By now, we’re all aware of the powerful earthquake and many strong aftershocks which has crippled the already poverty-striken Caribbean island nation of Haiti (Wikipedia, Freebase, World Factbook.) on January 12th.
This 7.0 in magnitude earthquake - which struck - less than ten miles from the capital city of Port-au-Prince - was Haiti’s worst in 200 years, and the aftershocks - twelve so far - have measured up to 6.0. Haiti was in the midst of trying to recover from four hurricanes and tropical storms which had ravaged it in 2008 when this disaster happened.
Most buildings, from shanty homes to the presidental palace, fell down or were damaged beyond repair. Thousands, possibly hundreds of thousands, are dead, and millions are homeless, without food and water, and in need of medical attention. As the days pass, the situation gets worse and people struggle survive. See Solojourno’s previous coverage of some stunning photojournalism.
The world-wide outpouring of sentiment and promises to help is unprecedented. Dozens of Nations and their citizens have joined together to send aid and have promised to help the people of Haiti rebuild. There are incredible stories of people being pulled alive from the rubble over a week later, but a few days ago, the Haitian government said that the rescue effort has turned to a recovery operation, meaning that the search is now on for bodies rather than live people.
As a person, I’m very interested in how people are reacting to this story. From what is actually going on there to reactions and actions of people around the world. I live in Canada and the government has pledged to match donations made by private citizens, dollar for dollar. on top of what it will spend as a nation. Most people have reacted with compassion and sympathy, although some have been rude and cruel to the point of racism (Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck), even going so far as to blame Haitians themselves (Pat Robertson said they were being punished for making a deal with the devil to toss out the French and end slavery).
As a journalist, I’m especially interested in how this story is being covered. Literally. Honestly, I’ve love to be there helping to get the story out. This is a humanitarian tragedy of epic proportions, and it’s hard to stay objective when covering this sort of thing. And observation of objectivity has long been a hallmark of traditional, mainstream, non-advocacy journalism. Still, with stories of this type, it’s not easy. Right now, Haiti is crawling with correspondents and news anchors, especially from the States. There’s a sentiment brewing in some quarters that some of these are over the top and failing in their duty, some of them even becoming part of the story while others appear insensitive.
The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) cautioned journalists to “report the story, don’t become part of it” and issued a press release which reads in part:
The Society of Professional Journalists applauds the efforts of all journalists in Haiti who are working tirelessly to report the aftermath of last week’s devastating earthquake and the ensuing aftershocks. However, SPJ cautions journalists to avoid making themselves part of the stories they are reporting. Even in crises, journalists have a responsibility to their audiences to gather news objectively and to report facts.
“I think it’s important for journalists to be cognizant of their roles in disaster coverage,” SPJ President Kevin Smith said. “Advocacy, self promotion, offering favors for news and interviews, injecting oneself into the story or creating news events for coverage is not objective reporting, and it ultimately calls into question the ability of a journalist to be independent, which can damage credibility.”
Undoubtedly, journalists walk a fine line to balance their professional responsibilities with their humanity when covering disasters. SPJ does not nor would it ever criticize or downplay the humane acts journalists are performing in Haiti. But news organizations must use caution to avoid blurring the lines between being a participant and being an objective observer.
“No one wants to see human suffering, and reporting on these events can certainly take on a personal dimension. But participating in events, even with the intention of dramatizing the humanity of the situation, takes news reporting in a different direction and places journalists in a situation they should not be in, and that is one of forgoing their roles as informants,” Smith said.
Read the rest of the press release.
Three of the highest profile reporters in Haiti are from CNN: chief international correspondent Christiane Amanpour, anchor Anderson Cooper (left) and neurosurgeon, Dr. Sanjay Gupta (right).
Rightly or wrongly, both of them have injected themselves into the story, Cooper (CNN ‘AC360′ show page, twitter) to physically rescue a boy from being attacked, and Gupta (CNN ‘House Calls’ show page, twitter) has been shown rending medical assistance:
As some people have pointed out, there’s a difference between what Cooper did and what Gupta did. Afterall, Gupta IS a doctor and he has been treating patients. Still, should Cooper have let that child continue to bleed, or was he right to grab him and lift him to safety?
After following the Haiti coverage in the papers, online and on television, and also reading the SPJ press release and hearing people comment on what journalists are doing, I’ve really been giving the situation a lot of thought. Even to the point of considering what I might do myself in a similar situation or under the same sorts of conditions.
There are several factors to consider here. First there is the issue of glory-seekers who aren’t as interested in the story as they are in promoting themselves and their careers. That sort of person has always been in the industry. Still, sometimes they do deliver a compelling story, something worthwhile and interesting. And some rise to the top of the profession and are well-rewarded for doing so.
Then there is the issue of influencing what one’s covering, both by virtue of actually reporting on it and also by becoming actively involved in the situation - sometimes accidentally, sometimes deliberately. I’m not talking about advocacy journalism here as that’s a whole different ball of wax. I’m talking very specifically about reporting the news and current events.
Also, with the rise of ‘citizen journalism’, this sort of injected involvement when reporting is happening more and more. Is it bad? Is it good? Does it depend on the situation? If there’s a line, where is it? When, if ever, should that line get crossed, and what happens when it does? Aside: I know some journalists are very anti-citizen journalism. They see it as a threat on many levels (see here and here). I’ll be posting on this subject in depth later.
I remember a story I heard years ago about a cameraman who put down his equipment to put out someone who was on fire. As I recall, he was heavily criticized by colleagues for his actions. Maybe it was ‘bad journalism’ to help, but I think he was being a ‘good person’. And I ask you, what sort of person would watch someone burn to death if they could possibly prevent it?
Special note: If you’re looking for someone in Haiti, check out CNN’s user-generated “Looking for Loved One’s” database.
