Media Overstatement of Katrina Disaster

Matt Drudge links an article from the LA Times today;
http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-rumors27sep27,0,5492806,full.story?coll=la-home-headlines

I have been hearing more and more reports about the media and the mistatements of food supplies to body counts. The level of helplessness the media portrayed regarding those at the convention center and neighborhoods surround downtown New Orleans, may have contributed to the panic of millions of Houstonians for Rita.

These inaccuracies in reporting and what appears to be purposefully misleading statements appear to be motivated by a reporter wanting to get the biggest story and monumental footage.

Consider a situation;
Reporter Charlie works for a national affiliate for a national media company. He is sent out to cover the already hyped Katrina hurricane as it approaches the gulf coast. He is just south of the eye of the hurricane and getting pummelled by wind and rain. He issues a couple live reports showing the heavy winds and rain. Picture his wet face being buffetted by the winds and Charlie trying theatrically to both stay upright and hold his hood on his head.

Once the rain subsides he sees the aftermath of the hurricane in his area of the coast. It really is not very damaged. Branches and leaves from trees strewn everywhere. Some broken windows of a house and others have shingles missing (probably leaking water in the atticks). The is a low lying street just off the beach which is flooded up to the middle of car Ford Escort parked, left abandoned on the side of the empty street.

Yes, there is damage, however there is really only pretty standard information to report. Nothing absolutely rivetting or disastrous. Charlie probably feels pressure to get the breaking story and forward it to home base for broadcast. Charlie is faced with two choices. The first is to report everything how it is; some damage to homes, cars, trees, beach front... roads flooded, power out, and the city is empty. With this realistic picture of his assigned area, the storm did not cause a lot of relative damage compared to the hype prior to the storm hitting land. His reporting would be something like "This area faired pretty well. Damage is mainly what would be expected for a hurricane."

Or, the second is he could stand in the street which is flooded, with water up over his knees, show very close up footage of a large branch leaning against a house with part of the roof damaged, a front window blown out and someones dog roaming the streets wet and chilled. His reporting could be something like "Houses damaged, power out for unknown city blocks, trees felled, city streets are flooded and unnavigable." The two descriptions of the same scene are much different. Which of the reports would have been more likely to be aired by his employing affiliate or news company?

When you add pictures of corpses floating in water, a few leuters, and un-verified stories of rapes and robbings, killings and etc... occurring in the New Orleans Superdome, the picture can get very bleak, in hurry to the viewer. This hype could have easily spilled into Rita preparations by those in Texas.