Analysis Of Rebecca Solnit's When Media Is The Disaster

For many, it is commonplace to criticize media’s methodology in one way or another. In fact, it may be necessary to keep major news companies honest and partial about the information they provide to millions. This is especially so in a climate where, for example, a police and civilian shooting may incite riots and outrage across large cities. Should incorrect information be published, there may be substantial consequences in response to something false. Rebecca Solnit argues in her piece, When Media Is the Disaster, that the media’s tendency to treat property as more valuable than human life depicts victims of natural disasters as criminals, rather than survivors. It’s first important to consider her audience. Rebecca is an activist writing

In the very beginning of the text, she employs powerful descriptors such as “ruthless,” “selfish,” and “indifferent” (Solnit 237) which set the tone for the entirety of the article. Words such as these, scattered throughout, slowly shape the reader’s opinion in the intended direction. That is, it guides them toward having a negative sentiment toward the actions of media. To further this point from a different angle, she puts the reader in the hypothetical situation that they are the disaster victim. Approaching the ethics of taking food from stores in that position, she questions “If you grab that stuff are you a criminal? . . . Or are you a rescuer?” (Solnit 239). In a life or death setting it seems obvious that ensuring essentials are provided to all, through whatever means, ought to come before the likely insignificant losses incurred by local businesses. Allowing the reader to come to this decision, despite the answer seeming obvious in retrospect, helps solidify their opinion while in the process of coming to the desired conclusion by the

Her writing covers the topic of disaster victims and media portrayal of survival tactics following such events. She provides an excellent argument for her beliefs and is very convincing in her discussions about being more empathetic towards those in desperate situations. She even backs the media’s opinion of calling certain people “looters” in the cases that they are looking only for personal gain, despite it being unlikely in such a situation (Solnit 240). All these are justified and build into a strong writing. However, it is her brash claims such as “We need to banish the word ‘looting’ from the English language” (Solnit 240) that greatly detract from the effectiveness of her work. An overhaul of media portrayal or perhaps reshaping public opinion about disaster response would be reasonable. Suggesting a ban on a word, because it is used incorrectly, opposes guaranteed rights in our nation and could incite a new argument completely on its own. In short, it is a statement that could have been better left out of the