Erin O’Hagan
9/30/15
Word Count: 779
Respectable, truthful news is what citizens need, deserve and expect; yet
delivering verifiable stories in the midst of a crisis on a deadline is hard for a reporter to
do. The verification process takes time, and is extremely difficult. Brian Thevenot, who
wrote “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000” did indeed use some direct evidence to
support his claim. However, the article relies mostly on unnamed sources or indirect
evidence to make assertions of Hurricane Katrina’s death toll, which in turn makes this
article only slightly credible.
“Those engaged in journalism must be committed to truth as a first principle and
must be loyal to citizens above all.”1 Brian Thevenot gives his audience a glimpse of the
truth in his article. He has seen some of the dead first hand, and he begins the article with
those details. “Then he shined the light on the smaller human figure under the white sheet
next to the elderly man.” 2 Thevenot has included his own eyewitness account of
numerous dead bodies found at a convention center. Thevenot has also used citizen
eyewitness accounts as he includes accounts from Arkansas National Guardsmen Mikel
Brooks and other guardsmen, “Brooks and several other Guardsmen said they had seen
between 30 and 40 more bodies in the Convention Center’s freezer.” 3 These eyewitness
Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, The Elements of Journalism, Three Rivers Press,
136
2 Brian Thevenot, “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000,” The Times-Picayune,
September 6, 2005, 8
3 Brian Thevenot, “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000,” The Times-Picayune,
September 6, 2005, 8
1
accounts are the only pieces of direct evidence found in the article, and while they imply
that the death toll of Hurricane Katrina could potentially reach thousands, there is no
empirical evidence pointing to that conclusion.
By placing the direct evidence at the top of his article, Thevenot gives the reader
the idea that his is reporting the truth. However with a closer examination of the article,
he does not provide verified information as some is gathered from unnamed sources
while other pieces of information comes from a second hand source. Thevenot writes
about corpses floating throughout a city, but he received this information from “dozens of
rescue workers.” 4 Kovach and Rosenstiel acknowledge the need for named sources,
“clear and detailed identification of sources is the most effective form of transparency
news publishers have at their disposal.”5 Because no organization or person in particular
is named and the reporter does not given as to why they are not, there is no way of
knowing whether or not the rescuers are credible so there is no way to tell if the story is
true. Towards the end of the article, Thevenot included a second hand story from two
survivors who head of a 5-year-old girl had been gang raped. Thevenot even addressed
the fact that this story could not be confirmed. While it may turn out that the story is true,
without any direct evidence it remains highly suspicious information.
Throughout the article there are numerous informed and authoritative sources
named; Daniel Martinez (a spokesperson from FEMA,) Mayor Ray Nagin, and Deputy
Chief Warren Riley, etc. Yet, the quotes included within the article are extremely vague
and do not help validate the assertion that the death toll had risen to ten thousand. For
Brian Thevenot, “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000,” The Times-Picayune,
September 6, 2005, 8
5 Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel, The Elements of Journalism, Three Rivers Press,
115
4
example, the direct quote from Deputy Chief Warren read, “We don’t have a body count,
but I can tell you it’s growing. It’s growing.”6 There is no direct evidence to back up this
indirect evidence. While it may have been unavailable to him, Thevenot could have tried
to inclue police reports or documents confirming any numbers. Another direct quote
taken from New Orleans Police Captain Timothy Bayard stated, “We’re going see a lot
more bodies out of New Orleans East than we anticipated.”7 Yet again, another vague
quote about the number of bodies that may be found.
Journalistic truth changes. While it is plausible that some of the information in the
article may eventually become the ultimate truth, it was not the truth at the point in time
in which the article was published which means “Katrina’s body count could reach
10,000” cannot be considered entirely credible.
The reporter misleads citizens into
believing what he was writing was the absolute truth, but without numerous pieces of
direct evidence there is too much to be skeptical of.
Brian Thevenot, “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000,” The Times-Picayune,
September 6, 2005, 8
7 Brian Thevenot, “Katrina’s body count could reach 10,000,” The Times-Picayune,
September 6, 2005, 8
6