Although a devastated and flooded New Orleans brought about incredible journalism from New Orleans newspaper The Times-Picayune, the disaster also illuminated the general superficiality of American journalism. One of the more impressive examples of journalistic integrity and dedication came from the Times-Picayune staff member David Meeks, whom I met at a conference a couple of days ago.
Before Meeks directed challenging and intense ground coverage of Hurricane Katrina’s effects on New Orleans, he was running the sports section for the newspaper. Showing versatility by switching immediately from sports to hard news, Meeks convinced editor Jim Amoss to allow him to cover the damage with a group of reporters.
Meeks went beyond his personal feelings – his own home had been destroyed by Katrina – and responded as the ideal journalist: a human being who objectively informed his bewildered audience despite the risks and emotions.
The Times-Picayune won two Pulitzer Prizes for its coverage of Katrina because of exemplary journalists like Meeks.
However, an unfortunate bias appeared on television screens across the United States. To inform millions of Americans on the devastation of New Orleans, mainstream news networks would often set up their cameras and reporters in only a few spots in the city. Meeks clearly saw this practice as unbalanced journalism.
“The story was all over the city,” Meeks said. But the mainstream media simply ignored certain facets of the story.
For instance, many Americans watched some New Orleans citizens – mainly black – looting items from various stores in the city. But the majority of networks failed to indicate that there were two types of looters: those who stole to survive and help others and those who opted to loot items like flat-screen television sets.
While many media portrayed the citizens as selfish and uncontrollable, Meeks saw something different. Because he actually visited the entire city for story material, he observed more people supporting each other than creating chaos.
So how did the mainstream coverage possibly affect viewers? In many cases it probably reinforced the negative stereotype of unruly black people.
But a more a disturbing vision emanated from our television sets. For the first time in many years, it seemed that racial residential segregation and poverty were real social problems in the United States. And even though this may lead to further discussion of these two topics, the mainstream coverage of Katrina revealed that American journalists had been failing miserably at their jobs.
Poverty and racial residential segregation have been duly noted by sociologists for many years. Scientists like Camille Charles and Daniel Lichter have written about and conducted studies on both topics for decades. Both phenomena occur in numerous metropolitan areas.
Why didn’t American journalists pick up on these topics a long time ago? Meeks said American journalists will tend to focus on the superficial and fail to provide context. For example, while many media presented a picture of mainly blacks being trapped in the doomed New Orleans, the journalists didn’t bother to explain why.
Essentially, Meeks and the Times-Picayune served their readers and did their jobs. They struggled to provide the most accurate view of New Orleans on a local level. And rightfully, the paper became something the citizens could depend on.
On the other hand, many media outlets had been avoiding two social plagues of America for too long: racial residential segregation and poverty. And when they finally had their opportunities to capture the context of an important story, a lot of them really didn’t seem to give a damn.