If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed or email alerts. Thanks for visiting!
Immediately after 9/11, images of people jumping out of the towers or the repeatedly displayed images of planes crashing into the second tower made people cry out in anguish and made beelines to the shrink. The media instantly rescinded all such display of gore and made their telecasts politically correct and sensitively aware. But it seems, now the playing ground is the Asian subcontinent – the venting ground to exhibit the hardcore sensational news. The tsunami gives them just that. Scenes of devastation without a personal attachment. Scattered bodies along washed out shorelines, rural Tamilians in anguish, grieving parents holding the scant remains of their child…cameras right in the faces of private grief. Where is the sensitive news coverage now?
A less extreme and more disinterested assessment comes from Ed Luce, south Asia bureau chief for Financial Times, who confesses he’s watched ‘‘only a bit of television in the past few days and most of it NDTV’’. One sight shocked him: ‘‘TV crew in helicopters just above the sea, off the eastern coast of Sri Lanka, and Indonesia, filming victims below. It was voyeuristic.’’
Hurricanes hit hard in the US last year but beyond the vast expanses of mangled piers and beach houses turned inside out, the only people stories we saw were of hope and close-calls. No bodies on the beach, no human anguish tales; admittedly they are better prepared but where are those people reported dead? We never saw them or their families talk on live TV. Cut now to tsunami news – amateur videos of rising water, people fleeing in horror, mass graves – are regular news.
Is it fair or am I just unfairly, crying unfair?
by Patrix | on Thursday, December 30th, 2004 at 11:45 am | 
Current Affairs, Media . You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.
December 30th, 2004 at 1:56 pm reply
Patrix, I don’t know if you can compare 9/11 and this in the first place. That was more of a national security issue which stirred in some patriotic passion. The brutality of the tragedy will not and cannot be lost on anyone. Seeing gruesome images could have only caused more hatredness towards Muslims than that was already brewing. I am sure you can imagine how many more ethnic groups could have been attacked in retaliation if they showed dead bodies mangled in the rubble or people jumping out to their death.
That said, its not that I endorse the media showing the gruesome dead bodies and mass burial and stuff, but at the same time it might be required for people sitting cushy across the world to comprehend the nature of the diaster and act. These are the scenes that will stir Americans to sit up and notice. Otherwise, it will be just another calamity like the thousands that strike the third world.
Whatever it is, I hope there is no hidden meaning attached to the way media presents its images. I just hope they do a decent job in trying to get across to the mass. Ethics can come later.
I want to see more, I want to hear more..but they hardly cover anything. Last night they had a special on ABC, Tsunami: The Wave of Destruction. Trust them to come up with a title for every thing and dramatize it on top of that..just like ‘War on Terror’. Finally people in my office are talking about the tsunami. There has to be more coverage and I am not talking about the supermodel (pun unintended).
December 30th, 2004 at 5:17 pm reply
Alpha - I was in no way comparing the two tragedies but merely alluding to the fact the way american media handles depiction of tragedies, political or not. Sight of death can sometimes wake up the unaware but to balance out the stories of hope and rescue and then move beyond to highlight the aid flowing in and to show the relief efforts is the kind of news I would expect.
All the news I have been seeing is the sight of death and destruction. Relief efforts have been mobilized like never before but I don’t see that anywhere. If I didn’t read blogs or get regular emails from AID, I would be hopping mad.
December 30th, 2004 at 9:40 pm reply
Patrix,
I have avoided watching TV coverage of the tragedy, but what little I saw on Zee TV and Sun TV was gross enough.
So my question is this - is it only the western media who is showing those visuals or are Indian channels doing the same thing too…
December 30th, 2004 at 11:00 pm reply
hey Patrix… I really like ure post. With ure approval, I’d like to take an extract and post it on ChiensSansFrontiers, aka http://www.desimediabitch.blogspot.com, and add a link back to ure blog.
thanx, man, and yea, those nerve cells sure are firing away rapidly! also, those heart strings…
December 31st, 2004 at 12:08 am reply
Pat,
My 2 cents on your writeup and you need not necessarily agree to what I am saying. You are being fair….BUT !! Its all about quality. International media, according to me is technologically far more advanced than our domestic media not to mention the political clout and the influence under which the media has to operate. Bitch won’t be a misnomer.
Having said that, I believe our media did a good job of showing us the face of reality. If it sucks , it sucks. Period !! Please don’t get me wrong on this but India has a tremedous tendency of overstatement be it business, politics, international affairs or national calamitites.
The tsunami attack was a mishap one had never imagined of. It was a sudden stike of disaster unlike hurricanes where people had plenty of time to secure their behind before the monster arrived. Look at the death tolls dude, the loss of life is in 100Ks which is simply unignorable. The damage to life caused by hurricanes is pittance of what is casued by Tsunami. And moreover, look at the spread of the disaster. How many countries ?? 1, 2 .. it shattered across the Indian Ocean.
All souls RIP ~
December 31st, 2004 at 8:22 pm reply
Why can’t 9/11 and Tsunami not brought on same rung? Ultimately both lead to ‘human death’. And its a fact that the kind of personal respect for dead bodies was shown during 9/11 by American press is missing today when they report a disaster in ‘third world countries’. Western media definately finds it sensational to focus more on the gory details of human bodies now. One would hardly come across such pics of 9/11 mishap. Its only the twin towers burning, half dismanteled, were highlighted. For western media now its more ’bout sensation than senstivity.
January 1st, 2005 at 12:20 am reply
happy new year patrix. hope you get to read better headlines this year.
January 1st, 2005 at 10:40 pm reply
Nitin - I would definitely like to know what the local media is showing. But as precedent goes, the local media is always more “brutal” in its visualizations. But then is the media in India more justified in showing the scenes of devastation (human suffering) than the foreign media. I think not. Would we like our shattered home shown umpteen times on prime TV just to make ppl go “tch tch…those poor ppl”
Rahul - Feel free to borrow any material written here but of course with credit under the Creative Commons licence.
Prasad - I don’t necessarily disagree with their choice of visuals but just am questioning their objectives behind the choice of visuals. media stories can either fill us with hope or make us feel helpless. It is just doing the latter now but I already am seeing a change happening.
Anwesha - Alpha may have been right in pointing out that we can’t compare the two disaster purely due to different sensitivities attached. The Western media however could be more balanced in showing pictures. No dead children are shown in any Western tragedy as a rule of thumb. But this rule was passed over this time.
Ashi - Happy new year to you too. The new year, I am sure will bring happy tidings.
January 4th, 2005 at 4:51 am reply
Bharteeya Blog Mela: The Tsunami Memorial
The Bharteeya Blog Mela - showcasing the best writing from the Indian blogosphere. This edition is dedicated to coverage of the tsunami that hit Asia last week.
January 5th, 2005 at 12:36 pm reply
Probability of an American viewer seeing someone they know lying dead after Sept 11 is much higher than the probability of the same viewer seeing someone they know lying dead after the tsunami.
January 5th, 2005 at 3:19 pm reply
John - So I guess then is it acceptable to see someone lying dead like a B-grade disaster flick? Dead bodies are just that…dead. Calls of a Pulitzer, I suppose.
January 5th, 2005 at 3:52 pm reply
My guess is that this has to do with the desire to manipulate the public. In the case of the tsunami, I suspect they show these pictures in order to move people to give more for aid to the victims, and possibly to help raise an outcry against “stingy” Bush. (Yes, I’m paranoid about the American mainstream media. No, I don’t think it’s undeserved. For too many of these people, everything is partisan politics.)
I agree that so much showing of dead bodies is disrespectful toward the dead and their families, though. People can figure out that this is a terrible thing and that people need assistance without seeing these pictures over and over, even if they are “sitting cushy”.
January 5th, 2005 at 4:03 pm reply
Jaed - Showing dead bodies to get aid might not be really true. Aid is needed for the survivors; they can show the present living conditions to ask for help. But yeah, nothing sells like sensational high death numbers. The media had taken a mutual internal vow not to show dead bodies of children…wonder what happ.to that?
January 5th, 2005 at 4:05 pm reply
Patrix-
Personally I’d prefer to see no dead bodies. But I’d rather see dead bodies of strangers than friends. Wouldn’t you?
I’m not justifying media sensationalism. I’m explaining the rare instance of media restraint.
January 5th, 2005 at 6:26 pm reply
John - The first sentence placated me but the second one had me up in arms again. I rather see no dead bodies. Period. Media restraint seems more justifiable when it is equal across the board…not just politically correct.
January 11th, 2005 at 10:47 am reply
An Indian newspaper observed this difference????? Then what about the SAME INDIAN News channels, are they any different? Are they any sensitive?? Indian news channels as barbaric as you can get. Atleast in print media, you may find the OLD ethical values, but not in TV Media. The Indian news channels are as unethical as you can get. They just care about anything other than TRP ratings.