PressEthic

An article on the front page of the New York Times reveals that in the hysteria following Hurricane Katrina a number of false reports found their way into the media. There were multiple reports of murder and rape. Despite earlier statements to the contrary, Superintendent Compass, recently revealed that there had been no official reports of rape or sexual assault. In the mayhem that followed the disaster it seems rumor became reality, with the help of the media.

An article in The Washington Post (Tuesday 27 September) explains:

NEW ORLEANS -- On Sept. 1, with desperate Hurricane Katrina evacuees crammed into the convention center, Police Chief Eddie Compass reported: "We have individuals who are getting raped; we have individuals who are getting beaten."

Five days later, he told Oprah Winfrey that babies were being raped. On the same show, Mayor Ray Nagin warned: "They have people standing out there, have been in that frickin' Superdome for five days watching dead bodies, watching hooligans killing people, raping people."

The stories were told by residents trapped inside the Superdome and convention center and were repeated by public officials. Many news organizations, including The Associated Press, carried the witness accounts and official pronouncements, and in some cases later repeated the claims as fact, without attribution.

Considering the unique and high pressure situation reporters faced as they reported from the Hurricane, is it excusable that sensational rumors regarding crimes (and the death toll) made it to air/print? Is it really feasible in such a situation for reporters to check their facts?

When officials make claims in such situations, it is understandable that the news media report them. Officials are one of the few sources of information during such a crisis. It is also understandable that given the situation, it might not be plausible to check the claims made by officials. Alternative sources of information will not necessarily be accessible.

However it is of serious concern when claims made by officials and witnesses are reported as fact without attributing them to the source (especially if the statements haven't been confirmed by other means). Reporters must always bear in mind that they are not a mouth piece for the official stance. The reality is that in such situations officials are also facing trememdous difficulties in gathering accurate information. Therefore it must be made clear to an audience that a claim (for example the one reagrding widespread rape) is made by an individual and is not necessarily fact.

Reporting witness accounts, without attribution is also flawed journalism. Witnesses are under extreme stress and can only relate their own perspective. The situation they have witnessed might not be true on a wider scale. Furthermore the witness could be retelling rumor, which is only loosely based in truth. A reporter who takes a witness's comment, and reports it as fact (without attribution) is perpetuating damaging rumor. Such rumors only serve to generate more fear amongst those involved.

Considering the situation, it is understandable that reporters were unable to check every comment made to them by witnesses or by official sources. However reporters must realize that simply because the source is official it does not make it true. Nor can you extrapolate one particular witness account and determine a global truth. Reporters must question this information to the best of their ability and make it clear to the audience who is making these claims. Otherwise unnecessary hysteria is cultivated in the audience and worse, amongst those involved.