David Warren Lloyd's webfolio  
  • editorial column
• SEE Magazine
• MA thesis
• IASPM paper
• resume & publications
 • contact
• home 		Like it is

17 January, 2005
A media tsunami

Anyone who’s anyone knows about the tsunami that just hit Asia and Africa. It’s this year’s cause. I’ve even seen links for donating to tsunami relief on people’s online banking screens. The world’s nations almost seem to be competing to be the most generous donor; news headlines are consistently about the latest increase in aid or gigantic private donation. Ordinary people are organising fundraising drives left, right, and centre. Even people who never donate to anything are doing it.

It’s great. I’m glad to see proof that the Christmas spirit doesn’t duck out to The Bahamas at midnight December 25. Being the media scrutineer that I am, I wonder what it is, exactly, about this disaster that has brought out the support of such vast numbers.

Now, before you get all upset, let me say that I in no way discourage donations to tsunami aid or any other form of support. Any charitable donation to any cause any time is fabulous. If you choose to donate to the same cause that that the worlds’ media happens to be in a foaming frenzy about, it is absolutely every bit as meaningful as any other charitable donation.

That said, I know I’m not the only person who is curious about the media’s role in the world’s aid of tsunami victims. Why has this event received so much coverage? Does the large amount of coverage have any relation to the large amount of support? What light do these questions shed on the media’s larger role in society?

Perhaps the tsunami has received so much media attention because of the sheer awesome power and spectacle of the natural disaster. I mean, the earth really let us have it. Does this beat Vesuvius and Krakatoa? It certainly is like the Frank slide times a million. Of course such a phenomenal spectacle will receive a generous share of media space.

Is that why we are shown photo after photo? Is that why line after line is devoted to the story? The spectacle? I mean, a huge amount of press also goes to spectacles like the Jacksons’ balcony babysitting and bosom bonanza. Why is Fear Factor still on the air, if not for spectacle?

Or is it the death toll? If this is the coverage for 150,000 deaths, why haven’t the 70,000 recently dead in Darfur received even half the same coverage? Because they’ve died as a result of human evil instead of natural disaster? Shouldn’t preventable tragedies receive more attention than non-preventable ones?

Was it the white tourists caught in the tsunami that drew the media’s eyes? One local paper ran on their front page, alongside a tsunami headline, a sexy file photo of a young European model who was reportedly up a tree during the flood. The irony should be depressing.

We do what the media tells us to do. The media of the western hemisphere does not want the public to know about or get involved in political affairs like the Janjaweed in Sudan. They certainly don’t want us to know about the current American consideration of the “Salvador Option”: the use of death squads in Iraq directed to hunt down and kill rebel leaders and civilian sympathizers. (Yes, Americans are now considering training Kurds and Shiites to hunt and kill civilians in Iraq.)

We do what the media tell us to do. If they tell us to ignore those displaced by military injustice and focus on those flooded out of their homes, we do it.

Please, donate generously to tsunami relief efforts. Just keep an eye on the media while you do it.

[top]


 




Content and design of this web site ©2004 David Warren Lloyd