During last week's bonfire of Katrina navel-gazing, there was virtually no mention of the hyperventilating and inaccurate media reports, even though this newspaper and the Times-Picayune (among others) received accolades for debunking the hysteria less than a month after the hurricane. Yet last week's saturation coverage contained little or no mention of the media's malpractice. It's as if it never happened.

Why? I think the answer is complex, but three factors are surely involved. One, the media are often good watchdogs of government but rarely of themselves. While recycling old complaints about government is permissible, dwelling on your colleagues' failures -- or your own -- just isn't done.

Two, the media have convinced themselves that they did a wonderful job covering Katrina. Dan Rather spoke for his colleagues when he said "everybody across the board did such a good job." It was one of the "quintessential great moments in television news . . . right there with the Nixon-Kennedy debates, the Kennedy assassination, Watergate coverage, you name it."

And, lastly, journalists are invested in the dominant narratives of Katrina, and they'll be damned if they'll let go, particularly if it comes at the expense of their own credibility, or make Bush's mistakes seem a little less horrendous.

No, it would be better, and much easier, to print the legend.

Read it all.

Filed under: * Culture-Watch • Hurricane Katrina • Media

1. Sherri wrote: I got my news all during Katrina and the aftermath from the Times-Picayune. Whatever the other media did - the Times-Picayune did an outstanding job of getting correct info out as quickly as possible, and also quickly correcting misinformation. September 4, 8:13 am | [comment link]

2. libraryjim wrote: No, it would be better, and much easier, to print the legend. Not to mention more damning of the Bush administration.  September 4, 8:14 am | [comment link]

3. William P. Sulik wrote: “... print the legend.” -Carleton Young to Jimmy Stewart in The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962) great movie September 4, 10:48 am | [comment link]

4. Wilfred wrote: I first smelled hysteria in the reporting, when we heard stomach-churning tales of cannibalism three days after the storm hit.  People are not driven to this after only three days.  Even in New Orleans. September 4, 6:12 pm | [comment link]

5. LeightonC wrote: Marshall McLluhan’s thesis “the medium is the message” is still current…facts are of secondary importance especially if one can make political hay. September 5, 5:39 am | [comment link]

6. Sherri wrote: Gosh, Wilfred, I missed that one.  The T-P was quick to correct a lot of the hysteria as it came out. (In general, thanks to the Internet, I’ve found the news is more reliable from closer to the source - the Pensacola paper did a wonderful job of coverage after the hurricane that hit there.) September 5, 8:22 am | [comment link]

7. Courageous Grace wrote: I tried not to listen to the news.  Most of the Katrina-related news I heard came from my mother-in-law who lives near Biloxi. September 5, 2:25 pm | [comment link]

8. libraryjim wrote: heh. The joy of T1:9: the article/commentary was printed in our newspaper—the Tallahassee Demoncrap—TODAY (Thursday the 6th!)!  I looked at it and said “Seen it, commented on it.” September 6, 9:10 am | [comment link]

Registered members must log in to comment.