: Ryan Somma at September 30, 2005 03:23 PM

Marc;

But let's not lose sight of the fact that they were reporting on what was indeed a human tragedy. The response was slow and inefficient. It's not like they made up the scenes of helpless people.

There's a key issue in here. We saw many folks in a bad situation (the Superdome and the Convention Ctr). The visuals naturally want us to believe its that bad if not more so. Therefore "stories" based on unsubstantiated rumors feed into that predispostion. I can imagine how hard it would be for a reporter to say "in spite of what you see, it really isn't that bad". He'd get killed. But that healthy skepticism is critical. The images are so hard to erase. As Abel stated

One of the more interesting things to emerge from their observations is that TV News "must be true because they show visuals."

There's another critical question (in my mind) that still insn't answered. Remember when Mike Brown said he wasn't aware of the problems in the Convention Ctr and folks were incredulous (i.e. "Haven't you been watching CNN"). Can we assume that if a news organization can get in anyone can? Given the "fog of war" how should agencies react/respond to the news footage?

PS (I still feel that Mike Brown was a doufus)

Posted by: C3 at September 30, 2005 03:29 PM

c3,

I understand what you are saying and agree with you--too many pictures were run over and over and created a possibly false impression of utter chaos. I have said many times that the media (especially TV) is utterly unable to provide context and nuance and ends up often providing simplistic accounts of events. I would have liked to have seen more analysis of what FEMA could reasonably have been expected to do. But,how else are you going to cover a natural disaster but to show the people effected? And rumors are an inevitable part of the story. And things were bad in New Orleans; it's not like the media made up everything that was going on.

I guess the thing that bothers me is not the criticsm of the media, per se, much of which is heartily deserved, but how much of the criticism seems at least partly motivated by efforts to deflect blame from the Administration.

Posted by: Marc at September 30, 2005 04:04 PM

The bubble-headed bleach blondes. There isn't going to be any apologies forthcoming.

Everyone saw it though. Geraldo, who had just flown in on Fri night tried to incite a riot. Paraphrasing here - "Follow me folks, we are walking out of here." To where?! It would have been appropriate for one of the cops to have shot the moron. Everyone has their "favorite" idiocy. It was across the board.

It is part of a much larger problem. These are the very same people that most US citizens rely on to help form their opinions on everything from what issues are relevant to who to vote for. It's scary. The *unelected* bubble-headed bleach blondes are running the contry folks. They also form the world's opinion of us. No wonder we aren't well liked.

I wish there was some way to reign them in. To make them accountable in some way for the damage they are causing, but I'm not going to hold my breath. I don't even like to think about it for fear I will burst an artery.

Dennis

Posted by: Dennis at September 30, 2005 04:18 PM

"I guess the thing that bothers me is not the criticsm of the media, per se, much of which is heartily deserved, but how much of the criticism seems at least partly motivated by efforts to deflect blame from the Administration."

Marc,

I'm not sure that I agree with you here, the criticism of the media hadn't started until we find out that the 'claims' that they made to us 24/7 for a week just were not true....

As to the media performing a good thing by 'lighting a fire under the Government' - but what happened is, it created more confusion and more fear in the area. I don't know that this is a good thing. If people believe that there are gangs of thugs shooting at everybody that is trying to rescue those stranded, how many will go out there without a police escort? how many people will be forced to sit on rooftops even longer than they would have been???? There is a bad side to 'hyping' the story and in this case it could have some nasty consequences.

There were private individuals that attempted to help rescue people, how many of them were turned away by these erroneous reports?

Posted by: deb at September 30, 2005 04:49 PM

But the media also performed a great service to the people in the disaster area.

Depends on what part of the disaster area they were in. By overplaying NOLA, the media "inspired" resources to be diverted from other rescue and relief efforts in other areas. If you spent an extra night or two on a roof in Gulfport waiting for some of those resources to show, you might have a little different view of how wonderful that media effort was.

Marc, you keep harping on people criticizing the media, "motivated by efforts to deflect blame from the Administration." While there's no doubt that the cross-finger-pointing was enormous, I'd like to ask you something. Skipping the attribution of finger-pointing motivations, etc., what is it exactly you expected the federal government and/or Administration to be doing that they did not do? And when? Be specific.

We can take it as a given that Brown is a doofus, a mediocre administrator, and a political hack. That Blanco's a moron and Nagin was histrionic and hysterical. The question is not about the personalities involved, so much as about the specific actions that could actually and reasonably be expected from the various levels of government, and when they could reasonably be expected.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2005 04:59 PM

On the other hand we all did watch the TV at some point.
Would we rather not have had anything but official sanitized government press releases?
Its ugly, out of control, tabloid TV but everybody watched.

