Covering Haiti: When the Media is the Disaster (Word, program, damage)

[Funny_74]

Covering Haiti: When the Media is the Disaster

[harry chickpea]

Very interesting article with more than a grain of truth to it. In disaster situations there are competing interests. One is to survive and make use of any and all resources, the other is to maintain or establish order.

"Looting" of a store that has been completely destroyed saves the goods from simply rotting or being destroyed by the weather. Looting of a damaged but more or less intact store is still theft of property and an anarchistic act. People live in societies where many are dirt poor, yet stores are not looted. On a basic level they know that if those stores were looted, their world would collapse.

Part of the problem for the media is that it has pre-programmed cliches that are pulled out for every disaster. How many times have you heard that during preparations for a storm "food and water are flying off the shelves!?" I didn't know they had that capability, and I fully expect to see flocks of water bottles in the sky the next storm, along with other flocks of bread and milk.

The media is USED to covering squishy disasters like Katrina or Andrew, where many sensible people can and do escape the area of greatest destruction, leaving a few desperate people and the dregs of society that see the damage as an opportunity to steal with impunity. As for shooting looters, the author neglects to mention that looters are often armed as well, sometimes with stolen firearms.

In situations like Andrew and Katrina, getting anarchy under control was a first order of business. People who have water can usually survive a few days without food (especially within the U.S., where the diet might even be helpful). Preventing a loss of life because of roving bands of looters and thugs is a real concern.

In contrast, during the first days of the Haiti disaster, food, water, and shelter were vital, because many of these people could NOT go to Baton Rouge or relatives outside the area. The media using the one size fits all cliches was an injustice. However, when crowds press, kill, and trample to grab at food supplies being distributed, that is not "survival", that is not "logic," as the author attempts to assert. That is a mob mentality, and if allowed to continue it will do nothing more than encourage the bold to become predators of anyone lucky enough to get food from the distribution point.

Disasters mean people are hurt and there is suffering. Where the media focuses attention on getting help, there is a beneficial effect. Where it screws up and plays to its own cliches, it is a detriment. To that extent, the article has validity.

[Tek_Freek]

1. All media should be banned from areas like New Orleans and Haiti. They don't add anything to the required aid and take up resources that are needed by those who are suffering, unlike said reporters.

2. Reporters who use overly large words when writing articles that are, supposedly, for the masses need to reassess their writing style. It does nothing more than make them look like egotistical fools and detracts from the story. I would also question the number of people who actually finish such a long-winded article full of those words they don't know the meaning of. Instead write a nice, concise, easily understandable article everyone will read and finish.

Considering how long the writer says they have been reporting you would think they'd learned these simple ideas years ago. Apparently the reporters need to be superfluous hasn't diminished with experience.