Glenn Reynolds can’t find any good reasons for the greater media coverage of Hurricane Katrina than of Hurricane Ike:

Why do hurricanes that hit Texas get so much less attention than hurricanes that hit New Orleans?

UPDATE: Another reader emails: ‘If you want to discuss lack of coverage, wasn’t the hurricane that hit New Orleans the same hurricane that nearly wiped the Mississippi gulf coast off the map?” Yes. Why did New Orleans get so much more attention? Is it because the media wanted to paint the Bush Administration as racially insensitive, or is New Orleans just the only place they could find on a map?

I haven’t checked, but I’m almost positive that there are lots of black people in Mississippi, and in Texas as well. Perhaps, the reason is that Katrina’s death toll of over 1800 made it among the top ten natural disasters in American history, with most of the deaths occurring in Louisiana. It is also possible that the sight of the city of New Orleans under water was a compelling media image.

But then there is the possibility that Reynolds is simply wrong. I’ve seen coverage of Hurricane Ike on the news almost daily and The New York Times has had extensive coverage. So where is the media blackout on Texas hurricanes?

(via TS)