NBC's Williams Says Era Of Reticent News Coverage Ended With Katrina

[JABBS]

Despite shrinking audiences for the network newscasts, Brian Williams, the NBC anchor who succeeded Tom Brokaw and won plaudits for his coverage of the New Orleans floods, says they are "too important a franchise" to fade.

"When tragedy befalls the United States, when the event takes place that demands our attention, viewers come roaring back to the broadcast networks," he says. "It's the resources we can bring to bear on a crisis that sets us apart. We were able to operate in New Orleans in places where the federal government was not. We beat the first responders. We set the agenda during this particular event. We were witnesses, so we drove the story."

Williams says a long period of reticence by news organizations -- which he dubs "the 9/11 syndrome" -- ended with Hurricane Katrina.

-- From Howard Kurtz' "Media Notes" column, Washington Post, 9/26

***

This item first appeared at Journalists Against Bush's B.S.

[THUNDER HANDS]

1. i doubt that

we were supposed to see more serious news coverage after 911 and the media actually got worse, covering missing kids that should have been the realm of local weekly papers, not national news organizations.

If 911 didn't make the media clean up their act, a hurricane won't.

I hope I'm wrong, but I don't think that I am.

[Dr Fate]

2. That should be evident in your coverage of the Downing Street Memo tonight

Oh wait- that's still "old news", isnt it?

[stopbush]

3. If true, then when is the media going to GO BACK to all of the

stories that they "reticently" reported over the past 4 years and do the investigative hard news version? I'd like to know.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

4. New idea! Maybe with a spine, news ratings will go up!

[ramapo]

5. Sorry No

Williams was right but only for about 10 days. I think the news orgs are already folding back up into their old useless ways.

[1932]

6. I guess the first step to recovery is admitting you are an alcoholic, uh,

I mean, reticent.

I can't help but think there were a lot of structural reasons the media did this story right.

Like:

- Being embedded with people who were suffering. Reporters always sympathize with the people with whom they're embedded, whether it's the US army or poor black N'O'eans.

- not being in communication with the home office meant they had total editorial control.

I'm not confident the media will overcome their reticicence with important stories in the future since the reason for this in N.O. related to these structural elements.

[PurityOfEssence]

7. So that coverage of last weekend's rally is evidence of forthrightness?

Was there ANY mention of it on any of the three "major" networks? There sure as hell wasn't any on CBS on Saturday; it's as if it never happened.