from here:
As the fog of warlike conditions in Hurricane Katrina's aftermath has cleared, the vast majority of reported atrocities committed by evacuees have turned out to be false, or at least unsupported by any evidence, according to key military, law enforcement, medical and civilian officials in positions to know.
"I think 99 percent of it is bulls---," said Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, who played a key role in security and humanitarian work inside the Dome. "Don't get me wrong, bad things happened, but I didn't see any killing and raping and cutting of throats or anything. ... Ninety-nine percent of the people in the Dome were very well-behaved."
----
much more at the link
Can you depend on the media to tell you what is really happening? No. Especially when they are stuck in one place, and can only look around their location and for whatever reason end up spreading rumors.
Where is the line between a reporter saying "reports are saying" and "baseless rumors say"? Sure some officials at various levels were spreading these rumors, but did any reporter ever question where the official got their information? Guess not.
What a shame.
And why was everyone so quick to believe (and report) that a mostly black group of mostly poor gathered together would turn to such violence? Even early reports on cannibalism? These are people like you and me, not some sub human race. When I watched the news reports I wasn't fully buying into the wildest stories, but of course the wildest stories made the news. And they made the news often, without being questioned or fact checked.
I thought the reporting from the area was awful, and I'd even go so far to say racist. Rumors fly, things are said, and for some reason it all gets on the air. Think back on what you now now about what really happened. (I'm completely staying away from the political nightmare of it all) Deaths from starvation? no, not in a few days. Rape and murder at the Superdome and Convention Center? No not according to people who looked into the rumors. Wild packs of people and snipers roaming around the city? No. The list goes on and on. How about 10,000 dead? Thankfully way off base.
The media got a lot wrong.
What you won't see on tv "Tonight on (Geraldo or Anderson Cooper or whatever) we will look at all the stories we reported that weren't true. How could we have gotten it all so wrong? Why didn't we question if it was true? Can you tell us anything and we will report it? Did we believe the worst because black people were involved and well it might have happened so we went with it especially since everyone else was?"
"Later Larry King will take your calls."
God Bless the people of the area. The real story is bad enough without the the reputation of the entire area tarnished in a racist way by lazy reporters who loved rumors and wanted to be the first on the air with the wildest and most sensational of stories. Maybe worst of all I don't think they (the reporters) even tried that hard. The rumors will live on long after the city is rebuilt.
Much of what they did amounted to "I heard from this guy that he heard from a guy that said that a friend said that..."
Update: The LA Times has some harsh words for the coverage as well.
previous related post
Right on the mark. I believe that these exaggerated claims about poor blacks and along with the looting images are what led to the Jackson/Sharpton, et al, claims of racism against the feds. They couldn't leave the impression that the MSM was making on most of America go unchecked; counter charges of racism was the only weapon they had available at the time.
ReplyDeleteBingo. I was appalled by the sloppy, slipshod, sensationalistic, and I would even go so far as to say deliberately malicious reporting by the MSM during Katrina, and I think you're absolutely right that racism fueled a lot of it. Hear hear.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that racism played a major role in the reporting.
ReplyDeleteThe media always spins stories of panic and disorder when any disaster occurs. Its is simply part of their template. Numerous studies have examined people's behavior in emergencies large and small and they have found that people react rationally and compassionately.
Many of the worst stories, such as the tales of cannibalism and child rapes, had came from African-American sources such as the NOLA chief of police. If stereotypes played a role, they are stereotypes shared by African-Americans.
I think that what we are seeing here is the run of the mill incompetence of the major media. Institutionally, they don't have what it takes to accurately report a fast moving complex story that doesn't fix an existing template.
In the linked article, Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan says there were only four confirmed homicides.
ReplyDeleteNow, see Mortician contradicts reports downplaying crime.
Of course, one explanation is that Jordan has a very limited definition of "confirmed."
These are people like you and me
ReplyDeleteReally? So you'd have no problem moving into the middle of a ghetto, full of just "normal folks", may of which have criminal records, and other anti-social traits correlated with poverty (it doesn't matter in which direction the arrow of causality points, what matters is the traits are real.)
