Media gets a bit of a boost

When the mainstream media discarded its usual passivity and got surprisingly aggressive in its Katrina coverage, the public responded positively. In fact, the industry has apparently even gotten a boost in the polls.

Widely hailed for its coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the American news media appears to be regaining the trust of the American people.

According to Gallup’s annual Governance survey, the number of Americans who trust the press has increased significantly since last year, although it’s still slightly lower than what Gallup has charted in recent years. […]

Gallup’s study, conducted Sep. 12-15, finds that 50% of Americans say they have a great deal (13%) or fair amount (37%) of trust and confidence in the mass media, up from 45% at the same time last year. Forty nine percent of respondents say they do not have very much trust (37%) or none at all (12%) in the media, down from 55% last year.

For reasons that defy comprehension, more of the public believes the media is too liberal (46%) as opposed to too conservative (16%), but ideology aside, Katrina coverage seems to have helped the media’s credibility overall.

And to think, a lot of media figures, early on, were poised to give the government a pass on Katrina.

CNN’s Wolf Blitzer interviewed former Louisiana Sen. John Breaux and pressed him about the issue of the levee funding. Blitzer wanted to know specifically who was responsible for not getting the job done: “Who resisted? Was it the Clinton administration?” (Emphasis added.) Blitzer never bothered to ask about the Bush administration’s role in neglecting the levees.

Last week, while the federal relief efforts unraveled, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews cheered, “Last night, we showed you the full force of a superpower government going to the rescue.” His report would have been more impressive (not to mention more accurate) if a superpower government had actually gone to the rescue at the time.

And here’s how the Washington Post, in a Sept. 1 editorial that should live in infamy, described the administration’s disaster relief: “So far, the federal government’s immediate response to the destruction of one of the nation’s most historic cities does seem commensurate with the scale of the disaster.”

It took the industry a couple of days to wake up, but the fact that it did seems to have helped its public standing. Maybe media leaders will realize that people appreciate aggressive reporting and use Katrina as a turning point for harder-hitting reporting? It’s unlikely, but a guy can dream.

The media still has a LONG way to go before most of us find it credible.

As for those who think the media is too liberal, they’re watching Fox News, which unfortuately means they’re too far gone.

  • Regarding the Sept. 1 editorial in the Washington Post, I completely agree with you. In fact, when I read the editorial I became so angry that I wrote a reply to the Post. My first sentence was “Sorry I can’t couch this in more dignified language, but your editorial of September 1 regarding the Great Flood of ’05 was just plain stupid.”

    I then went on to describe why it was stupid. Don’t know if it did any good, but I don’t let that bother me. When they print junk like that they deserve to be called what they are – stupid.

  • The Main stream Media and it’s coverage of Katrina was indeed a step in the right direction in terms of responsible reporting however to give the media a two thumbs up and all is forgiven for it’s slipshod reporting on other major issues that are just as important is nonsense……it will take more then some sensational media coverage of a disaster to instill the trust that the media has all but lost……

  • All that America wants to know is what happened to that white girl in Aruba. Forget the massive deficits, the criminal war in Iraq, the corruption and cronyism of this administration, the price of gas and the humongous profits of the oil companies that put Bush in the White House, we need to know what happen to that party-crazed white bitch.

  • Comments are closed.