Sticking to what we know

Because of my getting caught up in news about Hurricane Katrina, the past few days have been a difficult period period for me to write.
I surveyed my "regulars," the bloggers I read, to see what was on their minds. To a person, they had stuck to what they knew. Or they had not posted for several days. So my advice to myself is good.
What do I know? Yesterday, for instance, my academic thinking kicked in as I thought about what to make of what went on during the hurricane. Thus came the Maslow piece about the difficulty of meeting basic human needs, and how overwhelming it can be for both victims and their care givers.
I was also fascinated by the TV coverage itself. It was apparent that journalism is a dangerous business. As I watched a number of TV journalists try to cover Hurricane Katrina along the Gulf Coast, I realized that they all wanted to get the story, to be there. And they were there at distinct personal risk. I hope that no one was injured in that effort, though I heard that one reporter was operating with a broken foot. It seems he was trying to assist at a rescue boat effort.
Being in harm's way seems to be the only way to get some of the real stories to us. Here is a very interesting news site connected to the Beaumont, Texas, TV station, giving the perspective of a close geographic neighbor to the west of the hurricane.
A record number of brave journalists have lost their lives covering the Iraq war. Fayrouz posted not long ago about just one of those terrible losses, Steven Vincent.
Good journalists stick to what they know. They do not make up stories out of whole cloth, a practice that has gotten several reporters into hot water in recent years.
And to know what is true, what has happened in dangerous places, reporters go there for us, to be our eyes and ears. We are not in danger; they are. To be sure they get something out of it also, but we are the most fortunate beneficiaries. To all of them, my thanks.