Boyd

Interesting discussion at the N&O Editor's Blog on the press as a filter. Jay Rosen is involved. I had another comment I attempted to post, but they blocked me for 'salty' language. I swear I can't find the 'salt.' Maybe they're more sensitive than me. Anyway Ms. Sill and I had this email exchange:

My first email,

I tried to post the following, but I get a message about being salty. Funny, I don't feel salty.

Here's a story I found rather quickly in the Washington Post.

No one has been able to say how many people died inside the convention center; police, military and center officials estimate the number is about 10. Nor has there been any attempt to document the number of assaults, robberies and rapes that eyewitnesses said occurred from the time the first people broke into the convention center seeking shelter on the afternoon of Monday, Aug. 29, and when units of the Arkansas National Guard moved into the center on Friday, Sept. 2.

But even without those numbers, what happened in the convention center stands as a harsh indictment of government's failure to help its citizens when they needed it most.

I'm sure I can find more that are more grisly and that appeared in print (Although I don't know about the print/TV distinction you bring up. I think to most people news is news.). However, the point is I don't know why you pat yourself on the back when journalists on the scene failed so miserably. Sure, some did great work. However, reports that were wrong dominated the news and had effects on how aid was delivered and how police were dispatched. Government deserves some blame as well, but the press was complicit. This is a time for introspection and figuring out what went wrong and how to prevent it in the future. It's not a time to circle the wagons.

Editor's response,

David,

Thanks for the long and thoughtful response. I don't see any circling of the wagons going on. Was this Post excerpt from a commentary piece? It sounds like it.

What strikes you as circling the wagons? I'm truly curious about the source of contempt and hostility forjournalists. Hurricane Katrina showed the value and the power of good journalism as well as the hazards of bad work. Why no respect for people who do their work in part because they believe in informing the public?

I think the second-guessing is healthy and appropriate. As I said in a prior post, I think people should hold professional news organizations to a higher standard than amateurs. However, I can't see truth in your comment that "reports that were wrong dominated the news." If you were reading the NYT or Post, or TImes-Picayune or any other good publication for that matter, you were getting a pretty deep and detailed sense of a complex story that's still unfolding.

Thanks again for the comment. If you'd like I'll check on what happened to block the post.

Melanie

My response,

That WP link is to a regular news story not an opinion piece. That crossed my mind too when I first found it. However it was on the front page:

By Wil Haygood and Ann Scott Tyson
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, September 15, 2005; Page A01

Go to the article and click on the side bar on the right side(I can't copy it, it's a special graphic) - Legacy of Chaos - Graphic: Inside the Convention Center - Mouse over #4. It says that four bodies were found in that area including a woman in a wheelchair and references an un-named Army medic who says the people were beaten to death. Brass knuckles were found nearby. Think of the implication. You've got thugs attacking a helpless woman in a wheelchair with brass knuckles. What could be more depraved?

The problem is that this is one of the top three newspapers in the country. This is the best we've got and they fed into the hysteria. Granted, it's not all the fault of media. Government officials who were passing on erroneous information were also at fault.

Why does this matter? Three reasons. First, it hurts your credibility in the long run. I realize the N&O may have not ran too many of these stories, but I have to wonder if the WP can fall victim to this why can't the N&O? Do you have better checks or did you just not have the opportunity. If you had had reporters on the ground feeding you these stories would you have ran them?

Second, these reports changed the dynamic on the ground. Remember Nagin re-deploying 1500 police officers from search and rescue to control armed gangs? Who died in the meantime? Who suffered while the police were chasing mythical gangs.

Third, you fed into stereotypes of blacks as criminals. We've got enough racial problems without the media reporting on crimes that blacks didn't commit.

I don't have contempt for journalists. It's good and necessary work. However, I want you to do it better and fairer. You have an unbelievable amount of power in terms of setting the agenda. When something goes wrong you have got to correct it. You're right that there were lots of journalists doing good work on Katrina. However, how do I know if it's true? If you screw up the biggest part of the story, why should I believe you on the other parts? You should be especially sensitive to this after Jayson Blair and Dan Rather. As a journalist, credibility is your primary currency. If it was me, I'd be protecting the heck out of it from the people that are doing shoddy work.

As far as these stories dominating, there were two main themes for a week or two: The inadequate government response at the local, state and federal levels and the anarchy on the ground in New Orleans. These overshadowed everything and framed the rest of the event.

Thanks for the dialogue. I don't care that much if you post this or not in the comments, but I'd have someone figure out why that salty language block is happening. I double checked, I was very clean. You might have a bug that's affecting other folks.

David