Media's responsibilities in disaster coverage

The recent bushfires hilights the contrast between the media's role to inform the public and their responsibility to respect the privacy of people affected by disaster. Tushy wrote

The ugly side of the media - won't respect the wishes of people to be left alone:

www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/02/11/2488481.htm

As well as the ugly, mercenary side of journalism, the side that uncaringly drags the victims of disaster into the public arena in its gluttony for "exclusive"/"human interest" stories, there are responsibilities that journalists have to the public. I wrote about some of that yesterday:

It is right and proper that TV news keeps us informed of these events. It is also right and proper that the TV news informs us of the anger that many residents are feeling over the current actions by authorities in keeping them from returning to their communities until the task of sorting through the rubble and collecting forensic evidence is completed.

But in the midst of the TV news reports concerning these facts, [one] particular network decided to do a couple of "background pieces". The news program ran a segment about the "profile" of arsonists - speculating on what drives people to commit acts of bastardry on the community by lighting fires; it also ran a segment calling into question the traditional views and recommendations of fire authorities: whether or not people should stay in their homes for refuge when there's a fire.

These are valid questions, but I doubt whether it's appropriate at this time to be debating them when people, the victims as well as we who can only look on in horror and disbelief, are still in a state of shock. I wrote

The public seeks the news services of TV and radio because of its immediacy in giving up-to-date information and advice about what they should do when there's a danger to the community. [While people are still trying to] come to terms with their loss and grieve, let TV news services present the facts, with honesty and compassion. There's no need to fuel public opprobium with speculation!

I'm sure people have their own comments about how the media performs when we're dealing with natural disasters. I have a few more things to say later.

Good topic Sozz -- btw I didnt write it - George did lol

Media coverage is important with this as people wanna know whats going on and how else are they going to find out -- also we wouldnt have had such a big donation to all these people had we not had media coverage...australia wide - world wide..

but.........some are such pigs honestly..........

Yesterday one guy got in touch with a lady in Buxton who has just lost everything and everyone -- she has been spared any coverage of what has been going on and you know what he did -- put a paper under her nose to show her the devestation
Now that woman is an emotional mess and wouldnt have been able to say anything except howl -- too bad I wasnt beside him, I woulda got that paper and wacked him with it.............
what is that??

How are people allowed to get away with that.........thats not news..........grrr

I will be back to this discussion later........

OK, so it was George who started things ... but I knew that Tushy was involved somewhere along the line! :pinch:

I've been thinking about this matter for a long time and I still haven't found an easy way of setting out my thoughts on the subject. So, let me tell you a story instead.

As I've said before, I vividly remember the 2003 bushfires in Canberra. While it was a disaster it was small in comparison to the what's occurred in Victoria over the weekend and in recent days. However, I still have strong memories of how the local media dealt with the 2003 fires and those memories were all good.

• The radio - good ol' "Auntie" ABC: on the day of the fires, the local radio carried continual updates on the fire situation, issuing readiness alerts to residents, telling us where the danger spots were, what suburbs needed to be evacuated, and so forth. There were live interviews with local authority figures, the ACT Chief Minister, the chief police officer, the Emergency Services Bureau ... interviews that gave the facts but gave assurances that everything that could be done was being done.
  
  I remember the emergency signal tone on the radio that prefaced each official communique - a truly awful sound that really makes you realise just how serious things were - but it meant we were not alone. "Auntie" was there, keeping us company and keeping us calm. That's what I remember about the radio and what it meant to me.


• TV: As the situation unfolded, but only after the imminent threat had abated, we watched the TV. The TV news encapsulated the whole story and brought home the vision, the reality of the terrible forces that were unleased that day. I don't even remember what the reporters said ... their words were superfluous to what we watched.


• The Press: The following day, we read the story in the newspaper. The newspaper's photos, analysis of the chronology of events, somehow explained how the whole tragedy had occurred.

If anyone has any memory of the 2003 Canberra bushfires, you'll also know that the authorities came in for massive criticism that hasn't abated to this day, six years later. Many Canberrans have not forgiven the Chief Minister or the emergency services that failed to prevent loss of property and loss of life: 4 deaths; over 500 homes destroyed.

The point of my story is this: while there were questions that needed to be asked about the competence of the authorities in handling the situation or whether the disaster could have been averted or minimised - and these are questions that will always surface whenever there's a natural disaster - these subjects weren't raised by the media at the time when we were struggling to come to terms with what we'd just been through. The media helped us: they were a comfort, they presented the facts, and they preserved the history of the moment in text and pictures.

What concerns me is that some of the current media coverage of the two "big" disasters - the fires and the floods - are exceeding their charter by sensationalism and speculative commentary. There will be plenty of time for them to do that later. Someone might even produce a movie - who knows ... and who really cares right now. If people think that the current coverage of the bushfires has turned into a media circus, just wait until the Royal Commission gets underway!

I agree with Sozz in that the media is once again sensationalising a tragedy for its own ends instead of reporting the information to us and analysing it in an intelligent way. Part of the problem perhaps lies with the management (and greed for the almighty $), part with the paring down of staff (again to maximise the $) and elimination/firing of many of the intelligent reporters. Looks seem to be the most important qualification for hosting or reporting on television (have you noticed that so many of the women have the frozen look of overtreatment with botox?), and the hack writing in many of our newspapers is beyond belief. As for some of the news web services - blah.

I'm peeved with the dumbing down of the morning television shows. Carl Stefanovic may be a lovely bloke, but is certainly not what I would call a media heavyweight. As for Sunrise, doesn't make it for me at all. Now we have the delights of "Today on Sunday". I really wish there was a decent analytical news show, although good old Aunty ABC is still attempting to hold the fort. Thank heaven for Kerry O'Brien. Laurie Oaks is not too bad either, but grrrr, some of the other television "news" is just sensationalist, brain numbing twaddle. As for the tabloid press, well, I'd better not get started there.

I think what is really upsetting is not only the way stories/headlines are sensationalised, but the twisting of stories, downright occasional lies, and self serving garbage we are being fed.

However, that is actually leading to my main point. If the Australian public used its collective brains and voting power, then we wouldn't have to put up with the rubbish. People are obviously putting up with it, or perhaps revelling in it, because of the titillation - the ooooooh factor. Do they want the facts? Obviously not, or they would be listening to or watching Auntie, or buying more broadsheets. Sitting back and whingeing about it doesn't help. The only way to change these things is to speak up (letters to editor, emails etc) and to vote with your feet. But that is only effective if there is a will to change things. And is there that will? I doubt it very much.

So, until there is a change in society (we seem to keep coming back to that in a lot of topics - perhaps it's one we need to discuss), I think we'll just have to grin, or whinge, and bear it.:S

Cheers
Mem