Today's Guardian on the Disaster

Julian,

I'm sorry that I made the arrows post at such an inappropriate time. I hadn't seen the news item you mentioned and hadn't realized how truly horrendous it was.

Every time I see the news I'm left horrified again. I agree with Mo's sentiments - where do you draw the lines between sensationalism and showing the true scale of the disaster?

Re. child abuse, surely that wouldn't happen in the UK. Surely we are more advanced in some ways, even today.

 

In a way I agree, things should be reported honestly and not sugar coated or such.

However, I also think that respect for the individual life that's lost, and those close to that person needs to be kept. With something the scale of the tsunami, this balance of respect, and honestly showing the scale of what's happened is a hard one to get right.

As I said....

I'm unsure where that line is.

 

i have no objection to pure objective reporting however when a news item is 'sexed up' to borrow a recent media phrase i start to bristle. why does tv news feel it has to push itself onto a mothers grief and arrange a funeral service in a religion not practiced (as far as i could tell) by either the mother or the child? or perhaps more pertinently why did the mother allow it to happen?
surely if we are civilised human beings a sensitively reported news story will prick our consiences just as much as some maudlin over the top sensationalist pap.
the original reports from ethiopia in the 80's that sparked band aid / live aid were chilling and had a huge impact (obviously) however they weren't sensationalised in the manner that some reports from thailand and sri lanka are.
the other thing about the recent crisis that gets up my nose is the aid dollar pissing contest and the photo opportunity nature of anyone on the c-list or above scrambling to be seen to be doing something. but then it could be said that any publicity is good publicity.
without wanting to get into mary whitehouse territory, doesn't the continued quest for more and more sensationalist reporting desensitise us to the horror? so that next time 180,000 dead will be mneh, unless tha cameras are actually inside the coffin? i remember hearing of people being killed trying to get video footage of the tsunami in order to sell to the networks - also their actions endangered others as they were blocking paths and entrances to safe areas - i heard this 2nd hand so may be wrong there though.
cheers


julian

 

Did you guys hear about Schumi donating $10m for Tsunami victims?

 

Yep, nice move. Makes the $3.5m that Bill Gates donated seem rather pathetic in comparison.

Michael.

 

Yes Michael, I thought it was a very generous move by your namesake. I didn't know about Bill Gates effort. Times like these seem to bring out the extremes in humanity. On the one hand we see a lot of effort by people desperate to help the needy, but on the other hand we see the Child trafficking low lifes which simply make my blood boil. In the office some of us have received scam emails from people asking for credit card donations to their Paypal accounts! :grrr:

 

I am not terribly callous, I really feel for the poor people, but it does make me cynical seeing all the news that really does look staged 'news for news sake'.
like its a done thing to have screaming grieving people all the time.not that it is, in this case, but its just done to death all the time.
The problem is that one naturally becomes used to and it no longer shocks.
the news simply wants to manipulate, sensationalise, shock and get ratings to justify its own existance.
I have grown weary of news.
respect for the people tho'.

good for schu...it won't hurt him tho' from 300 million he has.

I started seeing the news was staged, when I saw John Snow out in public, the camera was on him and he didn't realise, and he waved a boat to start rowing.
All these people doing activities with the reporter in front of them are staged and prearranged, and rehearsed to be busy whilst the reporter 'reports'. its all false.

 

I was watching BBC News 24 last night. They told about a helicopter that arrived at an island where there were desperate people begging for help and water. The helicopter contained no aid, no water ...

...Just journalists.

Apparently there is a 'bidding' system for the helicopters and the journalists bid highest.

How sick is that?

It makes me wonder. If the journalists are that sick, how affected are we the viewers?

 

The "journalists", because I don't watch the news. I'd rather let the helicopters carry essential supplies than see fellow humans suffering.

On a slightly different note, I wonder how many other charities are suffering because of all this attention in Asia? Whatevr the total number of casualties turns out to be, it's likely to be smaller than the number of people dying due to starvation every year. Or am I completely off target here?

 

steve,
did the bbc news have live pictures from the helicopter?
this is exactly the sort of thing i'm talking about, it's foul.

dev,
there was a similar argument against the national lottery but it seems that people want to be more focussed in their giving. certainly i'll buy the occasional lotto ticket when i feel the fates are smiling but if i want to give to cancer research or to the homeless or to the nspcc i'll dive directly to those charities.
cheers


julian

 

No, sadly you're on target.

Charity is a fashion issue, as is politics and all news. Why, for example, do some conflicts get so little attention (eg. Dafur) while some are constantly in the news (Iraq, Israel/Palestine)? Why is cruelty to foxes such a big issue while cruelty to farm animals is hardly worthy of mention?

The tsunami and its coverage has captured the popular imagination and other charities are bound to suffer.

 

The others are covered more, as they have the capacity to constantly scare us, all these muslim extremists strike fear into normal people.
Farm animals don't quite have the capacity to divide like the class war.
Its true, surely, all the news wants to do is create ill feeling, just watch it and keep this in mind.

jeez, if they are bidding for choppers, that's sick, and they then have the cheek to ask why the aid isn't getting thro'....its not getting thro' as they are hogging the choppers for their pompous reporting.
they are complicit in it. They have their noses up their arses big style
that's what they mean when they say...so and so is the first western journalist to arrive, exclusive and all that, they bid the most to get on, as if there reporting is more important than food and supplies...

 

No. It was a correspondent on BBC News 24 who reported the helicopter-journalist item in an interview. There were no pictures and the attitude was that this was a disgraceful event.

 

Perhaps the News 24 journalist bid and lost? Sooooo sickening.

But then again, if journo's were complicit in this disgusting 'auction', I can only imagine it must be the helicopter pilots trying to make a quick buck that must be offering up these auctions in the first place...unless I am wrong?

JonR

 

I've sent an email about this to the Diplomad guys asking if they've heard of such a thing. Perhaps they'll shine some light on this. I can't find any mention on the BBC web site.

 

Compare that to this:

which was among the quotes from the Guardian you so strongly objected to that started this thread. You're now essentially saying the same thing

Michael.

 

Not so fast ...

Fashion may dictate which issues are prioritised on the national news and TV networks. However, I have sufficient confidence in the Great British public to remain convinced that they will empathize with and donate generously to any cause that moves them, irrespective of where the disaster is, whether they themselves have visited the place, or the ethnicity of those suffering.

In other words, a disaster can 'capture the popular imagination' even when the populace themselves are not 'caught up' in it.

A clear distinction, I think.