Tuesday, September 13, 2005

Disaster and the Media

The last two weeks have been so odd. The drama of one of the biggest disasters ever to hit the continental United States has been unfolding while I have been, for the most part, away from all media…print, television, internet. Yet, even the limited contact I have had with the outside world has made it obvious that something huge is going on in this country. Or is it?

Don’t get me wrong. I appreciate that the New Orleans hurricane/flood is a disaster of biblical proportions. Three hundred years of ignoring the elephant in the backyard, and inexcusably sluggish disaster relief response from a federal agency headed by inexperienced cronies of our good ole boy president, spelled certain doom for the region when the unthinkable actually transpired. The resulting catastrophe has been heart-wrenching, frustrating, frightening, awe-inspiring…running the gamut of human emotion. That roller coaster of sensation which our national media excels at exploiting. And so it has.

I remember the media coverage of 9/11. I recall being transfixed, for days, by the images played over and over and over again on nearly every one of the 150 television channels piped into my home by my satellite TV service. It was addictive…the ultimate gripping TV serial, but it was real life. Sort of. Once immersed in it, I couldn’t tear myself away. I lived and breathed the demise of the twin towers, over and over, like some nightmarish acid flashback. And the talking heads who hashed, re-hashed, triple- and quadruple-hashed every miniscule aspect of the story. Fabricated some, and embellished others, after the real news had been talked and analyzed to death. Such are the fruits of the twenty-first century 24-hour news cycle.

Tapping into journal land on those few hit-and-run excursions I could manage between August 26 and today, I saw that same scenario played out in the lives of many j-landers. They were saturated with the media coverage of Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of New Orleans and contiguous areas of the Gulf Coast. Appalled, grief-stricken, indignant, shocked…they hung on every word, every image presented to them by our valiant national news media. To the point where people began popping more zanax, or throwing back another shot or two of Jack Daniels, just to be able to sleep at night with the images of destruction, despair and outrage that filled their heads and their hearts.

So I have to ask…how much is enough? At what point does responsible news reporting become media exploitation? Given the 24-hour news cycle, it seems that point would be reached damned early on in any crisis, and anything above and beyond that point is gratuitous. Why does an image have to be aired, a sound byte need to be repeated, every fifteen minutes from dawn to dusk? It could be argued, I suppose, that the 24-hour news gurus are aiming at catching people who tune in to the news at whatever hour of the day or night. Possible. But the more frequent by-product of the all-out media blitz is that hapless citizens get caught up in the drama, and end up subjecting themselves to the almost subliminal effect of the constant barrage of re-run information. They flounder in the tide of old, repetitive news trying to access the carefully controlled trickle of fresh facts. Or inadvertently swallow toxic doses of the ad nauseum dissection of old facts when new ones fail to present themselves within a convenient time frame.

I went through the whole day today without turning on the television, tuning in the radio, or clicking on any of the news links as I navigated past the AOL Welcome Screen to get to the journals I wanted to read. I just did not want to hear (read) it. I felt that, while being nearly disconnected from the world during this crisis, I have heard and seen just enough to give me the information I need: Something very bad happened, and there are people out there suffering because of it. The best and only thing I can do with that information is to let it spur me to some kind of action…let it inspire me to reach out and give what I can, help where I can, comfort when I can. I don’t want to let in enough of the hyper-coverage of the disaster to inspire impotent, destructive emotions…anger, hatred, impatience, outrage. Where can I really go with those emotions? What could I expect them to do besides burn a painful hole in my soul…a hole that would sap my energy to accomplish anything positive? Like stepping out to help the victims. Like bridging a political gap in order to work for a common goal. Hands that are occupied holding up pointing fingers are not available for lending toward the work that needs to be done.

I only wish our shamelessly profit-driven national media would get it. Get that they are not helping…that they are, in fact, daily adding fuel to the fires of animosity; jamming crowbars into the cracks in our national unity, and yanking with all their might. And for what? A few more points in the Nielsen’s? Another million in advertising revenue? One more feather in the cap of an industry-leading news director? For this, they are pushing our nation to the edge of the abyss.

I suspect that, somewhere in the middle of the last century, the technology available to spread news caught up to our ability to absorb it. In that golden wink-of-an-eye in history, good hard news, with a minimum of added crap, was readily available to most anyone in a civilized society. In the "olden days," when news traveled only as fast as a horse, a boat, or a walking man could manage, it became distorted, embellished, and contaminated by the time it was disbursed as far as it could go. These days, news doesn’t happen fast enough to fill all the ticks of the 24-hour news cycle. And, in the down-time, facts get…distorted, embellished, and contaminated. How far have we really come? And where do we go from here?

