Dennis Dunleavy

Spinning the Big Easy: Why FEMA Doesn't Like to See the Dead

Something really stinks in New Orleans and it's not just the water. What really stinks down there is the way the government is trying to shut down journalists from reporting on the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Growing criticism of the way the the government is attempting to control the media is nothing but bad news. Who gives the government the authority to tell journalists what is or is not appropriate for public viewing? Who gives the government the right to determine the nature of news?

Here's a quiz:

Which of the following motives best explains the government's attempt to ban the media from photographing and reporting on the dead following Hurricane Katrina?

A. The government is protecting national security interests.

B. The government is concerned for the safety of journalists.

C. The government is trying to avoid unfortunate situations
    where a family member waiting for news of a loved one
    would find out about their passing from a newspaper or
    watching television.

D. The government is trying to prevent the public from    
     criticizing how it spends tax-payers money.

Sorry folks, but I really think we are heading down a slippery slope when we let government representatives determine what is in or is not in good or poor taste for us.

Actually, the answer to the quiz (C) comes from a direct quote by FEMA spokesman Mark Pfeifle, who said, "Our main desire is to avoid unfortunate situations where a family member waiting for news of a loved one would find out about their passing from a newspaper or watching television."

When NBC anchor Brian Williams and his crew were stopped from making pictures of a National Guard unit protecting a downtown business, he grumbled, "I have searched my mind for some justification for why I can't be reporting in a calm and heavily defended American city and cannot find one."  The fuzzy logic of why Williams was ordered to stop shooting images and move across the street is mind numbing. The city is secure. There are thousands of police and military personnel now on the scene there.

What purpose does preventing the media from reporting on the crisis serve?

A photographer from Toronto was beaten and had his camera taken by police after he photographed a gun battle in the French Quarter. One officer's response to requests by the photographer to have his images returned signify the mounting the tensions.

"When I asked for the pictures, one said, 'If you don't get your ass out of here, I'm going to break your motherf--ing jaw.' "

Despite FEMA's claim that there is no "directive" from the government to ban photography from the scene or prevent information from reaching the public, the message has been confounded by the actions of some police and military.

That the government should try to throw up firewalls around a hurricane of criticism is hardly surprising. Using the same tactics it has with the conflict in Iraq, the government is doing all it can to keep the critics as far from reporting the truth as possible.

Here are a few truths about the current situation regarding government actions following Katrina:

1. Federal Emergency Management Agency has been trying to keep reporters from criticizing government cleanup efforts.
2. The removal of the director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Michael D. Brown, from the Gulf Coast disaster zone this week is an attempt by the Bush administration to stem a growing tied of criticism against it.
3. Some police and military personnel have stopped, beaten, arrested and threatened journalists covering the flood's aftermath.
4. The EPA is dragging its heals on releasing environmental impact damage reports from Katrina.

It is the responsibility of the press as well as the public to connect the dots when it comes to the increasing list of grievances and concerns about how the government is screwing up media and public relations.

What stinks about all this? Lot of things.

First and foremost, we must hold the government accountable for its actions.

Further, we must make the connections between our right to know and the media's ability to gathering accurate and balanced information.

Finally, we must not allow the media to cave to poorly thought out government reactionary policies. If we do, then, we have acquiesced to giving the government what it wants -- determine for us what is or is not news.

SEE NO EVIL: Gov't Censorship in the Wake of Katrina

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is attempting to put the brakes on a public relations nightmare -- Katrina and images of the dead. FEMA is taking a lot of heat from the media after what appears to be a lackluster response to the Katrina crisis. Where words fail, visuals tell a story that provides evidence of an occurrence.

Maureen Dowd of the New York Times lashed out at the Bush administration's handling of the crisis:

"This time we can actually see the bodies."
"As the water recedes, more and more decaying bodies will testify to the callous and stumblebum administration response to Katrina's rout of 90,000 square miles of the South."

Reuters reports, "The U.S. government agency leading the rescue efforts after Hurricane Katrina said on Tuesday it does not want the news media to take photographs of the dead as they are recovered from the flooded New Orleans area."

Does the government have the right to censor journalists from covering the aftermath of Katrina?

Gal Beckman suggests, "Sensitivity for the dead and their
family members is paramount, no question. But the press also needs to be
careful that the administration doesn't take political advantage of this
sensitivity in order to shroud from the public the most tangible outcome of governmental ineptitude."

Katrina is big news.

The Washington Post reports that "Prime-time news shows devoted to Hurricane Katrina's devastating effects on the Gulf Coast drew some of the biggest audiences in last week's Nielsen ratings race."

National Press Photographers Association president, Alicia Wagner Calzada, argues:

“We are sensitive to the grief and the loss connected to Hurricane Katrina and are attempting to deal with these images in a way that preserves the dignity of those who have died, but we also believe that these images are a critical tool in telling the story of this terrible tragedy and a part of honoring those that have died is telling their story.”

The damage from Katrina is done, but the healing has just begun.

Will a government ban on making images of the cleanup operation help us understand the severity of the crisis and better prepare us for the future?

Will a ban on images from Katrina help people be less suspicious of government ineptitude and control?

The spin on Katrina's coverage suggests that such a ban only serves to help the government "save face" after weeks of criticism.

It is not in the  government's best interests to censor the press in this instance, and it would be far better for the administrator to spend more time helping people rebuild their lives than to worry about what pictures may or may not come out of the effort.

Technology Can't Always Trump Mother Nature

With all the hype and hope over emerging technologies liberating the commoner (me) from relying on the mainstream media for all the news, along comes Katrina. After witnessing a flurry of articles and stories about the use of camera phones and the Internet following the London subway bombings, it would appear that Katrina, packing a 75-mph-punch, has thrown a speed bump up on the information superhighway. At least, that is the sentiment of one commentator.

Gregory Favre, a columnist with the Poynter Institute, stirs up memories of an earlier killer hurricane, Camille, and bemoans, yet again, a lack of information about his hometown in Bay St. Louis, Miss. Favre well remembers how he lost contact with family and friends back home during Camille in 1969, and now some 35 year later, Katrina has done it again.

The author tells a story of how his connections with muckety-mucks at the phone company got a repair worker to help him find his family during Camille. Now, with no telephone service available for cell phones in the area, Favre is feeling left in the dark. Where is the telephone repair worker, Favre wonders? For Favre, the worker has "been replaced by cell phones that don't work. They take pictures, but what good are pictures without some good news as captions?"

I think Favre's comments do not give a fair accounting for all the information humming across the Internet about Katrina. In fact, I think Favre's assessment is a bit misleading and fails to accurately represent the impact emerging technology is having on crisis coverage. Yes, I know Favre's report is anedotal and personal. But it is still misleading.

For example, MediaPost.com is reporting that MSNBC has racked up more than 9 million video streams to the Internet from the hurricane. In fact, MSNBC has a Citizen Journalism Reporting page with images and comments from survivors of the disaster. Moreover, CNN has a website dedicated to the contributions of citizen journalists, which features photographs from across the region. NOLA.com (Everything New Orleans) has a page called "Caught on Camera" with even more images from citizen shutterbugs. Now if that isn't enough, surfers can see even more downloaded images on WWLTV's weather page.

Despite Favre's observation that he is not getting the information he needs, I would argue that the new technology does and will continue to have an impact on how the news is covered in the future.