STAFF EDITORIAL
Among recently buried headlines: Syrian leaders implicated in the assassination of a former Lebanese leader, U.S. death toll in Iraq nears 2,000, deadly bird flu spreads to Europe, European Union seeks a hand in U.S.-controlled Internet.
Top headlines on mainstream news: Wilma’s wrath, path and aftermath.
The Category 3 hurricane “rocked” Cuba, “pounded” Mexico and finally “hammered” Florida, according to CNN.com Monday evening. Amid flashes of storm footage, ABC7 Eyewitness News reporters touted Wilma’s “trail of damage” as a teaser for their primetime newscast.
For a seeming majority of network and local news outlets, natural disasters are in style. They can be simultaneously sensational, devastating and hopeful. They produce scenes of destruction — streets in shambles, homes split apart and residents sorting through rubble. With such heart-wrenching potential, there would be no reason not to jump on the natural disaster bandwagon.
The hard-sought magic key to engaging more viewers could be around-the-clock coverage of rehashed information, power-outage updates on widespread and remote areas of the country and nonstop commentary from experts who are professionals at prolonging uninformative spiels.
It’s time to re-evaluate the state of media coverage, however, at least through the lens of the natural disaster fad.
News media outlets have been criticized in the past for not being prepared enough to dispatch the necessary resources when nature takes a hit. They’ve also been praised for finally getting it right.
Now, they’ve arguably gone overboard, so much so that they are drowning viewers and consequently themselves in the process.
Take the embarrassing Oct. 14 case of “The Today Show” reporter Michelle Kosinski, whose report about flooding from rains in New Jersey remains an Internet humor-video staple. Paddle in hand, sitting in a canoe, on a suburban street, Kosinski said, “It (the local river) rushed in yesterday through the streets, and it’s really tough to control a canoe or a boat when you’re out in it.”
Enter the scene as she begins her report: Two men walking in front of the camera, with the flood waters barely flowing over their boots. The camera spans out to reveal flooded grounds, but it is too late.
Kosinski was rowing in no more than six inches of water. Man had literally brought down her few seconds of camera glory and attempts to dramatize nature’s power.
“The Today Show” incident may be attributed more so to stupidity and lack of foresight, but it is also a manifestation of media attempts to sometimes make something out of very little.
It’s not to say that natural disasters do not deserve coverage. It is clear that the media, specifically television, can play a huge role in warning and informing the public about pending disaster. It is a responsibility for the media to do so.
A Galveston, Texas, forecaster once dismissed the possibility that a coming storm could inflict mass damage to his island city. Then the deadliest-recorded hurricane hit Galveston in 1900, killing an estimated 8,000 to 12,000 people.
Recent history also serves to remind us about the need to respect the power forces of nature — the Asian tsunami that killed roughly 275,000 people in December and Hurricane Katrina, whose unofficial death toll stands at more than 1,100. Earlier this month, a 7.6-magnitude earthquake heavily damaged Pakistan, parts of Afghanistan and northern India.
These were natural disasters worthy of minute-after-minute, day-after-day coverage. No one can deny the damages caused by Wilma or any other prior natural disasters of lesser magnitude. The few deaths incurred are nonetheless deaths and should be mourned.
But Wilma is no tsunami, no Katrina or Pakistani earthquake. Yet she has gotten equal play. In a world where news never rests, conflict abounds and borders are threatened, it is time for media outlets to rigorously employ wise news judgment.
Poynter Institute ethics writer Aly Colon’s evaluation of media coverage after Hurricane Charley in August 2004 said it best: “More coverage is good. More thoughtful coverage is better.”
10-27-2005