Mora and disaster reporting disaster

It is a mad haste, to be the first to post stories from

disaster zones
The Editors Guild could initiate a discourse
2017-06-02

We have been witnessing painful Screaming

of the State machinery at times of tragedy and disaster. It is now
far worse than what it was over 12 years ago in December 2004,
when the Tsunami swept the Southern and Eastern coasts.

Tragedies have not been too rare in the recent past. Beginning
from Sinhala and Hindu New Year day, in just 38 days there were
three tragedies, beginning with the Meethotamulla waste dump
slide, collapsing of a multi storey building in Colombo and the
Mora rain storm that now accounts for more than 200 deaths, 80
odd missing and more than 400,000 displaced.

The lethargy and inefficiency of the State is part of the socially

justifiable excuse for media to leave their actual responsibility
aside to go big time with distribution of donations at times of
national grief. We thus come to the important question, What
responsibility has the media in times of national
tragedy?Answering it begins with the condition, media is
fundamentally responsible to society, in how information and
news is disseminated.

Our media, including the State owned and especially the

electronic, web/digital and social media do not function with that
responsibility to society. In times of tragedy, web/digital and social
media lives with a panic button. Tragedy and disaster are
grieving events in this new and competing media culture to post
unchecked, unedited often source-not found info.

It is a mad haste, to be the first to post stories from disaster

zones.

Electronic media thats audio and visual media, is far worse in

shaping social psyche. Though not very apt in reporting and
coverage, print media in general still reports and covers events
and incidents in a comparatively decent and a palatable way.
Web/digital and social media is not of much importance, except
when mainstream media picks from web/digital and social media
and develop them, their way.

In Sri Lanka we dont have an adequate critical mass in

web/digital and social media for them to be taken seriously as
positively impacting on society.

Despite some pundits claiming social media played a major role

in the past two elections, social media is more a Sinhala Buddhist
racist platform, dominated by a very small group with fake names
and anonymous presence.

Even issues like deforesting, is taken on an anti-Muslim campaign

and not as an environmental issue.

In short, no media in Sri Lanka functions with a conscious

responsibility towards society, towards people. There is not much
difference between State owned and private media either in how
social responsibility is ignored and shirked.

It is in that sorry context one gets trapped in the visual media

culture that dominates the recipient mood. For visual media with
FM radio following, any Sinhala Buddhist event or festival and any
tragedy is a media product that could be sold and used for
station image building.

Vesak was there for over a week. They had numerous Buddha
relics used for big sponsorships and station image building
among the Sinhala Buddhist audience. These religious
marketing does have their limitations.
They can only attract a particular religious population in this long
polarised society.
Yet Christian/Catholic, Hindu and Muslim events and festivals
dont gain that market space as Vesak and Poson. Thats a 70.4
per cent segment in society, all media compete to capture.

Tragedies and disasters in this country nevertheless cut across

those ethno-religious demarcations. The Muslim person whose
mosque and the business were attacked, does not ask the victim,
if she or he is Muslim, when distributing relief.

The Christian whose church was attacked does not choose who
gets their relief distributed. The Tamil who collects relief dont ask
if they would go to Sinhalese. Tragedies and disasters turn the
whole society into a single emotionally charged, large donating
station with media stations stepping in as popular collecting
centres.

It is within this social mood, tragedies and disasters become good

media boosters that can be used right across the country. This
is truer especially with visual media stations. It is the ability of
visual media in particular to immediately commodify tragedies
and disasters that allow them to leave social responsibility by the
wayside to access wider social reach for station image building.

In fact over the years, media outlets have established themselves

as very conspicuous and large distribution centres. Their
advantage is that people dont question responsibilities in their
rush to hand over relief.
The fact is, even in its most lethargic and inefficient level of
delivery, no media can match the State machinery. No donor
agency can reach the affected people the way the State can. It is
the State that mobilises the three forces into relief work.

No media has the resources for necessary logistics, as does the

State. It is still the State that has mobility to move into affected
areas, even though in depleted form. This fact, the superiority of
the State in deployment of personnel, equipment and machinery
for relief and distribution of material as aid is never highlighted in
media.

Most visual and electronic media design programmes to promote

themselves over and above the State and its operations.

With Non-Governmental Agencies and the media also joining in

relief supply, there are patches created that go unattended to and
areas that are over fed with relief. This was a common deformity
even during Tsunami relief work. There were families who had
never been to sea, getting not one FRP boat but two.

There were families who got funds to repair their houses, not from
one, but from two or three donors. There were also those many
families who were still pleading for help and aid.

Non-Governmental Agencies and media outlets collecting aid at

the expense of the ordinary public with large hearts, only move
around easily accessible points for due coverage of donations as
their charitable work.

One would note that in this present disaster too, there are popular
areas the media often talk about. There are areas that were
totally neglected, even by politicians for many days.
It is more the visual media channels that highlight their own relief
work in competition with others. News coverage in them on the
Mora storm that created havoc in Southern Sri Lanka, begins with
their own relief voyage given high priority. Thereafter it is about
the human tragedy in pictures, the crying and the weeping. Some
news about possible further damage with a weather report
presented in the drabbest and crudest manner with less
information than necessary follows thereafter.
Often news on flooding and earth slide disaster concludes with
some favourite politician or two given publicity.

This disaster reporting certainly is NOT disaster reporting.

Most importantly, disaster reporting is about avoiding

presentation of news in a manner that could panic society. It is an
accepted norm, disaster reporting must prioritise and provide all
what the Government decides without comments and how the
State operates. It should keep the people informed of developing
situations covering every aspect of State initiated and operated
disaster control measures.

Disaster reporting is also about educating people to meet

emergency situations. Reporting should also include lapses by the
State in a constructive dialogue with responsible State officials
avoiding political colours.

In short, the media has to play the role of the watch dog it is
expected to be and the credible informant/educator it should be in
times of crisis.

This responsibility is openly violated today-violated for the benefit

of image building in a competitive advertising market. What is
conveniently forgotten is human tragedies dont ethically and
morally allow for competition for individual gains. Not even in
business, in an ethical, civilised world.
Disaster coverage and reporting has thus been developed into
three clear phases. The immediate reporting of the disaster, its
nature, extant of damage caused, information for people on safe
places and safety measures to be taken and also precautions is
perhaps the first phase of reporting disaster.

The second phase is to create awareness and provide information

on what is happening on the ground in terms of relief and
recovery and play vigilante on how efficient the relief work is,
and to question if they cannot be better executed or if there are
easy and more comfortable alternate options.

Third is post damage and perhaps more important for the future.
The media among other players can develop a discourse on what
had gone wrong to cause a tragedy, if it could have been avoided,
how similar disasters can be negated in the future and what
planning needs to be put in place for that.
A research by Erin L. Bohensky and Anne M. Leitch, on 2011
Brisbane flood reporting by media, titled Framing the flood: A
media analysis of themes of resilience in the 2011 Brisbane flood
say: ..the news media was one important vehicle of several
through which the flood could be understood and internalised.
Examining how the flood was framed in the media provides
insight into the broad public perception of floods. In particular,
analysis of local and national newspaper reporting of the Brisbane
flood illuminates how experience of a natural disaster frames
perceptions of climate change and perceptions of governments
ability to respond to a disaster event.

Does our media coverage of the Mora storm provide such

possibilities for the future?
Sadly not.

It is thus important to discuss not only in society but also within

media and professional organisations on their responsibility in
disaster reporting and coverage.
Perhaps The Editors Guild could initiate that discourse.
Posted by Thavam