Mainstream Media crashes and burns

[SilverNRed]

Remember all the stories coming out of New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina about all the violence and mayhem.

 

Turns out they were bullcrap.

 

Following days of internationally reported killings, rapes and gang violence inside the Dome, the doctor from FEMA - Beron doesn't remember his name - came prepared for a grisly scene: He brought a refrigerated 18-wheeler and three doctors to process bodies.

 

"I've got a report of 200 bodies in the Dome," Beron recalls the doctor saying.

 

The real total was six, Beron said.

 

Of those, four died of natural causes, one overdosed and another jumped to his death in an apparent suicide, said Beron, who personally oversaw the turning over of bodies from a Dome freezer, where they lay atop melting bags of ice. State health department officials in charge of body recovery put the official death count at the Dome at 10, but Beron said the other four bodies were found in the street near the Dome, not inside it. Both sources said no one had been killed inside.

 

Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan said authorities had confirmed only four murders in New Orleans in the aftermath of Katrina - making it a typical week in a city that anticipated more than 200 homicides this year. Jordan expressed outrage at reports from many national media outlets that suffering flood victims had turned into mobs of unchecked savages.

 

"I had the impression that at least 40 or 50 murders had occurred at the two sites," he said. "It's unfortunate we saw these kinds of stories saying crime had taken place on a massive scale when that wasn't the case. And they (national media outlets) have done nothing to follow up on any of these cases, they just accepted what people (on the street) told them. ... It's not consistent with the highest standards of journalism."

 

In interviews with Oprah Winfrey, Compass reported rapes of "babies," and Mayor Ray Nagin spoke of "hundreds of armed gang members" killing and raping people inside the Dome. Unidentified evacuees told of children stepping over so many bodies, "we couldn't count."

 

Is this a bad time to mention that Dan Rather thought Katrina was "one of television news' finest moments"?

[Chilly]

Remember all the stories coming out of New Orleans in the days following Hurricane Katrina about all the violence and mayhem.

 

Turns out they were bullcrap.

Is this a bad time to mention that Dan Rather thought Katrina was "one of television news' finest moments"?

456247[/snapback]

 

One of the most important things that you mentioned in this post wasn't highlighted.

 

Mayor Ray Nagin spoke of "hundreds of armed gang members" killing and raping people inside the Dome. Unidentified evacuees told of children stepping over so many bodies, "we couldn't count."

 

The media makes the reports. They can only do as good as their sources let them do. When you have the person closest to the scene and in charge, the Mayor, saying that this is happening, what do you expect the media to do?

 

The media is guilty of bad reporting, I don't discredit that. However, I do take issue with this campaign to discredit the entire media for political purposes.

[Alaska Darin]

One of the most important things that you mentioned in this post wasn't highlighted.

The media makes the reports.  They can only do as good as their sources let them do.  When you have the person closest to the scene and in charge, the Mayor, saying that this is happening, what do you expect the media to do?

 

The media is guilty of bad reporting, I don't discredit that.  However, I do take issue with this campaign to discredit the entire media for political purposes.

456272[/snapback]

Yeah, it was probably really difficult for them to get inside the dome and film all those bodies. Oh wait, there were ALREADY IN THERE.

 

There are no excuses for this kind of crap. None. Edward R. Murrow wouldn't put up with it.

[Ghost of BiB]

Damage has been done. Good thing America has already forgot about it.

[EC-Bills]

Damage has been done. Good thing America has already forgot about it.

456327[/snapback]

 

Well I had forgotten about it until this thread brought it all back up. Punks!

[bobblehead]

Yeah, it was probably really difficult for them to get inside the dome and film all those bodies.  Oh wait, there were ALREADY IN THERE. 

 

There are no excuses for this kind of crap.  None.  Edward R. Murrow wouldn't put up with it.

456315[/snapback]

 

 

But what if this story is wrong?

[Bob Lablaw]

What is "the main stream media"? NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NYTimes, Wash Times, BBC, Wash Journal...?

 

Who is the non-main stream media that I'm supposed to rely on? Drudge? Guardian? Pravda?

[Mickey]

But what if this story is wrong?

456580[/snapback]

I think the general rule is that when the media reports things one agrees with, they are thought of as credible and when they report things one does not agree with, they are not credible.

 

The problem with "the media" is immediacy. They make money by being there fast and first and then keeping viewers with as much drama as possible as the story develops. Accuracy, and the time it would take to find out the accuracy of a story just doesn't stand a chance if they want to make money. Can you imagine if they refused to air those first call, hysterical claims by saying "we are not going to air the Mayor's statement until its truth can be determined after a full and fair investigation?" Bad reporting is bad reporting and they deserve to get lambasted for it whenever they blow it. By the same token, lets not hold the media responsible to do a job it was never meant to perform and then act shocked and dismayed when it fails to do that job right.

