Earlier this month, Tennessee hosted an epic flood and nobody came. Oh, sure the Associated Press was there, but they attend everything. And later, when things were winding down, Anderson Cooper dropped in for a shot or two, but that was pretty much it. Mostly, it was just the local crews hanging out, doing what they do, but with a lot more water added. The Nashville flood was a dud.

Glib comparisons aside, the national media's lack of attention was a serious snub—not only in terms of marginalizing a significant disaster, but also in the blow it dealt to relief efforts. While disaster news coverage is often characterized as opportunistic, provocative, and careless, the Tennessee situation begs the question: is it preferable to no coverage at all?

Ironically, some of the same news outlets—including the Washington Post and Newsweek—that paid lip service to the flooding have expended quite a few inches pondering why they didn’t talk more about it. Their take on a missing story about three months of rain in less than two days killing 30 people? Probably what you’d expect.

According to most pundits, there are two reasons Nashville was a no-go for reporters—first, the flooding was poorly timed, conflicting with a Times Square bombing attempt and a burgeoning oil spill looming over four states. Also, it just wasn’t that compelling of a story.

“The ‘narrative’ simply wasn't as strong,” Andrew Romano writes in the Newsweek piece. “The problem for Nashville was that both the Gulf oil spill and the Times Square terror attempt are like the Russian novels of this 24/7 media culture, with all the plot twists and larger themes (energy, environment, terrorism, etc.) required to fuel the blogs and cable shows for weeks on end.”

Locals, in a sort of sour—or perhaps, sweet—grapes idealism, have interpreted that to mean their behavior was essentially too good for the news.

“It was not a PR nightmare,” writes Jan Morrison on the marketing blog Lovell Links. “It was handled with relative calm, an organized response and a lack of sensationalism.”

Nashville native Patten Fuqua devoted a post on his Section 303 hockey site to expressing a similar sentiment.

“A large part of the reason that we are being ignored is because of who we are,” Fuqua wrote. “Think about that for just a second. Did you hear about looting? Did you hear about crime sprees? No…you didn’t. You heard about people pulling their neighbors off of rooftops.”

Not all locals have been so equanimous. An oft-quoted rant by Betsy Phillips on the Nashville Scene website shows the outrage area viewers felt watching inane events parade across the screen without ever seeing “footage of the flood, news of our people dying.” An eloquent, but no less incredulous, column by Nashville news anchor Bob Sellers on the Huffington Post calls national news outlets to task not only for delayed response, but also for shoddy workmanship.

“I'm not surprised the national media came upon the story of the Nashville flood late in the game,” he writes. “There was a bomb scare on May 1st, the first day of the rains. Bombs in Times Square and oil leaks in the Gulf are significant stories. But even when they did discover the Flood of 2010, the minute-thirty pieces on network news showing inundated tourist destinations kind of missed the expanse of the event and the depth of its pain to the victims of a once in a lifetime flood.”

Regardless of the emotion invoked by the cold media shoulder, one might wonder, why do they care so much? According to many disaster experts, the media do little more than muck up an emergency: spreading myths and misinformation, getting in the way instead of helping, and capitalizing on sorrow. Maybe the folks down in Tennessee should count their blessings.

The problem is, without widespread media coverage, blessings might be all they have to count. Nothing whips up a donation frenzy like a solicitous news story and no national coverage equals no national sympathy. It’s a lesson organizations such as the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies have reconciled themselves to for some time.

“Many aid agencies regard media coverage of the world’s crises as selective and stereotyped,” the IFRC stated in its World Disaster Report 2005. “But they still crave publicity, hoping it will generate more funding and attention for disaster relief.”

With the latest estimates of property damage in the $2 billion range, belated media might be better than no media at all. As Romano states, it matters.

“Media silence means public ignorance, and public ignorance means fewer charitable donations, slower aid, and less political pressure,” he writes. “If that's not reason enough to cover the flood—to do our jobs—I don't know what is.”