Talk:Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina/Archive 1
 | This is an archive of past discussions about Media coverage of Hurricane Katrina. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 |
Created
As the only significant section in Hurricane Katrina, this article seems sensible; partly to reduce the strain on the main articles coverage of this topic.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Todo
It needs reworking to have a proper intro. Also, this is the obvious place to merge Hardy Jackson.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:52, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- A man tragically loses his wife and you think the key issue is "media involvement"? Such a merge would be inappropriate and insensitive. I unexpectedly came to the Hardy Jackson article from a link on another site, and googling "Hardy Jackson" +hurricane produces 22,200 hits. I'm sure the Hardy Jackson article has been linked from numerous other sites and blogs, so I wouldn't like to see any merge. This merge in particular seems to be the wrong choice. --Jacknstock 04:20, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Thing is Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his story is tragic it is inappropriate for an article. The only content which is relevant belongs in this article really.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- What the oft-misquoted WP:NOT actually says is that "subjects of encyclopedia articles must have a claim to fame besides being fondly remembered by their friends and relatives." Hardy Jackson does have more of a claim to fame than your Great Aunt Mabel (God rest her soul). For a start, he received wide national and international media attention. He is known far beyond the sphere of his friends and relatives. His story comes out of one of the most significant events of 2005. He's not merely some relative who once knitted you a nice sweater for Christmas. Reportedly, someone gave him a house. How many people are given a house by an anonymous stranger? Sometimes someone sparks compassion in a large group of people, thus becoming a key component of a shared experience which makes them significant to many, despite their otherwise humble lives.
- Thing is Wikipedia is not a memorial. While his story is tragic it is inappropriate for an article. The only content which is relevant belongs in this article really.--Nilfanion (talk) 09:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
- Hardy Jackson's story is also recorded in a best-selling book by author/historian Douglas Brinkley. I have made further comment in Talk:Hardy Jackson. --Jacknstock 04:38, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
- agreed. while his story by itself is no more significant than countless other tragedies occurring every day, what is significant is the response his garnered. many people who have never met him or anyone he knows are (were?) deeply emotionally involved in his story and it got wide media attention. --dan 02:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
- Agreeded again. While the story might seem generic enough, and warrant a merge, the intense coverage of the event, and the emotion felt for him, justifies a separate article. Goldenboy|talk|contribs 18:53, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Modifications
While I admire Geraldo Rivera, Shepard Smith and their efforts to be immersed in the coverage they're involved in, I think this section completely ignores the point that NBC News' Brian Williams was not only in the Superdome when Hurricane Katrina came on shore, but he was the only major news anchor that stayed on the scene for several days. NBC News was the first major news agency to announce that they were opening a bureau in New Orleans to cover the aftermath. It should be noted that it was a major thing for Williams to be in New Orleans for the storm and its aftermath, since he was the only one of the Big Three (NBC, CBS, ABC) to be on scene. The cable news networks involved in coverage isn't unexpected since they provide wall-to-wall coverage on everything, no matter how newsworthy or not (and yes, that's subjective). Plus, Brian Williams won several journalism awards for his coverage of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. Just FYI. I am interested in expanding this article and writing a more in-depth look at the coverage in the wake of Katrina. I actually think there can be something said for the coverage before and during the storm. The build up, the coverage during, and the aftermath is the most extensive. Waddya think? (This was also posted in a modifed version on Hurricane Katrina in regards to the media summary) --Bsheppard 05:55, 3 March 2007 (UTC)