Taking a look at the discussion about whether we really need to have reporters out in the middle of hurricanes. I answer the arguments against in another show.
I believe we do need those reporters, doing, mostly, what they are doing.
The first live television report from a hurricane was only in 1961. Dan Rather led the news team at KHOU in Houston in live coverage of Hurricane Carla as it came ashore in Galveston. Their coverage was groundbreaking and set the stage for what we see today.
In the end, this is a major news story. There is no way to pretend that it’s anything else. Some six million people are without power, billions of dollars of damage are expected and tens of thousands of internal refugees have been moved out of their homes. Some of them may be out for a very long time. That’s a major news story. And you don’t cover that kind of story from a distance.
Having a reporter on the scene of major stories is one way that we can make sure that we are getting the best information possible. Otherwise, we have to rely on the official versions of stories. Our national experience in Viet Nam shows the importance of having someone on the scene to independently verify what is actually going on. Reporters have gone into harm’s way to report stories for two hundred years. The Times of London had reporters in the field during both the Napoleonic and Crimean wars in the 1800s. Nelly Bly exposed the hideous conditions in the insane asylums of her day but having herself admitted as a patient while undercover. Some stories require a journalist to take a risk.
Hurricanes are unpredictable, and to a very large degree, imperfectly understood phenomenon. You can’t rely on fixed cameras to be pointed in the right direction at the right moment. Plus, there is compelling storytelling in having a human context for enormous events. What does a satellite photo of a giant storm really tell you about conditions on the ground? A reporter, bracing themselves against the blast, gives a visceral vision of what the storm looks like.
I can’t say I’m entirely comfortable with the 24-hour news cycle approach to the storms we got. Too often reporters will feel the need to have something new to talk about or show. Otherwise, it’s just “Well, it’s still raining here”. Better that we ratchet down the intensity of the coverage.
In the end, I will argue that we are better served by journalists who are prepared to take the risk to get the story.
Leave a comment