Media Hurricane hyperbole of a CAT 5 level

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Hurricane of media mendacity
By Mark Steyn
Published October 3, 2005

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan Rather was on "Larry King" the other night and was asked about the Katrina coverage.

Yet Hurricane Dan professed himself delighted with his successors. "They took us there to the hurricane," he told Larry. "They put the facts in front of us and, very important, they sucked up their guts and talked truth to power."

Er, no. The facts they put in front of us were wrong, and they didn't talk truth to power.

They talked to goofs in power, like New Orleans' Mayor Ray Nagin and Police Chief Eddie Compass, and uncritically fell for every nutso yarn they were peddled.

The media swallowed more bilge than if they'd been lying down with their mouths open as the levee collapsed. Ten thousand dead. Widespread rape and murder. A 7-year-old gang-raped and then throat-slashed. It was great stuff -- and none of it happened. No gang-raped 7-year-olds. None.

Most of the media are still in Dan mode, sucking up their guts and congratulating themselves about what a swell job they did during Katrina. CNN producers were advising their guests to "be angry," and there was so much to get angry about, not least that no matter how angry you got on air Anderson Cooper was always much better at it. And Mayor Nagin as well. To show he was angry, he used a lot of profanity. "That... Superdome," he raged. "Five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

But nobody got killed by a hooligan in the Superdome.

The problem wasn't rape and murder, but the rather more prosaic lack of bathroom facilities. As Ben Stein put it, it was the media that rioted. They grabbed every lurid rumor and took it for a wild joy ride across primetime. There was a real story in there -- big hurricane, people dead -- but it wasn't enough, and certainly not enough for damaging George Bush.

Think about that: Hurricane week was largely a week of drivel, mostly the bizarre fantasies of New Orleans' incompetent police chief but amplified hugely by a gullible media. Given everything we now know they got wrong in Louisiana, where they speak the same language, how likely is it the great blundering herd are getting it any more accurate in Iraq?

Four years ago, you'll recall, we were bogged down in "the brutal Afghan winter." By "we," I don't mean the military but the media. Afghanistan was called the white man's grave.

Actually, it was the grave that was white, the man was more of a bluish color thanks to temperatures "so cold that eyelids crust and saliva turns to sludge in the mouth," according to Knight-Ridder's Tom Ifield. "Realistically," reported New York's Daily News, "U.S. forces have a window of two or three weeks before the brutal Afghan winter begins to foreclose options."

Er, no. "Realistically" U.S. forces turned out to have a window of four years, which is how long they've been waiting for the "fast, fast approaching" (ABC's "Nightline") brutal Afghan winter. It's Knight-Ridder's news reports that turn to sludge on your lips. The "brutal Afghan winter" is a media fiction.

How many times does this have to happen before the media seriously examines why so many of them get the big stories wrong in exactly the same way? After decades of boasting about "hiring diversity," everybody in America's newsrooms is now so remarkably diverse they all make exactly the same mistakes. Oughtn't be just a teensy bit disquieting even to the most blinkered journalism professor?

How appropriate Dan Rather, always late to yesterday's conventional wisdom, should bless the media's fraudulent coverage of Katrina. Dan was back, along with his dismissed producer Mary Mapes, to defend his fake-memo story from last year. Another interviewer, his former CBS colleague Marvin Kalb, sympathized at how Mr. Rather's terrific story had somehow gotten lost in a lot of tedious quibbling about the fact that the 1970s typewritten memos amazingly used the default font of Microsoft Word: "The focus was not on the substance of your story," complained Marvin to Dan. "The National Guard aspect of the whole thing sort of dropped to the side, and this media focus was on you."

The critics had, as Mary Mapes says in her new book, "nothing beyond a cursory and politically motivated examination of the typeface." To this day, as Dan likes to moan, the White House still refuses to address the substance of the story.

There's a reason for that. If I say "King Zog of Albania today launched a blistering critique of the CBS News Division," and you point out King Zog died in 1961, that's it, it's over. Doesn't matter how blistering the critique. And that goes for the hurricane, too. You can't indict Mr. Bush for failing to respond when you've spent the previous week demanding he respond to fake crises -- mass murder, mass child rape, five-figure body-counts.

Oh, well. Even at CNN, hurricane fever can't last forever. According to headline writers at the network's Web site on Thursday: "Bush narrows Supreme Court list: Judges, lawyers being considered, analysts say."

