Though the mass media undoubtedly has significant influence in various international conflicts, crises, and disasters, it cannot be blamed for creating the conditions that led to Haiti’s cholera epidemic. Of course, because the media has the potential to impact situations so significantly, it is natural that media-makers would want to use their sway to achieve certain results in terms of international support and humanitarian aid; however, I believe it is the media’s job to report objectively, for the purpose of conveying information and educating people, even though it seldom stops there.
Unlike the amputations by the “cut-hands gangs” (Gourevitch 2010:102) discussed in the article “Alms Dealers”, cholera is not intentionally caused by other people, nor, because it so deadly, would anyone wish to contract it for the sake of media attention. At one point in the article, it is said that “rebels and government soldiers discussed their shared need for international attention,” and without a hint of subtlety, they used the power of the media to achieve their goals, deciding that amputations “drew more press coverage than any other feature of the war” (Gourevitch 2010:105). On the other hand, Haiti is still struggling despite the extensive press coverage, one author noting, “early in the epidemic, Haitians and journalists alike were frustrated by the government's refusal to acknowledge the scope of the problem” (Gaestel 2010). While the media obviously, judging by the reaction of these journalists, is not having the desired effect on the actions taken by the government, there are countless NGOs involved in Haiti, many of whom aim to help specific groups rather than the general population. However, the same article claims “less than 38 percent of the aid pledged to Haiti at a post-quake donors conference in March has been disbursed. Most of it has gone to these NGOs, rather than the state” (Gaestel 2010). Again, despite Haiti’s issues regularly being featured in international news media, the coverage can only help increase humanitarian groups’ attention, thus bringing in more money, but cannot dictate how (or if) that money is distributed.
As for the conditions that led to the epidemic, I don’t see how a case can be made for the media having a hand in their causation. Although it has come to light that several different organizations have different stances on how the cholera epidemic came about, one article quotes an epidemiologist and the PAHO incident coordinator for the cholera crisis as having said, “″We think flooding (from the hurricane) likely accelerated the spreading and expanded the geographical range [of the outbreak]″” (Fraser 2010). Still yet another author quotes a veteran cholera scientist and former head of the U.S. National Science Foundation as having “put her money confidently on the environmental route” (Enserink 2010:738). However, the official reasoning provided by the Center for Disease Control contradicts the proposals by other scientists, stating that environmental factors had no effect on the outbreak.
Anthropologist Charles Briggs, writing about the epidemic in Venezuela, calls cholera “the classic disease of social inequality. It is symbolically associated with dirt, ignorance, premodernity, and the racial Other” (2004:166). This portrayal of the disease has clearly evolved from media reports, and in this sense aids in the creation of conditions in which cholera is not taken as seriously as it should be, but is instead scorned because people are led to believe the victims somehow brought it upon themselves. Enserink says in his article that the bacteria that cause cholera are “present in coastal waters worldwide, even in countries where the disease is absent” (2010:739). What the media can do to have a positive impact on the outcome of Haiti’s current struggle with cholera is to provide the public with an accurate representation of the situation without skewing it with bias and misinformation.
No comments:
Post a Comment