TV news a year after Katrina
Cory Bergman August 29th, 2006
Even those of us who weren’t covering the story on the Gulf Coast a year ago were livid. I remember yelling at the television. And then my laptop. How in this age of sophisticated, instant communication was the government caught completely off-guard, both before and after the storm? Of course, that was the theme of Katrina, along with the horrible suffering. And many journalists, angry and desperate, demanded answers live on the air. Here was a rare occasion in which it was entirely appropriate and necessary for journalists to engage their emotions and make a statement. The most notable of which was CNN’s Anderson Cooper, who let loose on a politician on the air. Later, he was seen on camera with tears streaming down his face. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz wrote, “I think viewers are so tired of cookie-cutter anchors with perfect diction and haircuts that there’s a growing market for television journalists who seem like real human beings, and Anderson Cooper is in that mold.” Now the question, one year later, is what’s the balance between “real” and regular coverage? When is it appropriate for emotions to come into play, on TV or in a blog? And how can we avoid the inevitable TV news trap of overdramatizing everything, especially during slow news periods? All are important questions that will play out in the months and years to come. Your thoughts?
10 Comments Add your own
1. Chris | August 29th, 2006 at 6:29 am
It might be compelling to watch a news anchor weep in frustration and verbally attack a politician, but it doesn’t help matters one bit. Video of suffering people speaks much louder than Anderson Cooper’s unprofessional outbursts.
2. Keith | August 29th, 2006 at 8:43 am
It has also become obvious over the past year just how wrong those emotional newsanchors were, reporting rumors rather than facts and sensationalizing and exxaggerating accounts of crimes, deaths, rapes and more. These reports had many effects, one of which was to slow down the relief efforts as relief groups sought additional security forces to accompany them.
The media *caused* much of the suffering in the succeeding days with their endless stretch for ratings and “stories” and drama. This was a low point for them, not a high point. The one year anniversary of the disaster should be a time for the media to go back and correct and debunk many of the misconceptions they themselves promulgated. Will it happen? Of course not–the self-congratulation will escalate instead and media credibilty will take another lap around the toilet bowl…
- K
3. thedetroitchannel | August 29th, 2006 at 8:53 am
was it just me or did anyone else catch ac or one of the other cnn’ers say: “it appears new orleans dodged a bullet”.
i recall clear as day about 11:30am the following morning as the storm moved onshore these words… they did mention a breach in one of the levees which was flowing into a certain neighborhood, but then cut to another reporter in another city that they said was not so lucky and was due to take a direct hit.
anyone else watching at that time of day one year ago?
4. PAM | August 29th, 2006 at 1:06 pm
As an American Black woman I watched a special last night regarding the Katrina tradgedy and was left in tears. None of the horror revealed was shown in the initial coverages. I applaud all three of the above authors on seeing through the BS that the media spread in those horrible days. Their lies did indeed cause the suffering and continued suffering of my people. I have yet to hear any of the heads of the major news companies recant their take of the story and doubt I will hear it in my lifetime.
5. Safran | August 29th, 2006 at 4:53 pm
I was terribly disturbed, like all of you were, by the lack of perspective the media gave the story early on. It wasn’t until MONTHS later that I saw a map that put the flooding into a context I could understand. (In this case, overlaid on a Massachusetts map, and it would have taken out my neighborhood.)
The over-emoting by the news anchors was disturbing. What was more disturbing was the applause many bloggers gave to those anchors. “At last, they’re showing emotions! They’re real people!” Their job is to report, not to hold our hands and weep. We’ll send in Oprah when we want that.
And PAM is absolutely right. My chief complaint with news is that we sanitize everything. We show flooded buildings but not the dead. We show 9/11 buildings collapsing, but not the mercy suicides of those who lept. We show tanks firing missiles, but not the effect said missiles have on a human body. News is not about making people comfortable.
In the case of Katrina, that need for over-emoting and ultra-sanitizing did New Orleans a tremendous disservice by painting an inaccurate and “comfortable” picture.
6. Alyssa | August 31st, 2006 at 9:26 am
On a similar note- When the terrible tsuami occurred many poeple turned to the web for the “real” images that gave gravity to the disaster.
7. how do you know if a girl&hellip | January 24th, 2007 at 10:29 pm
brianna banks pornstar…
amatuer web site xxx…
8. goa sex party&hellip | January 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
magics gay porn site webcam…
anime xxx sex…
9. webcam community online&hellip | February 23rd, 2007 at 6:35 pm
urinary tract, sex, pressure, frequency…
chicago summer jobs for teens…
10. voluptous babes sqeeze&hellip | March 9th, 2007 at 11:47 am
baby death by microwave…
hot latina girl…
Leave a Comment
(Please keep URLs out of the comment body or the spam filter will block you.)Trackback this post | Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed