Not Acceptable
September 12, 2005
7:41 p.m.
Quite honestly, I think the media have been absolutely frightening at every turn.  Rather than search out facts and events, they gave open-mike platforms to any and every sensationalist individual they could find--the more rattled the better, the more politically oriented the better, too. Then the station ran trailers every three minutes that restated the most astronomical thing these "experts" said. If ever there was a time for caution and heavy handedness in the application of the editorial pen this was it. Just because someone is mad or suffering does not make them right. But instead of prudent reporting of facts and events, the American public was fed a raw torrent of opinion disguised as current events that had nothing objective in it whatsoever. Did anyone, for example, ask the mayor of New Orleans what he was basing his estimate of 20,000 dead on? Did anyone ask a Core of Engineers guy how long it would take to drain the city? I mean, as soon as I heard 30 days as the estimate for how long it would take to drain the city I said to Lisa that it would never take that long...and now the water is dropping at a foot a day and gaining momentum. I'm guessing the city will be essentially dry less than a week from now. What the hell are the media doing? Disasters are ugly things, you know? Does it surprise anyone that literally every story the media churned out in the first few days is proving to be overblown and overstated. Far fewer deaths than the mayor projected. Water being pumped out more rapidly than the mayor expected. Despite flaws, the process resulted in probably 150,000-200,000 people evacuated in five days from a city with one semi-functional road. Power is slowly being restored. The toxic water is bad, but so far we have no epidemics breaking out--just as none broke out in the Indian tsunami. One station actually interviewed a doctor who had returned from that region. Thee doctor said he wasn't worried because our state of medicine was adequate to protect from such epidemics. He specifically pointed out the tsunami experience and how everyone in the media was worried about epidemics there, too. Somehow the station mangled their attempts to get that doctor's quote up on the every-three-minute ticker tape. Disgusting. In fact, the reports still being printed are that E. coli levels in the water is 15 times more toxic than levels considered "safe." But that's not a very valuable phrase. It sounds really bad. Yes, indeed. But what does "15 times more toxic than safe levels" mean? I did a quick Google search and found a couple of references. One said that a total of 3,504 cases of E-coli were contracted in the US over a ten year span, and that of those 3,504 cases, 8 resulted in death. 3,496 apparently recovered and are leading perfectly normal lives. In fact, the next sheet I found said that the treatment for E. coli in most people is to do nothing at all. "Most people recover without treatment in 5-10 days." There is concern for children, however, as they can concoct a serious blood disease that might require an extensive hospital stay. Now, I'm not saying it's a great idea to go jump in the next E. coli-infested pool you happen to run into. E. coli is not good. It causes great sickness and is cause for concern. But doesn't that information make you feel a little less panicked about the idea of E-coli being prevalent in the water of New Orleans? This is not the end of the world as we know it. I can't say that I know what the truth is, but it seems like some enterprising investigative reporter could spend half a day talking to real experts and get a read on what kind of real impact we can expect. I believe a vast majority of the media's rhetorical questions had answers, if they were willing to take a step back and find the data. But instead of being investigative reporters and actually verifying what was true or false … or at least valid, they stood out in their stupid rain ponchos and baseball hats with the wind blowing their coifed hair up around their faces, and they spat a never-ending stream of anger-laced questions at the TV screen as if the fact that no one had an immediate answer for them meant that one could not exist. Katrina didn't need what the media brought to the table. It was a story sensational enough on its own. Now the media actually have the audacity to (once or twice, very quietly) ask themselves if, perhaps, they did harm. Holy Bejeebies. Where can you get a load of what those guys are smoking? I would laugh if the whole thing wasn't so ... unbearably ironic. George Will recently started an article by comparing the medical profession's edict of "First do no harm," with what he suggested should be the journalists' creed "do not subtract from the public's understanding." What the media did here was even worse than subtract from the public's understanding--it actually blocked the public from a truthful understanding, and replaced that understanding with a fictionally skewed worst-case analysis of a incredibly dire situation. To listen to any of the news outlets was to assume that Armageddon had landed in Louisiana, which was just not true. It was bad. It was ugly. But it was also predictable, avoidable, and manageable. And in the end the media are responsible for making it harder for our public leaders to actually do their jobs. In that sense they are perhaps the most responsible of all. Except, of course, that you can't pin a specific death on any of them. So, I'm wrong in saying they are responsible. The media are not responsible. Not in any sense of the word.   As an aside, I don't usually read a lot of what George Will writes unless it has to do with baseball, but you might read the article I linked to...it's an interesting take on the price of energy and the way the discussion is being framed in and by the public media. If matters what I think on the rest of the responsibility chain, here it is: George Bush - 5% Blame: Responsible for selecting Michael Brown for directorship of FEMA. Michael Chertoff - 5% Blame: Michael Brown's boss, hence indirectly responsible for whatever Brown's performance was. Also responsible for slow uptake on the message that needed communicating. Michael Brown - 10% Blame: Probably not the most qualified FEMA director ever. Responsible for delays that increased suffering. Impact was aggravated because the Governor did not react the way a governor is expected to react in moments of disaster. It is worth noting, I think, that FEMA received praise for other disasters it responded to in the two and a half years of Brown's tenure. Kathleen Blanco - 30% Blame: Partially responsible for a lack of planning. Completely responsible for not authorizing (calling for) federal help in the way she is supposed to. Ultimately, I find her raw guilt to be the greatest as it appears to me that she was playing pure politics while her citizens were suffering and dying. Ray Nagin - 50% Blame: Primary responsibility for the lack of an executable evacuation plan. Primary responsibility for the lack of execution of what plan they had. Total responsibility for the Super Dome and Convention Center being without stockpiles of provisions. Have a great day. I'll be back again soon, perhaps with a more usual type of an entry.  Daily Persistence is © Ron Collins |
|
BACK TO 
|