Post-Katrina Questions To MSM

John Hinderaker at PowerLine believes the post-Katrina investigation should include a Congressional investigation of media coverage, including getting answers to these questions:

• How did so many false rumors come to be reported as fact?
• Do news outlets have any procedures in place to avoid this kind of mis-reporting? If so, why did their procedures fail so miserably?
• To what extent were the false rumors honest mistakes, and to what extent were they deliberate fabrications?
• To the extent that the false reports were deliberate, did the press pass them on through sheer negligence, or did some reporters participate in deliberate fabrication?
• Did the widespread breakdown in accurate reporting stem only from a failure to follow proper journalistic standards, or did it also reflect a deliberate effort to damage the Bush administration by passing on unconfirmed rumors as fact?
• In deciding what stories to report, did the news media consider the likelihood that passing on false rumors would damage the rescue effort?

Rule #1 in crisis communications is to squelch rumors. It is common knowledge among managers and media alike that rumors flourish in post-catastrophe situations, and PR people are trained to refuse to respond to rumors, and to quickly determine whether they are true or not.

I can only conclude that editors in New York and elsewhere, fully aware of the high risk of false rumors, chose to ignore their professional understanding in order to paint a bleaker picture which would offer the double benefit of selling more papers/airtime, and discrediting Bush.

h/t Michelle Malkin