http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-
goldberg4sep04,1,2455021.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

Last week, according to LexisNexis, there were more than 2,000 newspaper
and wire stories on Hurricane Katrina, along with blanket coverage on
cable news. This newspaper alone ran no less than two dozen articles of
one kind or another around the two-year anniversary of the worst natural
disaster ever to hit the United States.

<...>

http://www.latimes.com/news/columnists/la-oe-
goldberg4sep04,1,2455021.column?coll=la-news-columns&ctrack=1&cset=true

Last week, according to LexisNexis, there were more than 2,000 newspaper
and wire stories on Hurricane Katrina, along with blanket coverage on
cable news. This newspaper alone ran no less than two dozen articles of
one kind or another around the two-year anniversary of the worst natural
disaster ever to hit the United States.

This hurricane of hurricane retrospectives was no doubt long in the
works, as editors like to put stories "in the can" for vacation time.
The media seemed to cover every angle, particularly the Bush
administration's missteps in response to the disaster. And while some
might quibble with this or that characterization or selection of facts,
ultimately the media were doing what they're supposed to do: hold
government accountable.

But there was one thing missing from the coverage of this natural,
social, economic and political disaster: the fact that Katrina
represented an unmitigated media disaster as well.

Few of us can forget the reports from two years ago. CNN warned that
there were "bands of rapists, going block to block." Snipers were
reportedly shooting at medical personnel. Bodies at the Superdome, we
were told, were stacked like cordwood. The Washington Post proclaimed in
a banner headline that New Orleans was a "A City of Despair and
Lawlessness," insisting in an editorial that "looters and carjackers,
some of them armed, have run rampant." Fox News anchor John Gibson said
there were "all kinds of reports of looting, fires and violence. Thugs
shooting at rescue crews."

TV reporters raced to the bottom to see who could moralistically preen
the most. Interviewers transformed into outright scolds of
administration officials. Meanwhile, the distortions, exaggerations and
flat-out fictions being offered by New Orleans officials were
accelerated and amplified by the media echo chamber. Glib predictions of
10,000 dead, and the chief of police's insistence that there were
"little babies getting raped," swirled around the media like so much
free-flowing sewage.

It was as though journalistic skepticism of government officials was
reserved for the White House, and everyone else got a free pass.

Of course the Bush administration made serious mistakes -- politically,
logistically and otherwise -- in a difficult situation. But Katrina
unleashed a virus of sanctimony and credulity for urban legends almost
without precedent.

Reports of the Superdome being a slaughterhouse were repeated, even
though dozens of news organizations had access to the building. CBS
alone had 200 people in New Orleans, and yet it couldn't find those
bodies stacked to the ceiling or a single rape victim from the roving
bands of "Mad Max"-style marauders. That's because nobody was raped or
murdered in the Superdome.

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 become the chief prisms for viewing the disaster. Katrina was
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 this newspaper and the Times-Picayune (among others) received
accolades for debunking the hysteria less than a month after the
hurricane. Yet last week's saturation coverage contained little or no
mention of the media's malpractice. 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
covering Katrina. 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."

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.