The devastating wrath of Hurricane Katrina has called into question many of our values, among them the role of the media in post-natural disaster environments.
At such critical moments, where lives are quite literally on the line, we turn to the media for coverage of events that may be otherwise beyond our understanding.
However, too often in times of disaster, media coverage extinguishes our ability to help those in need by making us feel insignificant, shifting focus from actual solutions to images, agendas and figures.
We use the media’s coverage of events as a launching pad for partisan bickering and official finger pointing, rather than proactively uniting in times of need.
Thanks to advancements in communication technology, people are now able to find mass media coverage of major natural disasters at almost every moment of the day.
Continuous reporting too often glues many of us to the television in anticipation of the next graphic image and heart-wrenching tale of woe.
The result is we succumb to feelings of numbness and helplessness, preventing us from taking action to stop the crisis and destroying our ability to cope with our natural fears and frustrations.
Increasingly gruesome reports desensitize us to the impact behind each statistic.
It is easier to talk of the dead in numeric terms than understand the devastating loss suffered by each loved one. As death tolls rise we lose sight of individuals and their stories, and it is easy to excuse their loss.
And then comes the problem all media outlets must face-the old “if it bleeds, it leads” mantra.
At what point is the media presenting only the most graphic and appalling images in order to boost their ratings and circulation?
Furthermore, media organizations are more inclined to place blame based on their bias or experience.
Pointing the finger of guilt may make them appear to be on the cutting edge of a story, and it focuses the intense anguish of the audience onto a targeted source-one who likely had very little control over the disaster in the first place.
As if a hurricane could have a political agenda, officials discount news coverage by calling journalists “too liberal” or “too conservative”-and because of that partisan name-calling, the journalists themselves have to up the ante.
Media coverage also shifts the focus of leaders, as they must devote time to preparing an acceptable statement for a press conference rather than concentrating on getting their job done.
While the president sits in meetings to create sound bites that make him appear “in control,” he is not using that time to directly solve the pain real people are experiencing.
Finally, as in the case of Katrina, audiences dislike how some reporters choose to remain distant and aloof from the victims of the crises they report. Rather than actually participating in rescue efforts while on site, reporters choose to film and then fly home. Worse, they can choose to stay away completely, reporting without any first-hand knowledge of the tragedy whatsoever.
If journalists really wanted to help in the wake of a tragedy, they should search for more proactive solutions as opposed to placing blame and sensationalizing the facts-especially as the natural disasters they report on continue to claim lives.