Well, now that Sgt. 1st Class Jason Lachney, has spoken we can all rest assured. It's a good thing that his feel good testimony gets greater weight than that of his superiors who had many lines of communication feeding into them, or the captains from the police departments.
I thought the reporting from the area was awful, and I'd even go so far to say racist.
Rumors weren't conjured out of thin air. The reporters were reporting these rumors that they heard from the people stuck in the dome and center. Newsflash - the majority of those people were black. So exactly where does the racist angle come in? Is it the reporting? Or simply that the subjects are black and it's now considered racist to report what other black people say is going on if the reports are dealing with violence? That's a hell of a lenient definition of racism you've got there.
I'm not saying the media was/is racist. I know some people do but not me.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm not anti media. I think most of the time they really do a good job. But I think they all got caught up in a chase for the wildest story, and accuracy was left waaay behind. They did an awful job.
The lazy fact checking on the banner headlines was really bad and will forever leave the impression that the mostly black mostly poor people of New Orleans were doing what the media said they were doing and they were not.
These are people like you and me
ReplyDeleteReally? So you'd have no problem moving into the middle of a ghetto, full of just "normal folks", may of which have criminal records, and other anti-social traits correlated with poverty (it doesn't matter in which direction the arrow of causality points, what matters is the traits are real.)
Well I grew up in Richmond CA, and currently live in Oakland CA, so I guess I have no problem with that.
And I'll bet your impression of both cities isn't too good.
But you know I live here. And lots of my friends live here. And it's a great place.
And it's a great place.
ReplyDeleteTo each his own, I suppose. Here's some data on New Orlean's murder rate being nearly 10x the national average. Here is some older data on other crimes rates in New Orleans and Oakland.
As for me, I like often leave a summer place uninhabited for periods of 6-8 months and I have no fear that my neighbors will break in. I heard many accounts of people not wanting to evacuate because they feared that their houses would be cleaned out if there were no floods.
I certainly don't view that kind of fear as being normal. Sure, it's rational considering the environment they live in, but it's not as you describe that "These are people like you and me."
How do you go from
ReplyDeleteAnd why was everyone so quick to believe (and report) that a mostly black group of mostly poor gathered together would turn to such violence? Even early reports on cannibalism? These are people like you and me, not some sub human race.
to
Really? So you'd have no problem moving into the middle of a ghetto, full of just "normal folks", may [sic] of which [sic] have criminal records, and other anti-social traits correlated with poverty (it doesn't matter in which direction the arrow of causality points, what matters is the traits are real.)
?
Please note that most poor people aren't violent or anti-social (contrast that with most violent and anti-social people are poor).
Thus, while there was a greater likelihood that violent people were scattered among the poor than among the wealthier, that does NOT mean that the GROUP would turn to violence, which is the point I think Rick is making.
Thus, in a society of 100 haves and 100 have-nots, with 6 violent criminals among them, for example, the odds are that 5 of the violent criminals are have-nots and 1 is a have. Does that mean that the 95 have-nots deserve to have a reputation for violence and "sub-human" behavior? I think not.
I do think that people are more likely to assume that 95 black have-nots are likely to turn to violence than 95 white have-nots.
And to shannon, who said that
Many of the worst stories, such as the tales of cannibalism and child rapes, had came from African-American sources such as the NOLA chief of police. If stereotypes played a role, they are stereotypes shared by African-Americans.,
the sterotype is not necessarily shared by blacks. While there is a tension between blacks and whites, there is also a tension between poor blacks and middle-class blacks.
Middle-class blacks are looked down upon by poor blacks for not "acting black" or for "selling out" or "conforming" while poor blacks are seen as "lazy" and "unable to rise up above the poverty like my family was".
Both class and race play a role in this every-unfolding drama. This is nothing new, as it has gone on for centuries. The only thing that will change is the group getting the shaft.