Why The New York Times reporting on recovered diamonds, ROLEX watches in Maui is actually THAT bad

In this age of anti-credentialism, I feel it’s still important to state why you’re being critical of a thing and what makes you an authority on an issue before people should believe that your “hot take” has real value.

So before I delve into The New York Times’ recent coverage of the disaster unfolding in Hawaii, know that I speak from the following experiences:

I have survived and endured several major “natural” disasters, including Hurricane Katrina and the tornado that took my parents’ home, to name a few, though there are others. I’ve dug through the rubble of what disasters leave behind more than once.

I graduated cum laude from the top journalism school in the nation, and received a master’s degree with a minor in mass communication, focusing on crisis, health and science communication. I utilized that education and experience to be a prominent and effective science communicator for more than a decade.

I’ve worked professionally in disaster response for years. I’ve worked in newsrooms. I’ve covered disasters for the media.

Now that we’ve gotten that out of the way…

I am both unsurprised and outraged by recent coverage by The New York Times of the situation in Hawaii, where fires have devastated large swaths of two islands in the Pacific.

One series in particular struck me for both its offensiveness and complete lack of awareness for the sensitivity and delicacy with which disasters, survivors, and recovery should be covered.