The deluge in New Orleans elicited a deluge of wish fulfillment in the
media, as though the hurricane was a biblical sign that something was very
wrong in George W. Bush's America. "Everything changed" because of Katrina,
insisted CNN's Anderson Cooper. Translation: We're going to tell the story
we want to tell about the country from now on. Race and class became the
chief prisms for viewing the disaster. Katrina was even portrayed as the
result of global warming, which (of course!) is Bush's fault.
During last week's bonfire of Katrina navel-gazing, there was virtually no
mention of the hyperventilating and inaccurate media reports, even though
these facts are by now well-established. Terms such as "rape gangs" and
"snipers" do not appear in virtually any of the mainstream media's
retrospectives. It's as if it never happened.
Why? I think the answer is complex, but three factors are surely involved.
One, the media are often good watchdogs of government but rarely of
themselves. While recycling old complaints about government is permissible,
dwelling on your colleagues' failures - or your own - just isn't done.
Two, the media have convinced themselves that they did a wonderful job of
covering Katrina, showering themselves with awards in response. Dan Rather
spoke for his colleagues when he said, "Everybody across the board did such
a good job." It was one of the "quintessential great moments in television
news ... right there with the Nixon-Kennedy debates, the Kennedy
assassination, Watergate coverage, you name it."
Well, as the disgraced former news anchor might say, that makes as much
sense as a cat working as a rocking-chair inspector.
And, lastly, journalists are invested in the dominant narratives of Katrina,
and they'll be damned if they'll let go, particularly if it comes at the
expense of their own credibility, or make Bush's mistakes seem a little less
horrendous.
No, it would be better, and much easier, to print the legend.