I watched Aaron Brown on CNN last night grilling one of the reporters in NO about
why the people who stayed didn't get out. He was utterly and completely bewildered about how or why the vast majority of
those people had absolutely no means of leaving. From his wealthy, safe, and insulated look-out, he could not imagine having
no means to escape or not having the
capability to get out. Nor did it dawn on him or the reporter on the ground that many people simply were not going to abandon their homes because they were
their lives and their family histories and heritage. Not once did Aaron Brown or the reporter in NO suggest this might be a powerful enough emotion to keep someone from leaving their home(s) in the face of impending danger. Neither of them could understand why
those people would want to stay and protect their homes.
I was watching this thinking his bewilderment was embarrassing. Has he ever been exposed to or seen poverty in his journey of life? Has he ever contemplated poverty and its chains of bondage?
Join me below the fold...
And I was thinking My God, what a protected, white world Aaron Brown must live in to be unable to fathom the depth of poverty that
those people live in. I was astounded that he could not acknowledge they might feel the same
love for home that he surely must or that they would want to protect what little, if anything, they had left. I was exasperated at the dichotomy between how good the reporting has been (by and large) and the total disconnect of some reporters like Aaron Brown to the
abject poverty that's been alive and well in our country since its inception and which can be seen in 'Anywhere, America' if you care to look. [Note: for discussion purposes, I'm living the Anderson Coopers out of this]
It seems others have been observing the same things. I found this about the media discovering the poor.
It's too bad it takes a disaster like Hurricane Katrina to draw the media's attention to the disenfranchised and economically marginal in this "land of plenty" but that seems to be an obvious conclusion from this week's coverage of the tragic situation in New Orleans. After years of drift by both TV news and newspapers toward serving advertisers who seek consumers with money rather than citizens who want to be nourished with information, this turn of events would be celebrated if it weren't for the tragedy it took to generate it.
Amen. The article goes on to talk about how the reporting has been a `mixed bag.' [emphasis mine]
Even then it was a mixed bag. CNN's curmudgeonly Jack Cafferty, repeatedly asked the question whether aid would be so slow in coming if the victims were the white, upper middle class instead of the largely poor, African American faces of victims that were flashed on the nation's television screens this week. Other reporters started referring to the victims as refugees--quickly consigning the victims to third world status--a kind of "other" status that suggests they are less than "normal" Americans.
I've been very angry that the media would refer to our displaced citizens as refugees and really offended that the term seems to have stuck. What kind of country do we live in that reporters would refer to fellow citizens as less than 'normal' Americans? I for one will never use that term to describe the people who had to flee their homes and lives.
At the same time, it's been almost touching to watch how reporters on the ground have been affected and drew attention to the reality that was NO [emphasis mine].
But largely, the reporting corps which has made it to New Orleans, many of whom had reported disasters abroad, have expressed their own personal shock at what was happening within the borders of the richest country in the world. While right wing radio commentators were busy victim blaming (who, in their pathetic world view, undoubtedly were wondering why families on welfare weren't just packing up their Cadillacs and getting out of the city), reporters on the ground saw the dehumanized way in which people were being forced to cope and actually were able to generate some empathy for their plight.
And it's been stunning, don't you think, to see them correct the record and suggest that perhaps things were a little heavy handed? Is this the same media from only 1 week ago? The irony of the enormity and largely unavoidable tragedy that resulted in their reporting is inescapable. [emphasis mine]
The right wing talk crowd was merely aping the attitude expressed repeatedly by George Bush's FEMA director, Michael Brown, who in one interview on MSNBC said several times "those who chose not to evacuate" before finally amending it to could not evacuate. This was countered by some reporters astute and knowledgeable enough to report that over a third of New Orleans residents do not own cars. Other officials, notably the governor of Louisiana, Kathleen Blanco, started talking tough about "shoot to kill" orders for those caught looting when it was obvious that most looting was a matter of survival--food and water--and that only a few were trying to procure luxury items. Again, some reporters commented that shoot to kill orders sounded more than a little harsh for a population obviously experiencing severe psychological and physical trauma.
So, I've been wondering. While I'm angry at people like Aaron Brown's bewilderment and lack of insight into the constraints inherent in poverty, does the exposure of reporters to the other half, or what I call a hidden society, during coverage of Katrina bring a glimmer of hope to the future of reporting? Will the exposure to that other half breed a more humanizing and reality based approach to news?
This discovery (or perhaps in the legacy of the great documentaries like "Harvest of Shame," re-discovery) of the poor by the nation's news media is a welcome development after years in which things like welfare reform and health care were treated largely as a budget issues rather than issues of human dignity. In many ways, the media are merely following the cues of political leaders on both sides of the aisle who are usually preoccupied with playing to the issues of campaign contributors. A politics driven by campaign contributions given by a tiny minority of affluent people will not be focusing on issues which affect the vast majority struggling to make ends meet.
As the articles concludes, I'm not holding my breath. [emphasis mine]
Perhaps this tragedy will mark a turn in values and priorities for the nation's news reporters. Perhaps many of these well paid denizens of journalism now recognize there are two very separate Americas --the incredibly affluent which jets about the country and world like it is at their disposal and the growing sector of America which is experiencing a long, slow downward mobility as manufacturing and service work wages decline to sweatshop levels. Perhaps the kind of reporting which can unite the country will replace the kind of reporting which has exacerbated its divisions. Perhaps. But I wouldn't hold my breath.
Like I said, I'm not holding my breath. Are you? Let's hear it - take the poll.
We Need REGIME CHANGE