Media ignores Nashville flood - why?

Nice write up from Mommy Life.com

I am so proud of TN....we are picking ourselves up and getting back on our feet with little to no help from Washington....we are not called the Volunteer state for nothing. We are helping one another. No one is demanding that they receive this or that or blaming anyone for what happened. And yes we are being ignored by the media and the powers that be.

If I lived in Tennessee I'd be feeling pretty abandoned by my country be now. To think of all the clamor the followed Katrina, the Bush-bashing and howling of victims. How dignified the people of Tennessee seem, how heartless our Glorious Leader who has not even mentioned the 500 year flood that is turning out to be one of the most expensive natural disasters in our history.
The Big 0 hasn't even mentioned it. I guess there's no political advantage to be had. But I've been to Nashville. There are black people there too.
Meanwhile, the media are grinding out story after story trying desperately to humanize our latest terrorist. Something tells me they wouldn't be doing this for the middle-aged white man they - the media - first decided was the culprit, suggesting he was probably a Tea Party member angry about the passage of health care.
Yeah, because that would be so like the Tea Party, wouldn't it? Not like the cavalcade of car bombs now commonplace in the Mideast.
Anyway, here is a surprising perspective from Newsweek - Why the Media Ignored the Nashville Flood:

As you may have heard, torrential downpours in the southeast flooded the Tennessee capital of Nashville over the weekend, lifting the Cumberland River 13 feet above flood stage, causing an estimated $1 billion in damage, and killing more than 30 people. It could wind up being one of the most expensive natural disasters in U.S. history. Or, on second thought, maybe you didn't hear. . .

Andrew Roman has some interesting analysis and you can read the entire article at Newsweek, or cut to the chase for his conclusion:

If I sound like I'm condoning the media's inattention here, I'm not. My explanation is meant as a criticism. Given audience demands--especially at a time when traditional media companies aren't doing so well--it's impossible to avoid the stories with the most buzz and the strongest narratives. Nor should we. But urgency should be at least as important. In this case, the most urgent aspects of the oil spill and the Times Square attack had already been covered to death; the culprit was already caught, the containment was already underway. And yet we still kept rehashing each of those stories--and fighting about politics--while thousands of homes and business were destroyed and dozens of people died. That matters. Media silence means public ignorance, and public ignorance means fewer charitable donations, slower aid, and less political pressure. If that's not reason enough to cover the flood--to do our jobs--I don't know what is.

Love,