Throwing the press out of New Orleans

[icarus]

According to Reuters the press is being thrown out of New Orleans

Call the White House, 202-456-1111, and let them know that there is still freedom of the press -- there is no national security issue in this disaster -- there should be nothing to hide when the goal is to seek the truth about what happened.

I'm staggered, so furious I've been pacing for the last half hour.

wildernessguru says: "That's illegal."

Comments

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

I don't really get it either. I mean, I've never actually been a part of a rescue operation or anything, but I can't imagine how having journalists and the take up room on rescue boats is going to actually help victims. Not that I think FEMA or whoever else have done their jobs particularly admirably, but surely the journalists are going to get in the way?

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

These aren't rowboats. There's room, and it's normal for the press to come with the rescuers. How do you think we got the pictures of Hurricane Andrew?

Icarus

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

I do totally realise that FEMA really aren't doing their jobs. But some of the people on those boats must be people--just people who work for FEMA, people who know the organisation is shit but are trying to do their best despite that. I realise they're not rowboats, but I daresay they're not cruise ships either (If they are, ignore me). In my experience with boats, other people do seem to get in the way, no matter how large the boat is. I've visited two cargo ships, and I got in the way.

Now, if the journalists worked in a team with FEMA on a day to day basis on those boats and then were suddenly disallowed, that would be really weird. But I've been given the impression that boats, rescuers and volunteers were sort of mustered at the last minute (or afterwards), so it seems to me that it's unlikely the rescuers are familiar with the journalists. Or, again, I could be woefully unfamiliar with how your system works, and I am more than willing to admit I'm wrong.

I think that they'd get in my way.

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

Normally you want the press there because it tends to increase the donations flowing to the victims. They're not in the way, and never have been.

The question is, why, since they have always had the press in the boats, do they suddenly not want it now?

Icarus

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

Sorry, I got the impression that they were in the way. I can't remember which article it was that I read the quote in, but it was a survivor saying "they didn't help, all they wanted to do was take photos of us." Not a direct quote of course, but that's what I read.

I'm probably just being foreign. I wouldn't want to see pictures of dead bodies, and I would consider it a violation if people were to take photos of me at a time like that.

If you buy this "spin" you're a fool

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

This is spin control and you're being suckered. I work in marketing and this is how you herd the press.

Basically, they've made a "problem" where one didn't exist. They're lying to you. The press has always gone into disaster areas. They've always been respectful of what graphic images they portray.

FEMA is not responsible for how the press handles any images. To attempt to control the press is against the law.

But saying this, they've put the press on the defensive. Now instead of any pictures being about the failure of FEMA, they've manipulated it so any images would be about -- let's see if I can quote you -- "I wouldn't want to see pictures of dead bodies, and I would consider it a violation if people were to take photos of me at a time like that."

All you need is one person you ask to go on the air, who's coached into saying exactly what you want them to say. (And yes marketing coaches people, absolutely. Just today my office had to get a young guy to wear a shirt with a collar for an interview on Good Morning America, and we told him exactly how to stand, where to look as he was being interviewed so he would come off as professional).

You think these interviews are spontaneous? Oh no. We give them at least 20 minutes of prep and coaching, tell them the angle to take that we need -- and of course we find who already has the attitude we need. The person standing next to him may have a completely different view, but we'll have this one person who supposedly speaks for everyone.

You're watching a masterful spin-job. Days ago people were angry at the FEMA's lack of response. Those images were a documentation of that failure. Now you're ready to shoot the messenger and it's all about the press being callous.

Being aware of when you're being manipulated is an important and difficult skill to learn. The key is to go back to facts. When you're being led to respond emotionally to information that's eiher hazy or untrue that's when you're being manipulated.

The facts:

- People are dead. A lot of people.
- FEMA was late, resulting in people being dead rather than rescued.
- The head of FEMA has his head on the chopping block. Congress has called for his removal.
- Images of dead people would guarantee the head of FEMA would lose his job.
- The head of FEMA has not allowed reporters on the boats to take pictures of all these dead people.
- The press has job and that is to record the facts.
- The press has always recorded disasters.
- The press has always self-monitored as to the images it shows. You know this: how many bodies have you ever seen on the news? This is a non-issue.

I guess after working in marketing I'm not very naive anymore.

Icarus

Re: If you buy this "spin" you're a fool

[maelwaedd.livejournal.com]

I realise that both sides are playing games. I'm not entirely stupid.

By all means, take as many pictures of corpses as possible. Report the numbers--that I can respect and it's something that I think would really make a difference. But pictures of dead people, while they would be great for some form of inquest, aren't news. They're commissions, and I shan't respect that.

I know their job, I know what they're doing. But I also know that the most sensationalist journalists--and, if this disaster is anything like most of the others, the journalist who takes the most risks--is going to get the most money or at least the headlines. Be it through photos of dead bodies or otherwise.

Again, I'm not in the US, where I assume you to be. All I know of what is on your television is what I get told, and if people are ranting about dead bodies on tv then I assume there to be dead bodies on tv. I am more than capable of checking out US-sourced news articles, and while no, I haven't seen dead bodies to my knowledge so far, I haven't honestly looked at a great deal of Katrina photos to know if there are any/many. I do recall photos of Sadaam's dead sons previously, though, which therefore leads me to believe that there is at least one source that has no problem in publishing photos of dead bodies. Whether this policy changes when its own citizens are involved, I don't know, because I'm not American.

To my knowledge, in my country if the press are in the way, they are removed. We haven't had this much wank concerning anything like FEMA before, but maybe it will become an issue for us in the future--I don't know. I'm not defending FEMA at all, and agree that there should be a serious enquiry.

I still maintain, however, that if I can take up room on a container/breakbulk vessel, then a reporter can take up room on a rescue boat.

Re: If you buy this "spin" you're a fool

[icarusancalion.livejournal.com]

sensationalist journalists

You're mistaking US journalists for some other country's, possibly the British. You don't have that kind of sensationalism here. There are a lot murders in the city where I grew up, Detroit MI. We had the largest number of murders in the US. I have never once seen a dead body on TV. Ever.

You're uninformed, basing your response on foreign journalists.

if people are ranting about dead bodies on tv then I assume there to be dead bodies on tv.

Nope. I haven't seen any and I've been following the story closely. As I said, this is an invented issue for the sake of spin control.

That's part of how it works. Yell fire and people think there's a fire.

I do recall photos of Sadaam's dead sons previously, though, which therefore leads me to believe that there is at least one source that has no problem in publishing photos of dead bodies.

I've been following the war closely and I've not seen those either.

in my country if the press are in the way, they are removed.

Here it is against the law.

I'm not defending FEMA at all, and agree that there should be a serious enquiry.

I agree. By the way, you should know that FEMA was dismantled by Bush and incorporated under "Homeland Security" in the recent terrorist paranoia. That's why all the fuck-ups. The rescue professionals of just a few years ago are all gone and FEMA's mandate was to "gain control" rather than help people.

still maintain, however, that if I can take up room on a container/breakbulk vessel, then a reporter can take up room on a rescue boat.

The room they take is worthwhile. By keeping the rescue effort in the public eye, money continues to pour in to help those very rescue efforts. It's an investment.

Icarus