Something has been bothering me for a while now; years, in fact.
Years ago, I saw a picture of an Ethiopian woman, sick and dying, lying on a thin mattress in a refugee camp. Her face was covered with flies.
Pitiful.
Terrible.
The suffering.
All I kept thinking, though, was, "did the photographer at least try to shoo away the flies?"
After humiliating that poor, wretched woman in the name of getting a good picture, a picture that he was no doubt well paid for? Did he? An unanswered question.
The recent disasters have brought this old question boiling back to the surface of my mind, and I just can’t let it go. The question is this:
Is there a reason journalists can’t help the people they report on?
How can they tell the story, then just leave these people behind and not really, directly, do anything to help?
As I watched the "Today Show" this morning, and saw the reporter interviewing the poor guy who said he was stranded in the path of Rita, with no money and no car, I kept expecting the reporter to say something like "Well hell, man….throw some things in a bag, get your family and pile in the truck; we’ll get you out!" But he didn’t. He left the guy to sit through a disaster.
That strikes me as callous.
As I watched reports from New Orleans after Katrina, I was likewise struck by what I saw as the callous nature of the reporters there. They’d be standing in the middle of the street, wearing their "serious face". They’d tilt their head to one side as if they were listening intently to the questions posed by the anchor (like we didn’t know they’re wearing an earpiece), nod gravely and say something like:
"Thanks, Tom….yes, the situation here is grim, and it’s not getting any better. The people behind me (camera pans over the crowd in back), thousands of them, have not had food or water for days. They’re dying, Tom, and no one seems to be doing anything! Back to you."
Thing is, that "no one" he mentioned includes him. He got in there for his story, after all; he saw what the "situation" is. Why can’t he help? Do more than just wander around, interviewing and filming suffering humanity for the news?
Is there anything stopping them from going back to whatever network command center where they came from, unloading their equipment, throwing in a few hundred bottles of water and MREs and heading back out there? They know where to go. Hand the stuff out as far as it would stretch.
Am I wrong here? Off base? Please tell me.
In all the coverage I saw and heard of Katrina and the disaster that came after, there was only one instance of anything like that.
A reporter stopped a guy from drinking the foul water in the street, and gave him his own bottle of water instead. They played it up like the reporter was Mother Teresa or something. Made a big deal out of it.
Now, my problem with him is this: that means that reporter was parading around the disaster zone---in front of people who hadn’t had water for days---while carrying water himself. What an humanitarian! He’s lucky he and his crew weren’t killed for their water.
Why don’t journalists seem able to go in and deliver supplies or even bring people out to safety? I mean, they got in there to make their reports; they know what’s going on.
I saw one luridly-filmed report of a group of people huddled around a man lying on the street, dying from dehydration. His body was shutting down, and some of the people were trying to keep him cool by wiping him down with towels moistened in the puddles, while others exhorted him to "Breathe!" and to "Live!"
Did the reporters who so passionately told us about these tragic events give the poor guy a life-saving drink of water?
Or, perhaps, was the "top story, film at eleven" drama of the moment too good to ruin by taking such an action?
Did they give him water? It wasn’t shown in the story, and I can assume that if they had, it would have been mentioned. So no, they didn’t.
Perhaps the alleviation of suffering does not make for as good a story as suffering itself. It’s not as "sexy".
Now, some might say that it’s not their job to be the rescuers. That’s not what they’re paid for. They’re paid to report the news, and that’s it.
Bull---I don’t buy that at all.
What about all the people---private citizens---from all over the country, who took boats down there and set about rescuing people from roofs and high ground? Was that their job? No.
The people who pitched in to bring supplies and truckloads of water and food? Their job? No.
What about the guy who, walking down the street, dashes into a burning building? Is that his job? No; he could just have called the Fire Department and waited.
The woman who trips a passing purse snatcher, then sits on him until the law arrives? No. She could have just taken his description and called 911 for the cops.
But they didn’t…they, like the people with the boats and trucks, did what was right rather than merely what was expected of them. They took the responsibility to remedy the situation and acted of their own accord.
I think maybe the press could take a lesson from this idea.
Maybe the problems in New Orleans….and anywhere there’s a disaster, for that matter, would lessen if reporters arriving there, often ahead of official relief agencies, brought aide with them as well.
They need to do what’s right, rather than just what’s expected.