Thursday, September 01, 2005

Lack of Network Katrina Coverage

In his column today ("The elite doesn't understand the South") Matt Towery asks, "So why on Tuesday night was network television airing shows like 'Tommy Lee Goes to College,' instead of providing wall-to-wall live coverage of this historic, catastrophic event?"

Towery goes on to write: . . .

I'll tell you why. It's because the know-it-alls in New York and Washington don't have a clue about the American South. They don't comprehend its political might and economic muscle, and thus the ultimately crippling impact Katrina is going to have on them, too. It's that simple.

This isn't to knock the courageous and resourceful print and broadcast reporters on the scene or the media venues that have devoted practically all their column space or airtime to this cataclysmic event.

I'm aiming higher with my complaint -- at the top-level program directors and network executives who think that earthquakes in California and attacks on New York warrant the full attention of the world, but life-threatening emergencies in the swamps and "backwoods" of the South don't.

Well guess what? They matter now.


At Friday, September 02, 2005 8:25:00 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

I think Towery needs to take a deep breath. The only folks missing out on the 24-hour coverage are the ones who don't have cable. I can't imagine that number represents a large number of people who would watch the wall-to-wall coverage if they had cable.

Otherwise, this situation is going to play out for several days. 9-11 got a few days of 24-hr coverage on the networks but I've never seen an earthquake get that sort of attention.

Nonetheless, it is an amazingly tragic event and it is hard to believe that it is actually taking place right here in this country. It deserves a lot of coverage and on many channels that's all there is. But we don't need it on all channels all the time.

the Heckler

At Friday, September 02, 2005 9:23:00 AM, Blogger Mickey McLean said...

Heck, I think you're missing Towery's point. It's not the lack of network coverage, per se (btw, my post's headline didn't do anything to help his point), it's what he perceives to be the reasons behind the decisions not to offer wall-to-wall coverage. Read his entire column to understand what he's trying to say about attitudes toward the South.

At Friday, September 02, 2005 6:43:00 PM, Anonymous Anonymous said...


I get his point. All I'm saying is that the fact that it is happening in the south is irrelevant to the amount of coverage.

I liken his position to that controversy about the photo in the N&R about the little black girl eating a watermelon. You can read anything you want into anything. I just think he is a little paranoid.

the Heckler


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home