Conservative Advocate: Passing around hurricane blame

One would think that by this time Hurricane Katrina had been analyzed from every conceivable point of view. Certainly the liberals wasted no time co-opting it for every cause in their playbook. The anti-Iraq war crowd complained that so many members of the Louisiana National Guard had been sent to the Middle East that nobody was left to cope with the crisis at home. The global-warming hysterics were sure the storm was caused by the warming of the world’s oceans, thanks to the “greenhouse effect.”

The Big Government enthusiasts insisted that the calls for swifter involvement of federal troops and resources prove the public is at last appreciating the virtues of their favorite remedy for every problem. The tax-raisers were certain that tax cuts were out for the foreseeable future, and higher taxes virtually inevitable. The Bush-bashers declared that the president’s allegedly slow response demonstrated his incompetence (their notion of executive skills presumably peaking at Nancy Pelosi).

The formula for reporting these storms is now thoroughly predictable: Scare the living daylights out of the TV audience as often as possible.

The fun begins with a “tropical disturbance” not far from the Cape Verde Islands in the mid-Atlantic Ocean. It is then tracked, day-by-day for a week or so, as it drifts westward and increases in size. As it nears the coast of Florida or the Gulf Coast states, it is shown on maps as a huge circular mass, always colored blood-red, rotating clockwise. Only the worst-case scenario is discussed at any length. (“If you live between X and Y, prepare to meet your doom!”)

At last the storm makes landfall somewhere, with winds identifying it as “a category 3 hurricane” or whatever. The forecasters are now pictured in their slickers on the beach, screaming into a microphone in the teeth of the gale. Then it blows itself out as it moves inland, and everybody goes back to looking for the next tropical disturbance off Africa.

There is a case to be made that these attacks of hysteria are necessary, if coastal residents are to be warned, in time, of serious danger. The networks probably sincerely believe that such reportage is a genuine public service, and that the phenomenal ratings are just the icing on the cake — their reward, so to speak, for a job well done.

But how can we reasonably expect ordinary human beings to react to such repeated inundations of alarming news? They can’t (or won’t) board up their shop windows and fortify their houses four or five times every year, let alone abandon their homes and flee inland, when they know that the chance of a hurricane landing right on top of them is more like once every 20 years. Such continual fever-pitch reporting results in a “cry wolf” desensitization that may leave some ill-prepared when an actual crisis arises.

There is a real problem here. We want people to know when a hurricane is indeed likely to come ashore in their area, and to take whatever anticipatory action is necessary, up to and including evacuation, when the authorities order it. And the media have an important role to play in spreading the news. But it would be a welcome relief if they would just tone down their preliminary rhetoric. (“The storm is still about four days off the coast, and there’s a 60 percent chance that it will turn before reaching it, so continue to enjoy your summer and we’ll keep you informed.”) Then, when the danger really requires action, there will be a better chance of inducing it.

This will be no simple task, as the media have conditioned the public to believe that the level of hysteria indicates the level of importance. Such a sea change would require an industry-wide reconsideration of how best to serve the public without damaging profits.

But, given the media’s responsibility to inform the public, such a reconsideration is essential.

William Rusher is a Distinguished Fellow of the Claremont Institute for the Study of Statesmanship and Political Philosophy.