The news hour on PBS did some very good coverage of the whole mess.

Posted by: Bob J Young at September 30, 2005 05:54 PM

What I hate most about the media is its blame game and headhunting. I see this as outright evil, and I notice the nice article on media ethics somehow missed that problem.

How much blame did you see cast way BEFORE anybody understood anything about what happened?

For example, Brown deserved to fall, and it's good that the media caught the political appointment and lies, but he got blamed before anybody could have hoped to understand that anything was wrong there.

Posted by: Jon Kay at September 30, 2005 06:19 PM

Brown is a doofus, a mediocre administrator, and a political hack. That Blanco's a moron and Nagin was histrionic and hysterical.

Tully,

Ahem... I believe there's someone who's been left out of your even-handed list.

Posted by: Blue Jean at September 30, 2005 07:30 PM

Blue;
This was not his shining moment though I think his biggest mistake was not seeing the significance initially and putting too much faith in his "guys". At least he did accept responsibility which seemed to be some progress in his struggle to accept responsibility.

Side note: How many years will we be repeating "Brownie, you're doing a helluva job". Reminds me of that special Nancy ventriloquist moment of "We're doing all we can"

Posted by: C3 at September 30, 2005 08:09 PM

I'm sorry, Jean. In the lines of response and responsibility, I listed the appropriate bureaucratic "first responders" for the local, state, and federal levels. Do you expect Bush to micromanage everything personally? Drive in the first truckload of MRE's? Lead the military invasion of Louisiana? That's why I asked very specifically for what it was that people thought should have been done at all levels that wasn't. I've been asking the same question since the storm hit. All I get are very vague answers, or answers that indicate that the person doesn't know very much at all about emergency planning or disaster response. Here, I'll ask it again!

The question is not about the personalities involved, so much as about the specific actions that could actually and reasonably be expected from the various levels of government, and when they could reasonably be expected.

So please, enlighten me. In specific operational detail, what was Bush personally supposed to do that he didn't? What was the federal government supposed to do that they didn't? What was the state government supposed to do that they didn't? And what was the NOLA government supposed to do that they didn't?

If you want to step outside the blame game and figure out how to do it better next time, that's the way to start. If all you want to do is pin the tail on the President, you don't need any assistance. Or evidence, or logic, or anything else. He's the President, so he's responsible for everything. Including teenage acne and picking up the tab for my root canal.

Posted by: Tully at September 30, 2005 10:42 PM

No bush isn't responsible for teenage acne.

What he is responsible for is appointing competent individuals to head agencies and fostering an atmosphere were a democratic governor can work with a republican political appointee during a disaster, without starting a pissing match.

I worked under a low level Reagan appointee for about 5 years. Between his complete lack of knowledge about the mission, his alcohol abuse and his sexual affairs with underlings, he managed to destroy the reputation of a competent lab. (and his marriage.)

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 1, 2005 02:25 PM

I worked under a low level Reagan appointee for about 5 years.

Bob, couldn't you have just said federal appointee. Is there good evidence that Republicans or Democrats are better than the other at appointing bureacrats? I hope this doesn't start a pissing match. Posted by: c3 at October 1, 2005 03:05 PM

Ok! Just for the record I don't think there is any difference in the competence between democratic and republican appointees. They both are equally sucky.

By the way, I heard a rumor that all the hurricane conference calls between the feds and the states were recorded. I wonder if the transcripts are available anywhere.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 1, 2005 03:11 PM

Bob;
Here's a start.

Posted by: c3 at October 1, 2005 03:29 PM

Depends on what part of the disaster area they were in. By overplaying NOLA, the media "inspired" resources to be diverted from other rescue and relief efforts in other areas. If you spent an extra night or two on a roof in Gulfport waiting for some of those resources to show, you might have a little different view of how wonderful that media effort was.

I work in Coast Guard Operations. No resources were diverted. We were rescuing people out of New Orleans because that was the largest population and the worst hit. The Superdome was the biggest shelter for evacuees.

The media didn't go into New Orleans in order fabricate a tragedy. There actually was a disaster area in New Orleans. As I said before, Brown didn't know about the Convention Center and without the media who knows how long those people would have gone ignored?

The media has also been covering the bad reporting. NPR's been talking about it all week. If it comes down to me believing the media versus believing irate bloggers, I'm gonna side with the media.