 

The media isn't meant to be the most accurate source of information around. That should be pretty obvious. That is why you can't sue them simply for being wrong in a story. They are allowed to be wrong so that they can be fast and pretty much everywhere anything of note is happening. That doesn't mean we shouldn't call them on it when they are wrong nor that we shouldn't admire those especially who can be fast and accurate at the same time. It just means that we shouldn't act like Mother Theresa got caught turning tricks in the Mission District everytime they manage a major blooper.

[SilverNRed]

What is "the main stream media"? NBC, CNN, ABC, CBS, Fox, NYTimes, Wash Times, BBC, Wash Journal...?

 

Who is the non-main stream media that I'm supposed to rely on? Drudge? Guardian? Pravda?

456687[/snapback]

Don't rely on anyone, or any one news source as it were. The point is, even the "name" news sources are just a bunch of hacks who can't do their jobs.

 

They were off by about 1000% with the New Orleans death toll and most of their Superdome horror stories turned out to be nonsense. Basically they concentrated on one story for an entire week and got nothing about that story right.

 

They got caught this time because people were really paying attention to what happened but you have to figure they have the same low standards for reporting just about everything.

[Ghost of BiB]

I think the general rule is that when the media reports things one agrees with, they are thought of as credible and when they report things one does not agree with, they are not credible. 

 

The problem with "the media" is immediacy.  They make money by being there fast and first and then keeping viewers with as much drama as possible as the story develops.  Accuracy, and the time it would take to find out the accuracy of a story just doesn't stand a chance if they want to make money.  Can you imagine if they refused to air those first call, hysterical claims by saying "we are not going to air the Mayor's statement until its truth can be determined after a full and fair investigation?"  Bad reporting is bad reporting and they deserve to get lambasted for it whenever they blow it.  By the same token, lets not hold the media responsible to do a job it was never meant to perform and then act shocked and dismayed when it fails to do that job right.

 

The media isn't meant to be the most accurate source of information around.  That should be pretty obvious.  That is why you can't sue them simply for being wrong in a story.  They are allowed to be wrong so that they can be fast and pretty much everywhere anything of note is happening.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't call them on it when they are wrong nor that we shouldn't admire those especially who can be fast and accurate at the same time.  It just means that we shouldn't act like Mother Theresa got caught turning tricks in the Mission District everytime they manage a major blooper.

456707[/snapback]

 

And, you have no problem with how those innacurate portrayals undermine the credibility of so many people and organizations. Therein lies the real damage. The entire world was fed a steady diet of carnage in the streets because the administration didn't care. As with Koran stories, it's not a big "so what - profit" type of problem.

[Bob Lablaw]

Don't rely on anyone, or any one news source as it were.  The point is, even the "name" news sources are just a bunch of hacks who can't do their jobs.

 

They were off by about 1000% with the New Orleans death toll and most of their Superdome horror stories turned out to be nonsense.  Basically they concentrated on one story for an entire week and got nothing about that story right. 

 

They got caught this time because people were really paying attention to what happened but you have to figure they have the same low standards for reporting just about everything.

456764[/snapback]

 

How do you think they should report such a story? Most of the media was saying things like, "There are reports of ..." The story was so widespread and developing that they couldn't independently verify all the reports. The death toll projections came from people outside the media, who just passed them along--there was no way for them to start counting.

 

Should they just have run the cameras and not commented? It's a touchy situation to cover developing stories--people want up to the minute information in those situations, and usually the only time that you can get any handle on what happened is after it's over. The only way to report accurately is to not report anything until days later, but that's not reporting at all.

[Taro T]

How do you think they should report such a story? Most of the media was saying things like, "There are reports of ..." The story was so widespread and developing that they couldn't independently verify all the reports. The death toll projections came from people outside the media, who just passed them along--there was no way for them to start counting.

 

Should they just have run the cameras and not commented? It's a touchy situation to cover developing stories--people want up to the minute information in those situations, and usually the only time that you can get any handle on what happened is after it's over. The only way to report accurately is to not report anything until days later, but that's not reporting at all.

456795[/snapback]

Clearly, they couldn't know whether the 10,000 dead was correct or not. However, darn near every major news channel had a TV crew right outside the Superdome. Do you think it may have been possible for ONE of the talking heads to poke his head inside and see that a full scale war with hundreds of rapes and murders was NOT taking place AND then report that "This reporter braved the depraved conditions personally, and while I will admit there is quite a stench, I could not find HUNDREDS OF DEAD BODIES LYING AROUND nor did I hear a constant barrage of gunfire. Nor could I personally witness young children being raped."

