PressEthic

Yesterday’s AM New York had a tiny sidebar announcing the newest project from Spike Lee - “a documentary examining how race and politics collided in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.” The larger story with bits of the Spike Lee interview was a Reuters piece appearing on October 13th.

Lee’s goal is to “use ‘factual journalism, not creative narrative’” in his film. He describes himself in the article as a “provocateur” that “wouldn’t put anything past the U.S. government when it comes to people of color.” He even says, “People could not believe, especially the residents of the Ninth Ward, that there wasn’t hanky-panky in the flooding.” He doesn’t define what he means by “hanky-panky,” but safe to assume that the frivolous words are meant to serve as a strong accusation.

Here we have a filmmaker who admits to a bias who says he will use journalism to show the truth, implying that the coverage thus far by reporters has not. Spike Lee is a prominent member of the African-American community who will surely have people agreeing with his film’s conclusions.

Here we also have an example of how the messenger becomes just as important as how well a story is reported. Journalists were widely praised for the aggressive way they went after the Hurricane Katrina story. They showed that this was not just a storm that shut down a major city, but that there are race and class issues affecting the victims.

Nevertheless, the Spike Lee story reinforces the need for mainstream news organizations to diversify their ranks, not just with African-Americans, but with people from many different backgrounds. Anecdotally speaking, I’ve heard friends voice their feelings about being under- or misrepresented by the media- African-Americans, Asian-Americans, gays, and women among them.

This is where a wider range of perspectives in the newsroom and on camera is helpful. Different voices add nuance and depth to a story, not to mention a belief in the eyes of the public that all of the angles are being covered.