I was talking the other day with some friends, and we were trying to decide why the coverage and emotional impact of the quake in Haiti seemed so much greater than that of the Tsunami which devastated Indonesia in 2005 or even Katrina. Was it that our own current economic recession was allowing greater empathy? Was the disaster somehow more real because of the constant threat of earthquake in CA? Or did the proximity of the disaster allow us to be more involved in sending aid, getting news, and knowing people with friends or relatives affected? Did Katrina, and the suffering there due to slow reactions and sparse media coverage kick us into action this time around?
In addition to all these likelihoods, we realized that the nature of an earthquake leaves more survivors in need of rescue than almost any other disaster. The waters from a hurricane or tsunami recede (although not so much with Katrina), taking much of the wreckage and many bodies with them, but an earthquake (like a bombing) creates rubble, disorganization and chaos where "orderly" streets and buildings once stood. There is just more need for timely rescue, even days after the disaster, and more evidence of the power of the disaster, both in terms of destroyed buildings and human loss.
Marginal Revolution and the Washington Post have also commented on the graphic nature of the Haitian disaster portrayal, which likely breeds both sympathy and a subconscious level of superiority. I do applaud the realistic portrayal though, and wish it would be repeated in places like Iraq and Afghanistan as well.
No comments:
Post a Comment