California has been dry for too long. No, we’re not talking about prohibition, but drought. As the State Department of Water Resources website puts it, “2007 was a dry year statewide, and especially in Central and Southern California. Much of Southern California had one of the driest precipitation years of record, surpassing the prior records set in 2001-02…runoff from Sierra Nevada watersheds was below normal. The Colorado River Basin, an important source of water supply for Southern California, continued in drought conditions, having experienced below average runoff in seven of the last eight years.” Mainstream media, ever eager to scare average Americans into thinking the end is near, had a field day as dry conditions persisted.
One after another, reporters filed hair-raising stories predicting the cessation of life as we know it. Water supplied to California farmers might be cut by one-third in 2008, NPR solemnly announced as 2007 was waning. New home construction, long a pillar of California’s economy, must be drastically curtailed. Aquifers were disappearing beneath our feet from Las Vegas to Barstow. Water rationing was a matter of when, not if. Having reclaimed too much desert in our greedy lust for affordable housing, Southern Californians were on the cusp of reaping an arid, unpleasant lifestyle.
Global warming was blamed for all of this and more as parched landscapes offered irrefutable proof of mankind’s collective and irresponsibly huge carbon footprint. Last year’s devastating wildfires, torching hundreds of homes from Ventura County to the Mexican border, were reported in the context of hothouse hysteria. “This is exactly what we’ve been projecting to happen,” intoned Professor Ronald Neilson, also a bio-climatologist with the USDA Forest Service. “In the future, catastrophic fires such as those going on now in California may simply be a normal part of the landscape.” Yikes, last one out of Southern California please turn out the lights.
Lo and behold, beginning in late-December 2007, a series of storms brought blessed relief to withered areas of the Golden State, precipitation surpassing normal-to-date levels. Better still, enormous snowfall in the all-important Sierra Nevada – California’s water bank — is certainly great news for farmers and city dwellers alike. The media response has been overwhelming, praising heaven and nature for this unexpected answer to prayer. News outlets up and down the state have repeatedly featured thankful residents, farmers, politicians, scientists and skiers rejoicing in the good news of bountiful water.
Sorry, for a moment I drifted off to the land of The-Way-Things-Ought-To-Be. Amazingly, storm reporting has been uniformly negative, characterizing the drought-relieving weather as an attack on the state and its residents. Weather stories focused on deaths, stranded hikers, missing snowmobilers and skiers, power outages, road blockages, possible mudslides, possible dense fog, flood-threatened real estate, breached levees, freezing temperatures, and brief histories of storm-related deaths dating back 20 years. Descriptive words referring to the storms included “deluged, hammered, severe, wallops, intense,” more suitable for Germany’s push into Russia in 1941 than the arrival of welcome wet stuff.
There was even an article, I kid you not, bemoaning the dampened spirit at the Palm Springs International Film Festival. “The rain kept the crowd of celebrity-watchers much smaller than last year. Instead of people packed six-deep against the barricades, the crowd was only two-deep in some places.” The only thing missing was the obligatory assignment of blame; it’s George Bush’s fault! Rounding out the hilarity of the one-sided reporting was this gem from National Weather Service forecaster Steve Goldstein, “No place in the state is safe from getting…showers.” Such an approach after months of praying and dancing for rain raises some questions, like, what’s up with reporters these days? In the dozens of storm stories submitted, why was not one devoted to California’s drought relief?
Reporting only bad news, all the time, pervades today’s media. Maybe industry decision-makers believe bad news sells. Perhaps, as some Republicans claim, no good news will be reported until President Bush leaves office, and then only if a Democrat takes his place. Psychiatrists specializing in depression should put the entire coterie on the couch.
Whatever the reason, negative reporting skews average American’s perception of more than just the weather. For instance, dispatches chronicling the housing market’s rise and fall over the last several years studiously avoided positive aspects during the bull and bear years. As the market ascended from 2001 to mid-2005, hundreds of thousands of home owners realized fantastic equity gains, resulting in home improvement, second-home purchases, or increased retirement savings. Moreover, sub-prime loans, now so vehemently derided, allowed thousands of Americans with marginal credit ratings to become homeowners and participate in the housing market upswing. Some of the sub-prime borrowers are American success stories, a serendipity not explored by today’s media.
By and large ignoring the providence experienced by multiplied thousands during the housing market bull years, reporters instead focused on the increasingly difficult position of first-time home buyers. “Young people cannot afford today’s inflated prices” was the media mantra, and no amount of collateral good news brightened the uniformly grim declarations.
Now 18 months into a down housing market, nary a word is heard about the rich opportunities beckoning, especially, first-time homebuyers. Deals abound, and more than a few young people are happily joining the ranks of property owners, a delightful occurrence you will not read about in your local paper. Rather, the media is currently obsessed with foreclosures, declining home values, and the like, major issues to be sure. But, the good news of more affordable housing consistently slips below reporter’s radar.
The Iraq War, college tuition, health-care, illegal immigration, the death penalty, gun control — need I mention our President — receive similar negative media treatment, forcing many Americans to seek information elsewhere. Print and electronic news outlets are losing customers not only because of the convenience and cost savings of the Internet, but primarily because diverse points of view, bad and good news, pro and con are readily available on every topic imaginable. It is precisely in such a maelstrom of information that valid knowledge is obtained. Though messy and at times confusing, the variety of on-line points of view allows readers to reach their own conclusions, a vast improvement over more traditional news experiences.
All bad news all the time diminishes publisher and consumer alike. Attention Columbia School of Journalism — take a note.
Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Media