Posted by: Ryan Somma at October 1, 2005 03:29 PM

Ryan, are you saying that "no resources were diverted," or that "no Coast Guard resources were diverted"? Because there's a very big difference. Resources were diverted. While working in my local OEP that week I personally witnessed the planned dispatch of local NG resources and private relief supplies being switched from the Gulfport and Biloxi regions to NOLA as a direct result of the media reports. Then I watched them sit around a bit longer waiting for an official request from Louisiana. There actually was a disaster in Gulfport and Biloxi as well, and the official request from Mississippi was already in hand.

There was a disaster encompassing 90,000 square miles, of which NOLA was roughly 0.2%. Some of the resources they were originally supposed to go farther east went to NOLA instead. A substantial amount of those resources were eventually re-tasked in the field back to their original destinations when it became apparent they weren't needed in NOLA. Which was my point.

From your vantage point, Ryan, did you see any specific official actions (or inactions) at any level that materially impeded response? That's the specific information I most want to see, that I keep asking for. Regardless of whom it damns or praises.

(BTW, I've been pretty darn strident over the last month about defending the USCG and the USN from scurrilous blog assertions regarding their deployment and response. From what I saw at my end, it was exemplary. I know where those teams and helos came from, who they were, how quickly they were there, and what they accomplished.)

Bob, "fostering an atmosphere" is terribly inspecific as regards material operations. It's a fallback to what I've been exasperated by from Day One. "Because." Because what? Wanna try again? I'll state once more. Specific Official Actions Or Inactions At Any Level That Materially Impeded Response.

Just for the record I don't think there is any difference in the competence between democratic and republican appointees. They both are equally sucky.

Absolutely no argument. None whatsoever. Full and complete concurrence. You could still make the argument that aapointments are specific actions, but you still have to hook it back to demonstrably impeded response.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2005 05:10 PM

The bureaucracy is certainly and intractable monster. There has to be a certain amount of political appointees otherwise the president can't make his policies translate into reality. On the other hand having thousands (10 of thousands?) of appointees is just a recipe for a disaster. There is no way that congress can oversee the competence of all of them. But if you make the position a competitive civil service position that individual is probably in it for life.

On the on the other hand the Reagan appointee I spoke of was still in his job last year.

If bush would dramatically reduce the number of political appointee and start vetoing some spending bills I might actually say something nice about him.

Posted by: Bob J Young at October 1, 2005 05:54 PM

If bush would dramatically reduce the number of political appointee and start vetoing some spending bills I might actually say something nice about him.

Also agreed. Patronage in government appointments may be inescapable, but reducing the number of cushy paid appointments would be a real start. And some backbone in pork-busting would be wonderful.

Of course, since I'm a local gov't political appointee several times over myself (unpaid), my opinion on appointments is inherently suspect.

Posted by: Tully at October 1, 2005 06:18 PM

Ryan, are you saying that "no resources were diverted," or that "no Coast Guard resources were diverted"? Because there's a very big difference. Resources were diverted.

I can only speak for the Coast Guard because I can run reports on their operations and I speak with rescue pilots and swimmers daily. We totally kicked ass through the entire disaster. We were saving lives before FEMA, the Mayor, Governor and anybody else was declaring any official anything.

As for impedments. Everyone in the Coast Guard blames FEMA for the slow response... and everyone in the Coast Guard agrees the response was slow. Like I said, we're not getting paid by FEMA for any rescue missions occuring before, during, or immediately after the hurricane hit. Until the moment FEMA authorized UDC 751 Hurricane Katrina Response almost 24 hours after it hit, we were not officially part of the relief efforts.

FEMA has been a bureaucratic(sp) nightmare for the Coast Guard as a whole, and everyone's asking the same question: "Why wasn't this all figured out years before a disaster?"

Posted by: Ryan Somma at October 2, 2005 03:46 PM

UDC 751, Ryan? Clarify, please. The only federal UDC descriptor I'm aware of is the Uniform Document Count, and that's surely not it.

Posted by: Tully at October 2, 2005 05:26 PM

It's a "Unit Defined Code" -- an operations code we use for tracking purposes. Anything we do in regards to Katrina gets tracked with this code. Sorry for the shop lingo.

Posted by: Ryan Somma at October 3, 2005 09:52 AM

Thanks. And is there any way to find UDC 751 in the public domain wihtout a FOIA request?

Don't feel lonely. FEMA has always been a bureaucratic nightmare. To me the big surprise is that anyone ever expects anything else out of them. I've had to deal with them for many years, and the nicest thing I can say is that their checks don't bounce.

Posted by: Tully at October 3, 2005 10:34 AM