Well, those "analysts" gave a devastating blow to those of us who thought the president would push the envelope, think outside the box and appoint a busboy or exotic dancer.

But no. After two centuries of the same-old same-old, it's still "judges, lawyers being considered." But it's good to know the media are reverting to ponderous statements of the obvious after a wild and wacky couple of weeks' worth of statements of the obviously wrong.

©Mark Steyn, 2005
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
Just the Facts, Ma'am
by John Leo (Townhall.com)
Thanks to a long report in the new Orleans Times-Picayune,
we now know that most of the incredible tales of savagery
in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina were simply made up
by panicky residents and passed along by the media.

On September 2, a CNN report cited an unidentified police
officer who said he saw bodies riddled with bullet holes
and one man with the top of his head completely shot off.
Another unnamed officer, a sergeant, said he had to pass by
the bodies of other police officers who had drowned doing
their job. So far as we know, none of this was true.

One of two Times-Picayune staffers who wrote the article
was guilty of some dubious reporting himself. His September
5 article began, "Arkansas National Guardsman Mikel Brooks
stepped through the food service entrance of the Ernest N.
Morial Convention Center on Monday, flipped on the light
at the end of his machine gun, and started pointing out
bodies." Unlike the CNN report, this piece named an actual
person as the source, but it was written as if the reporter
was authenticating all that Brooks claimed. Brooks says,
"Don't step in that blood-it's contaminated." Pointing out
bodies, Brooks says, "That's a kid. There's another one in
the freezer, a 7-year-old with her throat cut." Under great
pressure, reporters sometimes forget to ask pertinent
questions, such as how did Brooks know the blood was
contaminated, or that the dead girl-one of the most
mentioned phantom figures in all the Katrina reporting-was
exactly 7 years old? In fact, the reporter saw four bodies,
not the 30 to 40 that was reported, and no dead girl.

A lot more of this circulated though the media. The Ottawa
Sun reported that "a man seeking help was gunned down by a
National Guard soldier" and a man was "run down and then
shot by a New Orleans police officer." Editor & Publisher
interviewed a reporter, back from Iraq, who said New Orleans
was almost as dangerous as the Middle East. The New York
Times reported: "Like passengers on a doomed ship, they
[Superdome evacuees] were desperate to get out of the
noxious, violence-ridden stadium." Noxious it was, but the
"violence-ridden" condition is harder to pin down. The
Superdome "just morphed into this mythical place where the
most unthinkable deeds were being done," Maj. Ed Bush of
the Louisiana National Guard told the Los Angeles Times.
"What I saw in the Superdome was just tremendous amounts
of people helping people." Lt. Gen. Russel Honoré told the
Washington Post that reporters got bogged down trying to
tell people how bad things were rather than "gathering
facts and corroborating that information."

Post-hysteria reporting has not been kind to the general
media coverage of the crisis. The state Department of Health
and Hospitals counted 10 dead at the Superdome and four at
the convention center. Only two of those are believed to
have been murdered. (The city averages five or six homicides
a week even without hurricanes.) Police Superintendent Eddie
Compass, who did so much to inflame the panic, said on
September 28 that there is "not one official report of rape
or sexual assault." Though rape is notoriously under-
reported, his sex-crimes unit investigated every rumor of
rape or atrocity in the Superdome, made two arrests for
attempted sexual assault, and concluded that the other
attacks had not happened.

Heart and soul. So why was so much of the reporting so
wrong? Obviously, reporters were working under terrible
conditions, with telephones out and much of the city under-
water. New Orleans's only important reachable authorities,
Mayor Ray Nagin and Superintendent Compass, issued
hysterical statements that reinforced some of the worst
rumors. Nagin decried "animalistic" behavior with "drug-
starving crazy people... degraded into these devils."
Compass went on Oprah, saying, "Little babies [are] getting
raped."

Another factor is the debate within the news media about
whether reporters should stick to dry facts or report with
heart and emotion. New Orleans was a grand opportunity for
emotional reporting. The nation was indeed outraged, though
we now know that much of that outrage was the result of wild
rumors and bad reporting. The New York Times did at least
two pieces praising emotionalism. One hailed CNN's Anderson
Cooper under the headline "An Anchor Who Reports Disaster
News With a Heart on His Sleeve." Another praised the crisis
reportage for being "buoyed by a rare sense of righteous
indignation by a news media that is usually on the
defensive." Personally, I don't need reporters to supply
righteous indignation. I can handle that on my own. What I
need is reporters who separate rumor from fact and just tell
me what they know for sure actually happened.
 

