I’ve been following the critique of media coverage of Haiti with some interest. A lot of it is predictable, especially the stuff about Anderson Cooper. A disproportionate amount of it falls heavily (unfairly?) on image journalists, photographers and television folks. But there’s one critique, for all of us, that’s playing on repeat in my head: that journalists are taking up valuable resources that Haitians need — water, food, shelter.
It’s best written over at The New Republic (and a similar critique of well-intentioned aid-worlders, at Good Intentions are Not Enough), in part because it comes with a proposed solution: Pool coverage for disasters.
I’m curious about what the Dart Society thinks: Would pooling avoid the resource critique? Would it help us avoid the content critique? What would be lost by having fewer journalists on the ground?
Thanks, Jina, for this and your previous post. I particularly appreciate the questions you raise and the fact that you are extending the conversation beyond Dart circles.
I like the idea of pooling coverage. I am a proponent of media collaborations in general, and believe the point about the resources consumed by the folks producing often redundant stories is a fair one. I would quibble a little bit with the assertion that the price of goods going up in Haiti is tied solely to the presence of a lot of journalists-my sense is that even with no journalists in the country the commodities’ cost would have risen-and the bigger point is that showing what has happened should not detract in any way from people’s chance of survival.
I know there would be hundreds of logistical questions about a pool and that the better-resourced outfits would have a chance to shut out indy folks, with all the implications that go with that. There could be a space for local media to emerge, and John, Natalie and so many other in the Gulf region showed after Katrina, provided that the wreckage is not too devastating.
Still, I believe it’s a question worth addressing, and I am grateful to you for raising it.
Do you have a picture we could use with your post? We would like to put a face to people’s ideas.
Thanks again!
Jeff
I agree with Jeff that journalists are having no significant impact on the consumption of services and supplies in Haiti. Jina’s point does raise an important issue about whether we’re doing all we can to mitigate damage when we fly into these places. Why would that MSNBC reporter take relief supplies? Because MSNBC wasn’t prepared. There must be a template somewhere for reducing journalists’ impact when their boots hit the ground in these situations. Anybody know?
I’m dubious about the pool concept. I feel it’s just not realistic given the vast numbers of media outlets with differing approaches and perspectives. The military and White House have shown repeatedly that pooling dilutes the power and truth of our coverage. As with Katrina, we know the government can deal poorly with disasters, requiring at times saturated coverage to glean the truth.
The benefits of the diverse media swarm outweigh the costs. Ron Haviv’s amazing photograph of the woman on the makeshift cardboard cot reaching out to him – posted on our blog this weekend – alone will inevitably prompt something meaningful in the way of help for Haiti. The thousands of other photos produced by the media on the ground have triggered massive, still-escalating donations.
Thanks Jeff and Miles.
I’m inclined to agree with you both that journalists aren’t solely responsible for hiking up the price of goods in these places — but I think we are responsible for some of it. I tend to think we have a much bigger economic footprint in these places than we think we have, but I don’t have any numbers. If anyone can point me in the right direction, though, I’d love that.
Miles, I think you’re right that pool coverage would be problematic. I think some reports — and Ron Haviv is a great example of this — have a unique sensibility that pushes their work further than most of what we see. But the fact seems to be that most of what we see is pretty much the same. NBC and ABC need the same kind of desperate-looking b-roll. I think pool coverage could in fact do 85% of the job. The trouble is that 95% of us will think we belong in that 15% that belongs outside the pool. We’d have to restrain ourselves, and as our headlines often reveal, we’re not so good at that…
(Jeff, I tried to upload a picture but I couldn’t figure out where to do it; there was no space on my wordpress profile to do that. Can I email you “offline”?)
Thanks for the dialogue, Jina and Miles. I hear you about the obvious drawbacks of pool coverage and simply would say that some of us smaller outlets have to be creative about how we think about working and getting the word out about what we do.
Jina, please feel free to email me a picture at jkellylowenstein@gmail.com
I understand what you are saying and I don’t know what good solutions there are to avoid throngs of journalists rushing to the scene.
But I don’t think journalists here are taking up valuable resources. CNN, for instance, is using its own supplies trucked in from Santo Domingo.
I think it’s important to have as many eyes on the ground as possible. We all serve different customers in equally different markets all over the world. How else would we tell this heartbreaking story?