On 26 Sep 2005 05:11:07 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
> wrote:

>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 07:25:39p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> On 26 Sep 2005 03:08:04 +0200, Wayne Boatwright
>> > wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun 25 Sep 2005 05:41:09p, modom wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, 25 Sep 2005 14:23:56 -0700, Denny Wheeler
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>

>>>> It is my contention that any claim to validity to be conjured with
>>>> regard to that screed presumes a white norm, arrogates for itself a
>>>> racist pseudo objectivity that only contributes more to the social
>>>> structures that lead to this debacle, this national shame. Our nation
>>>> must not treat its citizens this way.
>>>>>
>>>>>Remember though that for the media, it's almost always about eyeballs
>>>>>in front of sets, and trying to get the most of those they can. Yes,
>>>>>there are occasional exceptions to that rule (just as there's
>>>>>occasionally a politician whose #1 priority is something other than
>>>>>re-election), but they ARE exceptions.
>>>
>>>What a lot of pseudo-elevated drivel.
>
>I meant that comment for your paragraph above.

So this is a vocabulary critique. Noted. But there was serious
content that you never addressed. Drivelness (drivelhood?) not
withstanding, I did say something.
>
>>>You're as much off-base and out of line as the OP.
>>
>> I ask that you support that statement with reasons.
>
>Most of the telecasts that I saw did seem to emphasize the plight of the
>black population. I considered it a gross omission, but not a bias. IME,
>throughout most of the South there are far more poor and/or jobless blacks
>than whites. Obviously, most of those left behind of either race probably
>had little opportunity to leave in advance, primarily for economic reasons.
>I don't think it odd that, faced with the devastation of Katrina, people
>begged to be helped and expected that help, and felt betrayed when they
>were not helped. I can't even begin to imagine what spin the effect of
>Katrina had on the minds of the victims. Much of the news media reports
>what sells. After all, it is still a commercial endeavor.
>
Much of what you say is surely true. And Denny made a much similar
point about commercial influences on coverage. Frankly that doesn't
really explain the alleged mistakes of the hurricane coverage to my
way of thinking. Why would skewing things towards a black perspective
sell more Claritin and Fords? Do you see what I mean?

The crushed boats and casinos, the smashed houses and churches in
Biloxi have clear news value and should be reported of course. And
they were. We all know about them. But thousands of hungry, thirsty,
desparate people --some of them dying -- stuck in a hellhole for days
with poisoned water filling the streets outside and armed predators
inside has more news value. It's a bigger story regardless of the
race of the people. Therefore it gets bigger coverage. The
contention that the media (which is anyway a huge, complicated group
of often quarrelsome individuals, not a monolithic unified front)
over-emphesized the suffering of black folks is a judgment some have
made. And I strongly disagree with that judgment. It presumes too
much. Too much knowledge of events, too much knowledge of the
processes of news gathering and reporting. And it presumes that a
white perspective is objective. That is one of the roots of racism.

It appears that many white Americans simply aren't used to seeing so
many poor black people on TV. And their reaction has been a
collective "This can't be."

It be.

>I'm very glad to know that you and your family is safe.

They were never in danger. It was a glancing blow from what had
degenerated to a tropical storm by the time it reached the latitude of
Cow Hill.


modom