Journalistic Responsibility, thats right I said it. Some say it is dead, I for one agree. Let me pose a hypothetical question to you. Lets suppose you are in the "danger zone" of an oncoming natural disaster...for this case lets call it a hurricane, and your local authorities have warned you that not evacuating the above said "danger zone" would most likely result in abandonment , serious bodily harm, and worst case death. Would probaly make you think about leaving right? Well now lets say you turn on the news to get the weather forecast and to gauge the seriousness of the matter at hand, so that you can plan your course of action accordingly. You see this.
A bunch of frickin Patagonia parka wearing pansies!
Now you may say to yourself "Wow it looks really bad out there and I better high tail it outta here" or you might say "If these sally girl meteoroligistic menwannabees can brave it so can I". The decision is yours and the consequences of your choice are yours and yours alone to live or die with. Harsh words, but true. Personal responsiblity has to be accounted for as well.
That brings me my original question about Journalistic Responsibilty, seems to me there was none. I saw alot of brightly colored weatherjackasses in the rain playing with their toys of hi-tech digital wind gauges, precipitation gizmos, double breasted umbrellas, titanium tide predictors, and other 007 gadgetry. They almost made it look fun. The few and far between warnings for evacuation and reporting of imminent danger by the main stream media seemed down right silly when they kept cutting to a live feed of Geraldo et al frolicking in a puddle in their galoshes. "Do as I say, not as I do" journalism isnt exactly responsible in my book.
2 comments:
on that same note, they are always predicting that every storm is "the big one" and then most of them just fizzle out. I don't know if that's because it's not an exact science, or because it sells better, but i could see where that kind of "boy who cried wolf" type of thing would effect peoples decisions. escpecially when you consider evacuating could be expensive and it appeared these people were mostly poor minorities.
I thought it was funny that they were interviewing (a full feature interview in this case) a reporter who used to live in New Orleans (the operative word(s) being "used to"...This lady whose name escapes me right now has been a reporter for ABC in NY for seven years...They were using her as some sort of expert in this situation because she "used to" live in New Orleans. I'll tell you and it might sound cold but like 9/11, I have stopped listening or watching the news when stories about this come on...I've heard enough from them, from you and from anyone else who wants to talk about it...My signifigant other and I made a small donation to the Red Cross (small in that it won't even make a noise when it drops in the bucket compared to the outporing of others and their generosity) but other than that, I just don't care anymore. The news, the stars, and all their flash can't make anyone care more than they did initially...Let's continue to care but do you care more than you did after the disection of every nook and cranny having to do w/the storm? Do you need to see it from five different angles? It is just my humble opinion that pimps do less whoring than the media does w/a story of tragedy. It is so much that I can honestly say that I am no longer in the mood. Let it go and move on to the next story...Wait, no, I hear a concert on the bayou in the future...possibly featuring special guest stars and celebrity hotline phone answerers...pathetic.
Post a Comment