Katrina "Shriekporting": What Next?
Shriekporting. It may not be the best new word around, but it does a pretty good job of describing the media's coverage of Katrina. The shrieking got priority; the real job of reporting facts came in a distant second.
Yes, the hurricane was much worse than the media coverage, but as reporters misreported Katrina as the worst natural disaster in US history, they were aggressively pursuing the title of worst covered natural disaster in US history.
In the link above, Gateway Pundit graciously refers to flagrant misreporting as "folklore." It's not. It's rumormongering.
The way the rumors spread and are reported is a window onto base motivations and beliefs of people. And what the rumors showed about the media wasn't pretty: A dislike, distrust or lack of knowledge of poor blacks; a continuing desire to "get Bush" at every opportunity; a commitment to pack journalism; a laziness that comes from putting career-boosting ahead of fact-checking.
The new journalists are supposed to be professionals -- not the cigarette-smoking, Underwood-pounding, street-wise reporter ... I'll use the word ... of folklore, but the new generation of well educated, cooly professional Ivy League scribes that are supposed to be taking the profession to new heights.
They didn't. They forgot the basics, as so clearly stated in a sign that used to be in the ChiTrib newsroom:
It's a shame they forgot the basics and shriekported their emotions, fears and prejudices in a storm of rumors. Just like the water left behind in NOLA, they've left behind coverage laden with toxins that will be long-lasting and difficult to purge.
Heads should roll. But they won't. MSM will circle the wagons, and in a few months we'll see a seminar -- perhaps co-hosted by Marvin Kalb and Dan Rather -- in which they pat each other on the back for their fine performance, even as they ask shallow, but seemingly deep, questions about what went wrong.
Yes, the hurricane was much worse than the media coverage, but as reporters misreported Katrina as the worst natural disaster in US history, they were aggressively pursuing the title of worst covered natural disaster in US history.
In the link above, Gateway Pundit graciously refers to flagrant misreporting as "folklore." It's not. It's rumormongering.
The way the rumors spread and are reported is a window onto base motivations and beliefs of people. And what the rumors showed about the media wasn't pretty: A dislike, distrust or lack of knowledge of poor blacks; a continuing desire to "get Bush" at every opportunity; a commitment to pack journalism; a laziness that comes from putting career-boosting ahead of fact-checking.
The new journalists are supposed to be professionals -- not the cigarette-smoking, Underwood-pounding, street-wise reporter ... I'll use the word ... of folklore, but the new generation of well educated, cooly professional Ivy League scribes that are supposed to be taking the profession to new heights.
They didn't. They forgot the basics, as so clearly stated in a sign that used to be in the ChiTrib newsroom:
If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
It's a shame they forgot the basics and shriekported their emotions, fears and prejudices in a storm of rumors. Just like the water left behind in NOLA, they've left behind coverage laden with toxins that will be long-lasting and difficult to purge.
Heads should roll. But they won't. MSM will circle the wagons, and in a few months we'll see a seminar -- perhaps co-hosted by Marvin Kalb and Dan Rather -- in which they pat each other on the back for their fine performance, even as they ask shallow, but seemingly deep, questions about what went wrong.
posted by Laer at 7:33 AM
<< Home