Donate today and get a free, signed copy of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!
ZoomZoom InZoom OutPrintDiscuss
Views > September 26, 2005

The Margins Go Mainstream

By Susan J. Douglas

With Katrina, bloggers, online magazines and listservs swiftly came to serve as legitimate sources that the print and electronic media drew from and responded to.
Tags   

Hurricane Katrina is being touted as a turning point in American politics. Much has also been made of the press’ outrage over the abandonment of New Orleans. But will journalists’ rediscovered mission to question authority continue?

As I noted last month, the press had already shifted into a much more querulous and combative post-post-9/11 mode that the president, who claims not to read newspapers, seems to have failed to notice. Now we can confidently refer to the post-Katrina journalism era. When the levees broke, with Bush playing air guitar, the press was waiting for him. (Not all the press, of course. When Bush made his infamous comment on “Good Morning America,” “I don’t think anyone anticipated the breach of the levees,” Diane Sawyer didn’t bat an eye.)

One notable facet of Katrina coverage was the particular relationship that emerged between what progressive bloggers were reporting and what the mainstream press covered. For much of the Bush regime, progressives have been exasperated that stories that seemed hot—the 2004 election irregularities in Ohio, the Downing Street memo, to name two—circulated widely online but were either ignored or buried in the mainstream press.

This had begun to shift in recent months, especially with Cindy Sheehan’s media-savvy protest in Crawford. But with Katrina, bloggers, online magazines like Salon, and listservs swiftly came to serve as legitimate sources—fact finders, investigative reporters and news frame debunkers—that the print and electronic media drew from and responded to, sometimes within 24 hours. At the same time, online sources also instantly picked up mainstream news items critical of the government’s response. Print stories that a national audience might not normally see found a huge audience as millions hit their “send” and “forward” buttons.

On Monday, August 29, as the levees broke and the flooding began, the press went into its usual disaster-mode reporting. As early as the next day, the AP began reporting about massive looting. By Wednesday, black people as looters was the main story on Fox, and this news frame circulated in other media as well, as did still-unsubstantiated stories about rapes and murders.

Despite the damage done by this racist frame, it could not hold. Two photos from Yahoo News soon rocketed through cyberspace, revealing a bias in reporting about hurricane victims. One from the AP showed a black person wading through the flood captioned “looting,” the other from Agence France Presse of whites in the flood waters captioned “finding food.” Reporters on the scene moved to undermine the looting talk. NBC’s Brian Williams noted as early as August 30, “We see what can happen when people have nothing.” CNN’s Anderson Cooper said, “I wouldn’t call it looting. What I have seen is desperate people kind of wandering around.” By September 1, the story had shifted, with a new emphasis on the victims being disproportionately poor and black. The rapper Kanye West put it simply on NBC’s live Concert for Hurricane Relief on September 2: “George Bush doesn’t care about black people.”

Rich background material also flashed quickly across the newly empowered echo chamber. Within two days of the disaster, an August 31 story in Editor & Publisher, Agence France Presse, and the online magazine Counterpunch all cited the now well-known 2004–2005 exposé by the New Orleans Times-Picayune. By September 2, the same story was in the Washington Post, the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times. Sidney Blumenthal, shrewdly anticipating the Bush denials, broke the same story on Salon under the prescient headline “No one can say they didn’t see it coming.”

Stories that would not have gotten play pre-Katrina now did. On September 1, media critic Mark Crispin Miller’s listserv noted that FEMA’s Web site listed Pat Robertson’s “Operation Blessing” charity second only to the Red Cross. By September 6, the Daily News had picked up the story, and ABC followed with a September 9 exposé of Operation Blessing’s dubious practices. Even the presidential mother was not off limits. In her tour of the Astrodome, the former First Lady chuckled that the setup was “working very well” for underprivileged hurricane victims—a remark captured on audio by NPR’s “Marketplace” and sent zooming around the web by Editor & Publisher and AMERICAblog. Amazingly, the remark appeared in the New York Times the next day in its own special little box, and she became the subject of various withering political cartoons around the country.

Katrina was a perfect storm journalistically, but will such coverage be restricted to this particular horrific event? Or will the bridges between print, electronic and online news remain intact? The reporting of the national news organizations will answer the question. But a brief period in which the country’s failed war on poverty, its institutional racism and the utter bankruptcy of a “CEO presidency” were all lead stories is testimony to what can happen when those at the margins of the mainstream media (and of our country) finally get the podium they deserve.

Susan J. Douglas is a professor of communications at the University of Michigan and author of The Mommy Myth: The Idealization of Motherhood and How it Has Undermined Women.

More information about Susan J. Douglas
Tags   
  • subscribe to print magazine

  • Reader Comments

    This is amazing. 

