Point taken.

I understand that when such natural disasters occur, as in the case of Katrina, the media are usually first on the scene, and that they head for those locations where they are able to achieve maximum exposure. This can seem tough on the outlying districts that may have taken the brunt of the storm, but The fact of the matter is the majority of viewers expect to see those areas where the most hardship and loss of life has occurred, and that is what the media gives them. I'm sure you would agree that the number of casualties and deaths that occurred would have been within the city of New Orleans, not the coastal parishes that you mention, so I believe that my observation is just.

Another aspect of media coverage is the need to convey to the viewing public the wholesale devastation that can occur in these situations in order to stimulate a response from the authorities that might otherwise fail to materialise. The destruction that Katrina wrought on the Gulf coast was widespread, and it would have been physically and logistically impossible for news companies to get crews on the scene at every concievable location where damage was expected. I believe that the media's coverage of the storm was fair and balanced considering the circumstances. Yes, the residents of the communities that you mention have every right to be upset with their lot but, in the wider context I also believe that, on reflection, they will come to understand the media's justification for their actions.