Hurricane Ida pummeled the eastern half of the United States last week, disrupting lives and making the effects of climate change a reality to millions of Americans. Here is a look at the coverage from various major media outlets.
Leans toward the right:
The headline of this article and the headline of the Vox article are essentially making the exact opposite claims about Hurricane Ida, which I find very interesting. This article was published the day after Vox characterized Ida as “devastating” to the Gulf Coast, while this piece calls the handling of the hurricane “an American success story.” This is definitely the starkest contrast I’ve seen between outlets that are reporting on the same story. It definitely makes me skeptical; how can two takes on the same event be so different? Surely one of the articles must be spinning the facts. Before I move forward with my analysis of this article, I want to note that it was published before Ida wreaked havoc on the Northeast, so the author bases his argument around what happened in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast.
According to the author, the central fact of the story is that Hurricane Ida, which was about equal in strength to Katrina, only killed six people on the Gulf Coast in comparison to Katrina’s number of 1,800 people. Ida’s death toll for the Gulf has since doubled and grown to include the fatalities in the Northeast, but nevertheless is much less than 1,800. The author argues that Louisiana’s Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System, a project funded by Congress and built by the US Army Corps of Engineers, is responsible for the lower death toll. A lack of real infrastructure, the article notes, explains the staggering number of natural disaster deaths in Haiti and other “mismanaged countries,” as it calls them. This ethnocentric language stresses the author’s perceived superiority of the United States and is a point where the bias of this article shows. A few sentences later, the $1 trillion infrastructure bill is referred to as “hostage to the Biden-Pelosi insistence that Congress also pass a $3.5 trillion bill to build a ‘human infrastructure’ system of subsidized nannies, a civilian climate corps and the like.” From here, a multitude of biased claims are made, including that “Democrats cannot be trusted...to construct anything without grossly wasting productive capital” and that “New York, California, and Illinois...are incompetent, inefficient and often corrupt.” This article does market itself as an opinion piece, so these claims are not as deceptive as if they were featured in a story trying to disguise itself as neutral. However, the author’s attempt to distinguish between “real” infrastructure that helps people and “human” infrastructure that he considers to be “wasting productive capital” is murky and not well-developed, to the point where I wonder if any readers, even those who share his ideology, are actually able to agree with him. Ultimately, this is an extremely partisan piece that comes across as tone deaf and ineffective considering how much suffering Hurricane Ida has caused.
Trends toward the center:
This headline is simultaneously emotionally-charged and straight to the point. Normally I would criticize the use of words that tell the reader how to feel, but in this case it makes sense. Hurricane Ida was a phenomenon out of human control that has brought misery to millions across the country. The use of “fury” and “misery” in the headline is factually accurate.
In contrast to the previous article, this one focuses squarely on Ida’s impact on the Northeast.
It utilizes a mix of quotes from relevant figures and statistics that explain the extent of storm damage. The main point of the article is that infrastructure investments will be necessary to protect communities as climate change increases the likelihood of severe weather. It relies on experts like Dr. Irwin Redlener of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University and Linda Shi, an assistant professor in the department of city and regional planning at Cornell University, to educate the reader on disaster preparedness. Meanwhile, it also includes quotes where New York Governor Kathy Hochul and New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy acknowledge the climate change that has affected their states and must be addressed, which adds a political dimension to the story.
Overall, this article uses a base of facts to suggest possible solutions to the issue of climate change. The combination of reporting and commentary from experts is an effective way to cover this disaster while reminding society that we will need to take steps toward preventing further destruction.
Leans toward the left:
Similar to the Wall Street Journal piece, this article focuses on Hurricane Ida’s impact on the Gulf Coast. Unlike the first article, it does not downplay the storm’s impact simply because it killed less people than Katrina. Recent photos of the devastation caused throughout New Orleans and the rest of Louisiana are featured throughout the article, adding an aspect of human interest. Like the WSJ article, the storm protection levee system is mentioned, but these authors put a distinctly positive spin on it by including a quote from Louisiana’s governor stating that the system performed “extremely well.” Climate change is a key focus of the authors, who attribute Ida’s strength to rising sea surface temperatures. Statistics and scientific explanations are cited from NOAA, while Kerry Emmanuel, a professor of atmospheric science at MIT, also lends credibility to the details included by the authors. References to outside reporting are built right into the article, allowing the reader to be taken to the source with one click. This transparent approach allows the reader to evaluate the sources and make their own decisions on accuracy.
Additionally, the article has a social justice spin that differentiates it from the previous sources I analyzed. It mentions that the severity of COVID-19 in the region is compounding the disaster and dedicates a whole section to the disproportionate impact of hurricanes on communities of color. Specifically, members of the United Houma Nation, a non-federally recognized indigenous tribe, share how hurricanes have forced them to migrate away from their traditional lands along the coast. The article ends on an ominous note, warning readers that “there will be more storms, and in a warming world, they’ll get worse.” Ultimately, this reads like a call to action, which fits with the social activism lens of the article. While this Vox story puts high importance on factual accuracy, it is framed in a way that appeals to a liberal audience by focusing on social justice and the scientific basis of climate change rather than, for example, the financial implications of climate change preparedness, which more conservative outlets may highlight.
My balanced take:
Last week, Hurricane Ida unleashed torrents of rain and wind after making landfall in the United States, causing damage from the Gulf Coast all the way up to New York City. While Louisiana’s Hurricane and Storm Damage Risk Reduction System held, preventing the catastrophic flooding of 2005’s Hurricane Katrina, millions in the state lost power and were forced to go without it for days. In New Jersey, a tornado with 150 mph winds destroyed a town, while New York City recorded a record of 3 inches of rainfall in an hour. At least 50 people in Northeastern states have died as a result of flooding or wind damage, roughly three times the number of deaths recorded on the Gulf Coast thus far.
Ida’s scale of destruction has brought the consequences of climate change to the forefront, raising questions about what storm readiness measures will be needed for the future. Democratic New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy emphasized that climate change is a political issue, stating that “we have got to leap forward and get out ahead of this.” New York Governor Kathy Hochul agreed, but noted that climate change “is not a future threat” because it is “happening right now.”
Much as the people of New Orleans learned from Hurricane Katrina and strengthened the levee system, it will be necessary for communities throughout the US to adapt to threatening weather conditions to save lives and secure futures.
Comments
Post a Comment