13 comments:

  1. This is a great entry, and I totally agree.

    Judi

    ReplyDelete
  2. I totally agree.  It's complete overkill on the part of the media.  I read several journals whose writers were completely enthralled by the news coverage, so much so, that they became victims themselves.  Like you, I read what I need to, and do what I can to help and then move on.   9/11 consumed me to the point that I was crying all the time.  It was horrible.

    Very good entry.

    Jackie

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lisa, you are dead on target here.  The OCD, which is a co-existing morbidity of my husband's ADD, manifests itself with compulsive news watching during crises.  When I was pregnant during Desert Storm, in which his brother was serving, my doctor had to tell the husband to turn off the news because it was driving up my blood pressure.  After he went without sleep for three days, glued to the coverage, I told him that if he wouldn't give it a break, he was going to sleep at the farm. (Remember the house is rented out, so that meant the barn.)  The endless repetition, the repeating of rumors is crazy-making.  I think we were much better off when we had an hour of TV news in the morning, an hour in the evening, and the integrity of Walter Cronkite in the anchor chair.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Wow. I think you are absolutely correct. I am just beginning to emerge from a depression brought on by the horror of what happened. Too much time watching MSNBC. Yet, one good thing happened from all the coverage. My sister was trapped in the Ritz-Carlton. One of the 300 guests, when it was her turn to use the one working pay phone in the building, called CNN and got on the air! She described their situation and the very next day they were resucued! Was it the CNN coverage? Another inept official made the stupid mistake of saying that he had no idea there were people trapped at the Convention Center until he saw it on tv. Incredible.  

    ReplyDelete
  5. I agree with you, which is why I made up my mind to shut off the TV once everyone started pointing fingers at the people pointing fingers. Enough was enough and I didn't need the MSM to keep the disaster fresh in my mind. I also believe that this deluge of information and mis-information is producing sub-liminal effects, either intentionally or not.
    My greatest fear is that this incredibly divisive administration has just added another element to the horrendous rift between conservative and liberal by its recent actions regarding Katrina. Hopefully we won't revert back to the days when whites and blacks got into race riots. And yes, the news media is feeding that as well.
    Maryanne

    ReplyDelete
  6. I'll tell you what I do not like about the coverage...so many Americans have been so giving and supportive and willing to help by donating time, money, food, clothing, housing and whatnot, and it now seems as though the media is focusing on the response time of the state and federal government as a racial issue.  Whether that is true or not, I find it offensive that all of America gets lumped into this racial mess when the PEOPLE of America (as a whole) have never for one second felt anything racist towards any of those victims.  The goodness of the people gets overshadowed by all this.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Hello I'm new to your journal. It's very interesting and thought provoking. As I live in England I'm somewhat removed from your media coverage, so it was useful to get your perspective on things.
    Tilly
    http://journals.aol.co.uk/tillysweetchops/Adventuresofadesperatelyfathouse/

    ReplyDelete
  8. AFter the initial day's coverage I limited how much time each day I watched. If I were having a particularly emotional day I didn't watch at all. Unfortunately the news media know that many people, such as my mother were glued to their sets wanting to see every detail. For me 9/11 was different. I live in NJ, in the suburbs where many of the victims lived. We watched for lists of people's names. Many were in my county and some in our town. It was much more personal. I think we need to be responsible in our viewing. Many things are broadcast frequently that I chose not to watch. Still, it does seem a bit much.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I also limited the TV news coverage. I did read the coverage in the paper. That way I could go back and forth and reread what I needed to. But, after reading my new Newsweek I wouldn't mind seeing the prez hogtied and forced to watch some 24 hour news. Preferably NOT Fox news Glad you had a good two weeks of semi vacation.

    Jackie

    ReplyDelete
  10. I just now got cable back
    I was hungry for news during the days without phone, cable, power
    If it werent for the media, would we ever have known about the outrage of the police in New Orleans?
    Marti

    ReplyDelete
  11. Critical media consumption is being addressed in schools, but with such enormous demands for so many topics to be covered, it needs to be right up there with the 3 Rs. Emotional exploitation, gratuitous coverage, subliminal effects, profit-motive,  and credibility, social consequences, etc.,  are all important issues for citizens of a free press society  -- you are so right on.  Thanks for the perspective.  *debbi*

    ReplyDelete
  12. I turn the t.v. on, only when I have a direct mission.  I refuse to let it run and run and run all day long or for hours.

    ReplyDelete
  13. This is one time I was grateful for the media. I initially tried to stick my head in the sand on this because I knew the onslaught would be intense and stuff like this depresses the hell out of me. If it weren't for all the media coverage and them being the first to get in an uproar, no one outside of LA would have known what a cluster-f**k it was. They were the ones that saw what was really happening and what the powers that be were reporting was incongruous. :-) ---Robbie

    ReplyDelete