Please go to: http://www.observer.com/media_newsstory2.asp
Read the story of how journalists found themselves in a situation where they were the first, and for awhile, only responders to the aftermath of Katrina.
Then answer this question: If journalists had not been there, had not reported what they witnessed, had relied only on official sources -- how much longer would it have been before the government responded to the plight of the people trapped in New Orleans?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
3 comments:
I think two comments made by NY Times reporter Shaila Dewan sum things up:
1) "The problem was there was such a disconnect with what we were seeing and what we were hearing from local officials."
We all need to be better about opening our eyes and not being complacent with whatever the "official" line might be with any story.
2) "You need to be a reporter, but also a human."
If reporters had been mere observers of this story -- if they hadn't allowed themselves to get openly frustrated and mad -- I think it would have taken much longer for the gravity of this story to sink in at a national level.
I think the journalists were very admirable when reporting the devastating effects of hurricane Katrina. They were straight-forward and honest about the situation in New Orleans and surrounding areas. As a result, the people of our nation were more aware of the serious and desperate needs of the victims.
On the contrary, George W. Bush reported the events with a superficial smile and tone of voice. He is the President of the United States, but needs to be a human being as well.
In other words, the government would have continued to pacify us with partial information about the tragedy, while the journalists were intent on reporting the truth. As a result, many people were motivated by pure compassion to help those in need and many victims are now able to begin a new life.
This is ONE example of allowing the media and technology to drive your print product.
The newspaper industry MUST learn this or they will lose more and more of their demographic to OTHER print products (not that print will die - only archaic print).
Post a Comment