Initially in the anticipation stage, then in the active coming-ashore phase and finally during the post-mortems, there have been scenes of drama, heroism and suffering whose images will remain long after the event. The TV media should be commended for their positive contribution to informing the world of these catastrophes.
But a nagging voice inside me keeps raising questions on the negative side. How many scenes do we need of correspondents in windbreakers hanging on for dear life while trying to speak into a microphone, pointing out the obvious? To what extent are they consuming critical resources of fuel, shelter, food, etc. in areas in trauma?
If, instead of just pointing out scenes of suffering, they were assisting in alleviating those problems, wouldn’t that be a more positive contribution? I am not suggesting that such coverage should be eliminated but notice on surfing the TV channels that similar coverage is being duplicated many times over, with each team absorbing critically short resources.
Worse, in their efforts to outdo their competitors (or to simply fill air time), they frequently stray from straight reporting to lecturing, finger-pointing, or creating news by baiting weary, hard-pressed officials or emergency respondents with questions designed to promote controversy. In short, they try too hard to highlight the inevitable negatives of the situation while giving short shrift to the positive side of the ledger.
Perhaps the networks could follow the practice on presidential debates, where they pool their resources with fewer resources deployed to observation and more to assisting in the response and recovery. I am not naive enough to believe that is likely to happen. But wouldn’t it be nice?
Theodore Atwood
West End
