Haiti: As Big Media Pulls Out, Stories Still Need Telling

There's been a great deal of concern over mainstream media's coverage of the recent earthquake in Haiti and its aftermath. From the blogosphere, to the alternative news circuits, to the average kitchen table, many folks were asking difficult questions about what was and wasn't showing up in television and radio broadcasts and in newspaper spreads.

"Racism", "sensationalism", and even "staging" quickly became a part of those discussions.

I wrote a rant - okay, two rants - not long ago about the treatment of Haitians in the press - and failures of the mainstream press in accurately covering the many sides and contributing factors of the story. I was one small voice in a very loud chorus - and if I weren't, I'd still stand by said rants.

Nevertheless, a lot of us were disappointed when the New York Times reported yesterday that many large, highly resourced news services and corporations were "Pulling Out" of Haiti - even though we already knew the deal.

Why? Because loathing the methods of newsgathering in much of the media is like hating the postal service in your neighborhood.

The service is crappy most of the time - and you wish the employees were still wearing appropriate uniforms - but you still can't help but depend on it.

Sure, we understand the nature of the news (and advertisers) these days - and we understand the nature of consumers. News networks can't necessarily afford to take up further residence in Haiti. We get the advertising dollars model. We comprehend viewer burnout.

But many of us also understand that as newspapers, radio services, and television network programs continue to consolidate, shrink, and cut corners, pulling out really means pulling out. Even 20 years ago, we could depend on regional and international reporters, or at least stringers, who could keep us abreast of notable stories around the world. Those days are largely gone.

Concerned Americans looking for news, analysis, and commentary have to work harder and harder to access it - it's become an elite exercise for bloggers, academics, and those who have the time to find a BBC or AP wire story and a world map.

Always, and certainly right this minute, that's a problem, because we need some big eyes and ears in Haiti - even those that don't see or hear so well.

Under-resourced activists, educators, writers, bloggers, and citizens sitting in their offices in, say, Durham, still depend on the "big" news. We watch/read/listen to it, and then we turn around and talk behind its back. Of course, big news operations are also watching the influential bloggers and alternative journalists - and demonstrating the same snarky behavior (some in new, sparkly blog posts).

That's what frenemies do. And when it works, it works.

Michel Martin spoke to this relationship yesterday in her commentary titled "Why We Hate (And Thank) The Media In Times of Disaster" on Tell Me More. She offered a sharp rebuttal to those hatin' on the "MSM" - Mainstream Media.

"Some of the first people in have been who?" she asked. "Reporters - working for the biggest news outlets. They are the ones who are there, often before virtually any representative of government was there..."

"I have to say it annoys me when I get these smug posts from the bloggers and activists who are all promising to go in 'after the cameras leave' and 'stay after the cameras have gone'. I ask these people, if the cameras and microphones weren't there, would you be going at all?".

She makes a solid point - she's Michel Martin, after all (Much respec'. You can hear the entire commentary below - and I highly recommend Tell Me More).



But at the end of the day, I have to argue that it wouldn't matter to me if those telling the story were mainstream journalists, underground reporters, or intrepid bloggers, so long as the stories got the attention they deserved. Storytellers are important, but the power and reach of the platform, unfortunately, are still the biggest factors in whether the word gets out.

I appreciate Ms. Martin's inquiry, but I think folks like me are asking another, more troubling question:

Two weeks-months-years from now, when hundreds of thousands of children are still vulnerable to suffering from injuries, hunger, grief, and loneliness, who will bear witness loud enough to be heard?

Who will spur us to humanity, and compassion, and action (and yes, perhaps, to more angry blog rants)?

*Image Credits: Associated Press. Earthquake Survivor Camp
J.J. Guillén/European Pressphoto Agency. Journalists at camp in Port-au-Prince

Haiti's Aftershock: The Media, "Looting", and the Crime of Bad Journalism

When news of this morning's aftershock in Haiti - which measured 6.1 on the Richter scale - broke this morning, hearts around the world sank. It happened at around 6AM, EST, when many folks were encamped for the night in streets , on park lawns, and wherever else they could rest. Many of us know that, "aftershock" or not, 6.1 is deadly magnitude, much more significant than a mere tremor. It's easy to imagine that another quake - like the one that struck today - is the worst nightmare of those who survived last week's monstrous event, to which at least 200,000 women, children, and men are said to have lost their lives.

In the early hours of the morning, some frightened survivors reportedly took to the street seeking safety, answers, and resources.

To put it mildly - it's disheartening when so many news organizations take this opportunity to focus on the "looting" and "lawlessness" emerging in specific parts of the country after Haitians who have been more than patient have been under-served and "under-relieved" in large part because of the militaristic, racist approach that seems dominant and rampant.



Gee, I'm not sure what folks are expected to do when staring death in the face. I suppose that the lawful, responsible thing to do would be to let your family die while you wait for the ever-elusive aid buggy. I mean, are these the same reporters who failed to report on the rape of resources and infrastructure in Haiti in recent years (decades)? Did they miss all of that "looting and lawlessness"?

Or do "looting" and "lawlessness" only come in certain pocketbook sizes and colors?

Smells a lot like Hurricane Katrina coverage - not that this is news. Maybe it smells worse, as some folks are arguing that even CNN star Anderson Cooper can't get it together. What's going on?

Not to beat a dead Fourth Estate or anything, but are these some of the same trifling reporters who haven't filed one sorry enterprise story on the history and legacy of Haiti - it's struggles, triumphs, battles with foreign powers, and internal strife?

Let me be clear. I'm not hating on journalists. I've done the newsroom thing. Truly, there's a lot of love here.

We all understand that, realistically, there will always be groups of people - including gangs, police forces, and governments - who take advantage of chaos to enrich themselves. The biggest victims of these actions are always the weakest in the society - children, elders, pregnant women, the disabled. But there certainly is a difference between criminal activity and the actions of any sane person in a dire situation hoping to secure food, water, and needed supplies.

Unfortunately, you'd think some reporters don't know the difference, to let the reporting tell it. I'm still wondering how it is that the same outlets who haven't managed to report on humanitarian aid failure suddenly have so much time, tape and copy to spend on violent, chaotic looting pieces. And many who did manage (bother) to get some coverage on the issue of increasing desperation and relief/aid challenges as recently as a few days ago missed the point (and the messaging).

You don't have to be a Haitian, an aid worker, or a journalist to understand the glaring undertones of statements about "security", "certain elements", and "these kinds of people" in answer to questions about the slow dissemination of assistance to Port-Au-Prince, Jacmel, and throughout the countryside.

You don't have to be a Person of Color to get it, either. So let's not pretend.

Funny: Folks in the news industry - particularly those in print - spend a lot of time trying to figure out why their readership is down.

Could it be that folks are looking for reporting that

• gets to the heart of the matter?
• avoids the trite rehashing of racist/sexist/classist stereotypes?
• employs folks with just a little bit of cultural awareness (and maybe even a few folks of Color)?
• actually provides a little bit of context?

Is it possible that readers keep checking out because the press keeps getting it wrong?

"No, that can't be right. We couldn't possibly be the problem. Maybe we oughtta just blame the internet."

Photo Credit: Ariana Cublios, AP