The document analyzes media coverage before, during, and after Hurricane Katrina, evaluating sources and perspectives. It finds that coverage before the storm by the New York Times and USA Today provided balanced reporting and context from experts, while warning of risks. During the storm, the Times-Picayune offered detailed photos with captions, but the Washington Post focused more on trivial stories. Afterward, USA Today and BBC offered economic impact analyses and environmental context through maps and expert sources. The Washington Post provided balanced reporting on response efforts through quotes from local and federal officials.