    Governor Blanco and Mayor Nagin, looking down the throat of a Cat 5 hurricane, did nothing until the President of the United States called them and urged them to declare an evacuation.

    The evacuation was called just one day before landfall, even though New Orleans own hurricane procedures defined a 72-hour evacuation procedure, including use of city buses and school buses to carry people who had no other transportation.  The buses were never mobilized, and ended up sitting in water up to their spark plugs. 

    Not only did President Bush persuade the Louisiana politicians to do their jobs, he called out the Coast Guard and Navy, which moved in quickly behind the storm.  The USS Bataan was on station off New Orleans on Tuesday, August 30, the day the levees broke, and was able to run a reconnaissance by helicopter on Tuesday before dark.  Then on Wednesday, the Bataan’s helicopters began moving trapped people from flooded areas and bringing in relief supplies in a 24/7 operation.  By Sunday, September 4, the Bataan’s helicopters had rescued 1613 people, delivered over fifty tons of food and emergency supplies, and delivered 8000 gallons of fresh drinking water.  In addition, the Bataan had medical parties working in New Orleans and Biloxi, and work crews in Biloxi.

    After all this, on September 5, five full days after the USS Bataan began full operations in the New Orleans area, Paul Krugman, one of the dimmest of the lying Liberal dim bulbs, accused federal officials of “lethal ineptitude”, and cited the USS Bataan as an example. 

    The Old Media reported up to 10,000 deaths from Katrina, and 25,000 body bags were delivered.  The actual death count is now 1069.  (September 26.)

    The Katrina fiasco was not the first calamity that has occurred since President Bush was elected: 09/11, the four major hurricanes that hit Florida in 2004, Katrina hit Mississippi as well as Louisiana, and Rita hit between Texas and Louisiana last week.  Each of these problems was dealt with professionally and capably, by Republican city, state, and national officials, in fact.  Only in corrupt, Democratic Louisiana where local officials failed to take action was there a problem, and it was all President Bush’s fault, obviously.

    Throughout the Katrina ordeal, the media exaggerated the problems, minimized the successes, and blamed everything on President Bush, including the hurricane itself and the failure of the levees, even though the levees were only designed to contain a Cat 3 hurricane.

    As the truth came out and perspective brought focus, it became obvious that the Old Media was lying, again, in order to discredit President Bush.  But the media is in a race to the bottom.  The Liberal press is losing readers and revenue, and network television is losing viewers and revenue.  The New York Times just last week announced a layoff of 4% (500 people) of its news personnel.  This follows declining income at a number of the Liberal outlets.  And President Bush’s ratings rose.

    So, what do you think?  Will the media realize the futility of lying about President Bush before it runs out of money?  Or not?

    Posted by scorp on Sep 26, 2005 at 8:50 PM

    Scorp - new post.

    One thing. Bush did not help himself by remaining on a prolonged vacation during the hurricane. He practically drew a bulls eye on himself. And in politics, perception is often more important than reality (hmmm, maybe Bush and Penn could have rented boats together?)

    Posted by wolf on Sep 27, 2005 at 8:30 AM

    Of course the reality being he was really fully engaged and doing everything he could to help the victims.

    -------------
    Good Point Wolf
    “And in politics, perception is often more important than reality”

    ...............
    It was just a false perception that he was eating cake and ignoring the whole mess for as long as possible.
    ...............
    Your perception is invaluable as usual.

    Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 27, 2005 at 10:36 PM

    God I wish we “liberals” could see things so clearly.
    ...
    We are all so wrapped up in our hatred of Bush and his Junta of professional criminals, we just can’t ever see anything good about Bush.
    ..............
    Lucky we have enlightened folks like you guys to set us straight.
    ...............
    What was the last thing he did right again?
    Rabbit in his silliness has forgotten again.
    What did Bush do right last time?
    ..............
    Please remind us O perceptive ones.

    Posted by GhostRabbit on Sep 27, 2005 at 10:39 PM

    I am sure there are some “conservatives” who agree with some “liberals”. Nobody that calls themselves “liberal” will agree about each and every issue with a fellow “liberal”. Same is true for “conservatives”. Otherwise they aren’t liberals or conservatives but sheep.

    Posted by David in Canada on Sep 28, 2005 at 11:04 AM
  • extended discussion >>>Continued...

    Discussions with more than 5 comments are continued on our special discussion page to encourage continuity and ease of use. There are currently 35 posts.

Join Here
Member Login

Forgot password?

Article Appeared in this Issue

Full contents
Past issues


Donate now
and get a
free, signed copy
of Rick Perlstein's new book Nixonland: The Rise of a President and the Fracturing of America!

Popular Discussions