PressEthic

Over the past few weeks, all the major newspapers ran stories criticizing the media coverage of hurricanes Katrina and Rita. They denounced the report of unconfirmed rumors and some exaggeration in the description of the chaos in the aftermath. For people who care about ethics, it is always good when the media does some introspection and criticizes it work. But it is even better if the media really means what it says in such stories.

On Monday, the New York Times did not seem to be much concerned about exaggeration. The Times compared what happened in New Orleans to the accident of the Chernobyl nuclear plant. “A visitor can drive for miles along dusty, mosquito-infested streets and not see a soul, especially through poor neighborhoods like Bywater and the Lower Ninth Ward. A war zone is not the proper analogy; something approaching Chernobyl is.”

The Chernobyl accident (1986) is the worst nuclear accident in history. According to the UN, more than 4,000 people will die from illness due to radioactivity. In Ukraine, Belarus and Russia, more than 200,000 people had to move permanently from the affected area. Almost 20 years after the accident, it is still impossible to rebuild something there.

Such an analogy between Chernobyl and New Orleans is very dramatic, just like the rest of the article. So did the media really exaggerate in describing the chaos that prevailed after the Hurricanes? I am not that sure anymore. If New Orleans actually looks like Chernobyl, then who cares if the media did not get it right on very specific points?

So maybe we can now expect a new wave of stories entitled “exaggeration in reports on the media coverage of the hurricanes."