 

The reporters were right there at the source. They could have looked for themselves. That however would have either been too difficult for them or it would not have fit in with their preconceived notion of how this was absolutely a horror show (most likely caused by the uncaring Bush administration) and that they were in line for major kudos and awards for their bravery if they could just convey the utter depravitiy of the whole situation. Neither scenario portrays the media in a particularily good light. They could have been reporters, but instead decided to be gossip columnists.

 

Dave.

[Bob Lablaw]

Clearly, they couldn't know whether the 10,000 dead was correct or not.  However, darn near every major news channel had a TV crew right outside the Superdome.  Do you think it may have been possible for ONE of the talking heads to poke his head inside and see that a full scale war with hundreds of rapes and murders was NOT taking place AND then report that "This reporter braved the depraved conditions personally, and while I will admit there is quite a stench, I could not find HUNDREDS OF DEAD BODIES LYING AROUND nor did I hear a constant barrage of gunfire.  Nor could I personally witness young children being raped."

 

The reporters were right there at the source.  They could have looked for themselves.  That however would have either been too difficult for them or it would not have fit in with their preconceived notion of how this was absolutely a horror show (most likely caused by the uncaring Bush administration) and that they were in line for major kudos and awards for their bravery if they could just convey the utter depravitiy of the whole situation.  Neither scenario portrays the media in a particularily good light.  They could have been reporters, but instead decided to be gossip columnists.

 

Dave.

456825[/snapback]

 

I saw the same footage as most people, and what I saw was footage of a few bodies in the Superdome, and only heard that there were reports of gunfire, rapes, and gangs in other sections of the city--most of which came from the mouth of the Mayor-- who is exactly the kind of person you would think would be in the know. (This turned out to be wrong, but with no better source, the Mayor of the city is a pretty good one.)

 

The 100 people "holed up" inside the Superdome was a report that was discredited within a few hours--by reporters.

[KRC]

Clearly, they couldn't know whether the 10,000 dead was correct or not.  However, darn near every major news channel had a TV crew right outside the Superdome.  Do you think it may have been possible for ONE of the talking heads to poke his head inside and see that a full scale war with hundreds of rapes and murders was NOT taking place AND then report that "This reporter braved the depraved conditions personally, and while I will admit there is quite a stench, I could not find HUNDREDS OF DEAD BODIES LYING AROUND nor did I hear a constant barrage of gunfire.  Nor could I personally witness young children being raped."

 

The reporters were right there at the source.  They could have looked for themselves.  That however would have either been too difficult for them or it would not have fit in with their preconceived notion of how this was absolutely a horror show (most likely caused by the uncaring Bush administration) and that they were in line for major kudos and awards for their bravery if they could just convey the utter depravitiy of the whole situation.  Neither scenario portrays the media in a particularily good light.  They could have been reporters, but instead decided to be gossip columnists.

 

Dave.

456825[/snapback]

 

 

Reporters/journalists are inherently lazy. They report what is spoon-fed to them.

[SilverNRed]

How do you think they should report such a story? Most of the media was saying things like, "There are reports of ..." The story was so widespread and developing that they couldn't independently verify all the reports. The death toll projections came from people outside the media, who just passed them along--there was no way for them to start counting.

 

Should they just have run the cameras and not commented? It's a touchy situation to cover developing stories--people want up to the minute information in those situations, and usually the only time that you can get any handle on what happened is after it's over. The only way to report accurately is to not report anything until days later, but that's not reporting at all.

456795[/snapback]

Too bad. If you don't know if something is true, you don't report it and hope it's true later.

 

The reporting of Katrina did a lot of damage. It's something you can't fix with a quick correction days later (not that they've been very upfront about all the mistakes they made).

[SilverNRed]

And, you have no problem with how those innacurate portrayals undermine the credibility of so many people and organizations. Therein lies the real damage. The entire world was fed a steady diet of carnage in the streets because the administration didn't care. As with Koran stories, it's not a big "so what - profit" type of problem.

456781[/snapback]

Right on.

[Mickey]

And, you have no problem with how those innacurate portrayals undermine the credibility of so many people and organizations. Therein lies the real damage. The entire world was fed a steady diet of carnage in the streets because the administration didn't care. As with Koran stories, it's not a big "so what - profit" type of problem.

