Altering America

To start off, modern technology has made it easier for the media to publicize global tragedies. I have often turned the T.V. to see breaking headlines and graphic images. While the point of this is to inform the public of disasters and perhaps warn others, it is hardly ever the message received by the viewer. Darrin Drda, in his “Fear and Hate 9/11” comic, humorizes the fact that big news companies often present information unfairly and unbalanced. The media constantly portrays natural disasters in a way that reduces the sympathetic feeling and focuses on them as a form of entertainment. This defeats the purpose of sharing the stories of the victims. In an online article titled, “Hurricane Katrina-Rejuvenating the Mainstream Media?” Anup

Shah ponders the role of the media after a hurricane, suggesting, “[it] allow(s) people to make informed decisions”. However, much of the media intrude on people’s personal lives during hard times, hardly ever stating true facts but using the difficult situation to earn views. Most of the time the media is extremely biased and it does not allow the viewers to make their own informed judgement. This was the case in the 2005 Hurricane Katrina natural disaster. The common claim made is that the media coverage is simply to help the victims but often times it focuses on other things. In an issue of the American Journal of Public Health, Michael D. Barnes along with five other authors analyze prominent media resources and their response after the natural disaster struck. Their realizations were that, “the media framed most Hurricane Katrina stories by emphasizing government response and less often addressing individuals’ and communities” ( Barnes, 1). Not only were the victims of Hurricane Katrina broadcasted for the world to see during their devastation, the purpose of the media was not completely to aid them. Instead they used it as a platform to judge the government and their performance after the natural disaster. The information covered in the newspapers evaluated did not concentrate on key public health roles and the aid for those affected. Therefore, a majority of the reason why the constant reporters and camera’s pestered afflicted people was not even to help them.
In addition, the interviewers often times lack compassion and focus on getting all the futile details of their ‘big story’. Many times victims are shown tearing up and instead of offering a comforting hug, the interviewer insists on questions and pushes up a microphone. The victims are immediately interviewed by reporters, journalists, and crews instants after experiencing something unimaginable. A journalist herself, Alice O’Keeffe, describes her experience when she found herself being on the other side of her job after surviving a scary bombing. Her situation was similar to those of natural disaster victims because she was alarmed and confused when she was bombarded with interviewers as she evacuated the dangerous scene. After she was questioned by a reporter she recalls, “I can’t answer any questions. I can barely talk. Leave me alone” (O’Keeffe par.1). After surviving a tragic event what O’Keeffe wanted was space as well as time to recover from the shock. O’Keeffe also found the horrifying descriptions and pictures on the next morning newspaper completely unnecessary. She questioned, “What if one of those 20 bodies was your daughter’s, your husband’s or your friend’s?” (O’Keeffe par.3). The people affected deserve greater respect and should not have to see pictures of themselves or relatives plastered on newspapers and T.V. O’Keeffe herself can relate for the journalist side but agrees that in times of crisis the media should consider and prioritize the feelings and emotions of the victims. Reporters should have more compassion and put themselves in the place of those being interviewed. Rather than helping the affected people, the media has found a way to exploit their lives to the world.
Moreover, the victims of the natural disasters feel intruded and invaded when their problems are displayed for the whole world to see. Several families were affected by hurricanes in Florida, this past fall. Footage of the disaster and people affected was displayed all over the media for everyone to see. After someone goes through an extremely intense tragedy many are confused on how to react. The people affected should be given time and space to cope with their realities. Even though it is important for people to be aware of the catastrophes occurring in the world, privacy should be a priority out of respect for those who were primarily affected. They should not have to be bothered by persistent interviewers and camera crews constantly reminding them of a subject they are sensitive to. Writer Robert Lissit, in his magazine article, “The Privacy Piercers”, interprets the media’s response to a disaster when he says, “they stalked and hounded residents for weeks in a relentless hunt for ‘reaction.’ This is another example of how the media affects victims for several weeks, often, returning long after the disaster has occurred, forcing them to be in an uncomfortable position for much longer than necessary. The victims have already suffered from losing loved ones, homes, and peace, now they are robbed of their privacy as well. It is far too inconsiderate and painful for them. In many ways, the media takes away these people’s privacy and prevents them from healing after going through something difficult.
Furthermore, I believe that the constant reminder of the natural disasters happening everyday normalizes these terrible events.

The more people hear of these disasters, the easier it is to accept them. Shocking ‘breaking news’ headlines have now become common and ordinary. In fact, different news broadcasters seem to compete between each other trying to announce the most surprising stories every day. The viewer’s slowly become apathetic to stories of other people’s sufferings and calamities. Many may say that there are good sides to the media’s involvement. Author Ruxandra Floroiu, in her book, Altering America: Effective Risk Communication, discusses communications regarding risk associated with hazards and disasters, she boasts,” [it’s] making it possible to track potential disaster agents, alert authorities, and educate.” Although the media and technology help these issues, the media often exceeds these boundaries and interferes with the lives of innocent victims. Writer Anant Bhan, further explains my stance in a letter he wrote to the editor of a previous article. He reminds “media plays an important role in providing information at the time of crises,” however one should not forget the people who “might be vulnerable as they have gone through a traumatic experience, might be in acute pain and distress and also in grief because of loss” (Bhan, par.2). Here he portrays that there are other ways of alerting the public without having to utilize suffering victims. Those people often times are not given a choice and are presumptuously interrogated. In his letter he includes how the media handled the Asian tsunami in 2004. He highlights that the care and aid for the injured are the most important things in the aftermath of a natural disaster. Those victims and family members that are willing to communicate with the media and have full consent should be the only ones being interviewed. Presumptuous interviewers have in several occasions surpassed the

boundaries and filmed, photographed, and interviewed inside hospitals or medical care rooms. Having several unnecessary people in health care facilities makes it difficult for doctors and staff to concentrate. After a major natural disaster there are numerous people in need of medical assistance. They are not in the condition to be crowded amongst several interviewers and reporters. A number of times even friends and families are denied access to their loved ones in critical conditions. The media should comply with the same rules and standards in all cases after a natural disaster. The importance of the public being notified should not come at the cost of another person’s discomfort. It is possible for the media to bring awareness without having to meddle in the lives of those affected.
Overall, the media surpasses the privacy of victims in natural disasters and devastation. The modern technology has made it easier for them to display the news and footage in a variety of different platforms. Their intrusion negatively impacts the victims and their families that have already gone through a lot. It is extremely intrusive and impolite to put these people in such an uncomfortable position for others to see. The victims themselves have not yet recovered and have not completely processed the events. It is important for the media to recognize and respect the condition and situation of the people. They cannot look at the disaster and misfortune of another as an opportunity to gain and profit something for themselves. In conclusion, the media torments the people hit by devastation and natural disasters when it broadcasts their lives for everyone to view.