Reverend Blair

Council Member
Apr 3, 2004
1,238
1
38
Winnipeg
RE: Media Hurricane hyper

I'm a little more discerning than you, Jim. For instance I just read an explanation for why the US military guarded the Iraqi Ministry of Oil while one of the greatest museums on earth awas being looted. I didn't believe a word of it.

I am trying to determine what motivates you though, Jimmy. You seem rather well-read and intelligent, yet you continue to support a leader who is openly hostile to intelligence and education. You seem determined to follow a regime that has been caught lying, cheating and stealing. You refuse to accept science, but readily accept the non-facts presented to you by paid hucksters with obvious political motivations.

In my experience the only two things that can cause relatively intelligent people to follow a path such as yours are lust and greed.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
That was just a trial balloon, right Rev ?

By the way about the media and what we read, we all know that the natural instinct of all reporters is towards hyperbole to attract our interest, attention and concern.

Remember the 10000 dead prediction in New Orleans?

Remember how most of the loot stolen from that world heritage museum in Baghdad was not stolen but rather moved by the managers to a safer location?

I thought it was miserable for American aftermath planning, putting aside momentarily, all the reasons for war in Iraq.

As far as you having a hard time discerning my motives, you seem to be inclined to see conspiracy.

My motive here is this site offers one of the better conversations on the net, sans lousy pop up ads, and populated by people who sincerely care, even if I disagree with them.

I love history and geography and simply have always enjoyed talking with those who think differently.

I'm enchanted by the echo chamber of world media and how subtly it does chain us all in ways we have not thought through.

It is a Tower of Babel slowly becoming one Orwellian voice, and before we get too close to the truth, we'll be scattered and baffled again.
 

Karlin

Council Member
Jun 27, 2004
1,275
2
38
You two manage to have a fight without disagreeing.

Whats the topic here? - media struck fear into readers with those "savage" stories, and kept help from getting into the area.

Heck, so what if the stories were true or not? The fact behind all this is that help was purposely delayed.

That rescue people were perfectly willing to risk these "savages" by going in to the stricken areas and were still turned away, says that even louder.

American Courage would be put to the test in the city core, but America loves that when it happens. Too bad American corrpution is trumping all the good stuff.
And take THAT to the whole world.
 

jimmoyer

jimmoyer
Apr 3, 2005
5,101
22
38
69
Winchester Virginia
www.contactcorp.net
The topic here is the media's irresponsibility and complicity in looking for anything to exaggerate an already exaggerated situation.

Think of when you were little when something big happened and maybe how you exaggerated it in the retelling just to emphasize a point.

10000 dead they reported. They loved that number. It was a way of quantifying the hugeness of the disaster.
Didn't happen though. Maybe it was good that the media rushed to headline that prediction constantly, but it also indicates their willingness to report every rumor or comment unconfirmed and that certainly did lead rescuers to overreact with fear to help the city.

And partisans greedily ate up every unconfirmed rumor to satisfy their need to justify hate of an egotistical President.

And the people of New Orleans were demeaned beyond their losses being called savages.

There were less confirmed homicides than in an average weekend in the Big Easy.

Sure, the video brutality of white officers pummeling a black man will make you want to deny that earlier stat, but that would be an opinion, not a confirmation of anything resembling truth.

"It pains me," says Anderson Cooper of CNN's 360," to ask you Chief about this brutality caught on video."

The Chief handles the interview well knowing CNN is doing what it should but little faith does he have for this report to ever even show what that department went through. One story is supposed to trump 1500 other stories of policemen ?

It certainly will dominate the current landscape in this big cyber echo chamber of the media we inhabit.

And finally don't you see people rush to judgement in favor of anything that will support their preconceived ideas?

Including me.

The real work is going on while we critics sit back sagely commenting on it, and the real work will continue to involve misappropriation of funds, pork projects piggybacked to real disaster relief, long days of hard work, long days of people deciding what to do and how to do it and a lot of disagreement over each step taken.