456781[/snapback]

I think we have much greater problems with our credibility overseas like going to war over WMD's that turned out not to be there. No matter how much you might disagree with that assessment, you have to admit that there is no way we are living that one down in Berlin, Paris, Moscow, London, Japan, etc. After that one, I'm not sure the mix of good, bad and indifferent reporting in Katrina really mattered all that much. I don't see a bunch of people on the fence about Bush that jumped off because Mayor Nagin repeated rumors of mayhem at the Superdome. If where we are headed with this is to blame the media for a tough war that is getting tougher or the mess our foreign policy is in, stop the train, I want to get off.

 

Besides, the images they broadcast and much of the reporting was in fact accurate. There actually were thousands of people stranded at the Super Dome and the Convention center without food or water, etc. There really was a FEMA director whose prior experience was in horse shows. He really did get fired. The town really was underwater. There really were nursing home patients left on their own to drown.

 

The bickering back and forth here in the states over whether the feds or the locals screwed up worse than the other is of little impact elsewhere. I don't think the loss of credibility you are worried about would be improved much if the initial report was "Mayor Nagin is losing his cool and running wild with the latest rumors of mayhem, back to you Nancy." The lack of any credibility for the President overseas has nothing to do with him being misunderstood or treated unfairly by the US media. Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc all have their own media. Their people have reached their own judgments on this administration long ago. If anything, Katrina offered him an opportunity to change some of that. It didn't work.

[Ghost of BiB]

I think we have much greater problems with our credibility overseas like going to war over WMD's that turned out not to be there.  No matter how much you might disagree with that assessment, you have to admit that there is no way we are living that one down in Berlin, Paris, Moscow, London, Japan, etc.  After that one, I'm not sure the mix of good, bad and indifferent reporting in Katrina really mattered all that much.  I don't see a bunch of people on the fence about Bush that jumped off because Mayor Nagin repeated rumors of mayhem at the Superdome.  If where we are headed with this is to blame the media for a tough war that is getting tougher or the mess our foreign policy is in, stop the train, I want to get off. 

 

Besides, the images they broadcast and much of the reporting was in fact accurate.  There actually were thousands of people stranded at the Super Dome and the Convention center without food or water, etc.  There really was a FEMA director whose prior experience was in horse shows.  He really did get fired.  The town really was underwater.  There really were nursing home patients left on their own to drown. 

 

The bickering back and forth here in the states over whether the feds or the locals screwed up worse than the other is of little impact elsewhere.  I don't think the loss of credibility you are worried about would be improved much if the initial report was "Mayor Nagin is losing his cool and running wild with the latest rumors of mayhem, back to you Nancy."  The lack of any credibility for the President overseas has nothing to do with him being misunderstood or treated unfairly by the US media.  Germany, France, Saudi Arabia, etc, etc all have their own media.  Their people have reached their own judgments on this administration long ago.  If anything, Katrina offered him an opportunity to change some of that.  It didn't work.

456899[/snapback]

 

Nice deflection from the issue at hand, Counsellor. Blame this issue on the war in Iraq. I'm very aware, probably much more so than you of the impacts of our media on foreign perceptions. I'm sure they realize it as well, but I probably care about it more than they do. Yes, images were in many cases technically "accurate". They were also snapshots taken throughout a movie played on a big set without any attempt whatsoever to bring the total story to the front. They were also reported without ever speaking of the hard truths that no network would ever be caught dead uttering. There's a liberal (not dem-repub, but liberal) bias to mainstream news. That is because of those creating it. They view themselves as balanced, when in fact they are not. They have nothing to guage differently by, because everyone around them is as liberal minded as they are. It doesn't cross their minds that people should have sense and do something smart, unless it's at the level of the national head guy in charge (who is invariably more an administrator and general manager than a subject matter expert).

[Crap Throwing Monkey]

Too bad.  If you don't know if something is true, you don't report it and hope it's true later. 

456846[/snapback]

 

Unless you're Fox.

 

And of course, now that Fox has had success with that type of "reporting", and everyone's competing against them...

[SilverNRed]

Unless you're Fox.

 

And of course, now that Fox has had success with that type of "reporting", and everyone's competing against them... 

456957[/snapback]

I don't think that's why FOX is so popular. FOX is popular because it caters to conservatives who feel left out with just about every other channel.

 

But then I think conservatives (and probably liberals too) would like a news source that wasn't constantly making an ass of itself by trying to spice things up during broadcasts.

 

I'd love to see someone try to launch a cable TV news channel that avoided all of the stupid crap that FOX and CNN cover. Missing girl in Aruba? Pass. Crazed reporter ranting about New Orleans? Pass. Spend time fact-checking the other guys. It wouldn't dominate the ratings but there has to be a niche market for that.