How do we know what a natural disaster is and what it isn't? How
many people have to die before it is a significant disaster? What sort
of damage needs to take place before everyone decides it is a disaster
worthy of taxpayer-funded money from FEMA? Would I be too politically
incorrect to state that in many regards it's how the media portrays the
event which is the deciding factor? Okay so let's talk about this for a
moment if we might.
Not long ago, there were wildfires in five states, there was a big one in Colorado, and the president declared a national state of emergency, and a disaster area. I agree with that, but there were other fires in South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, and other places which were also quite significant, but they did not get the funding, or that significant label of; natural disaster. Why do you suppose that is?
Now then, I am not one to point fingers at the political process, or suggest that the current administration decides what is a disaster based on which areas are more likely to vote for him, although I'm sure it has crossed other people's minds. In fact I've heard it stated from people that felt slighted over such matters. To be fair, it's been said of other Administrations in the past also.
There is a very good book I'd like to recommend to you, it is one I own personally, as our Think Tank continually studies natural and human disasters to mitigate future challenges to help keep the peace and maintain a safe society and civilization, the book is titled;
"Disaster Response - Principles of Preparation and Coordination," by Erik Auf der Heide, Mosby Publishing, Baltimore, MD, 1989, 363 pages, ISBN: 0-8016-O385-4.
In the book on page 216 there is a subchapter titled; "Disasters are a Media Event" and it quotes a research paper by Bolduc in 1987 which stated; "from the journalistic point of view, a natural disaster has all the ingredients for the 'prefect media event' (especially for electronic media). It's brief, spectacular, often mysterious, action-oriented, and portrays human suffering and courage."
This book also explains how the media can be a friend by getting the word out to people to prevent further carnage and advise people on what to do and where to go, but it can also be a foe by inciting or amplifying looting, fear, and mistakes made by authorities causing the event to take on a new created reality of its own. Sometimes the media makes a big deal out of something that really isn't a huge natural disaster.
Then the government is forced to act upon it because the squeaky wheel gets the oil, even though there were other people who were damaged more significantly, which were not able to get the funding needed to allow their communities, region, or states to recover on a timely basis. I ask that you please consider all this and think on it, and understand the value, and the challenges of the way we portray natural disasters in the mass media.
Not long ago, there were wildfires in five states, there was a big one in Colorado, and the president declared a national state of emergency, and a disaster area. I agree with that, but there were other fires in South Dakota, Montana, New Mexico, Arizona, and other places which were also quite significant, but they did not get the funding, or that significant label of; natural disaster. Why do you suppose that is?
Now then, I am not one to point fingers at the political process, or suggest that the current administration decides what is a disaster based on which areas are more likely to vote for him, although I'm sure it has crossed other people's minds. In fact I've heard it stated from people that felt slighted over such matters. To be fair, it's been said of other Administrations in the past also.
There is a very good book I'd like to recommend to you, it is one I own personally, as our Think Tank continually studies natural and human disasters to mitigate future challenges to help keep the peace and maintain a safe society and civilization, the book is titled;
"Disaster Response - Principles of Preparation and Coordination," by Erik Auf der Heide, Mosby Publishing, Baltimore, MD, 1989, 363 pages, ISBN: 0-8016-O385-4.
In the book on page 216 there is a subchapter titled; "Disasters are a Media Event" and it quotes a research paper by Bolduc in 1987 which stated; "from the journalistic point of view, a natural disaster has all the ingredients for the 'prefect media event' (especially for electronic media). It's brief, spectacular, often mysterious, action-oriented, and portrays human suffering and courage."
This book also explains how the media can be a friend by getting the word out to people to prevent further carnage and advise people on what to do and where to go, but it can also be a foe by inciting or amplifying looting, fear, and mistakes made by authorities causing the event to take on a new created reality of its own. Sometimes the media makes a big deal out of something that really isn't a huge natural disaster.
Then the government is forced to act upon it because the squeaky wheel gets the oil, even though there were other people who were damaged more significantly, which were not able to get the funding needed to allow their communities, region, or states to recover on a timely basis. I ask that you please consider all this and think on it, and understand the value, and the challenges of the way we portray natural disasters in the mass media.
Lance Winslow has launched a new provocative series of eBooks on Plans and Planning. Lance Winslow is a retired Founder of a Nationwide Franchise Chain, and now runs the Online Think Tank; http://www.worldthinktank.net
Article Source:
http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=Lance_Winslow
No comments:
Post a Comment