hi guys, I will be watching the movie avatar for the third time tonight, and I thought it'd be cool to view the below video from Youtube. It's about the real avatars on Earth.
That set me thinking about our environment.
Wednesday, April 28, 2010
Sunday, April 25, 2010
Tornado hit Mississippi
A tornado hit Mississippi on 25th April, killing at least 10 people, including children.
Many houses were blown off, leaving debris and torn homes everywhere. Nearby states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama were also hit by the tornadoes. The tornado blew through the centre of Mississippi and blew down roads. Meteorologists estimated wind speeds at 150 miles per hour, which is approximately 240kph. The tornado brought heavy rain to many areas, and flooded some low lying regions.
Looking at this article reminded me of Hurricane Katrina a few years back, but the degree of destruction is much milder compared to the latter. Disasters are always etched deeply in our minds, and it's hard to forget the amount of emotional and economical damage it has done to many lives and families.
However, the main focus I wish to bring forth is the first sentence I saw on the introduction of the article. Almost all disasters would mention the death of children, or the number of children affected by the natural disaster. In my previous article, I wrote about the earthquake in China. It also made specific reference to an elementary school destroyed in the quake.
That set me wondering about the society we live in today. Do we need additional sensationalizing of the disasters to bring about greater sympathy? It is true that many people generally have a soft spot for children, therefore mentioning them in the articles would most probably create more readership and evoke more emotions among readers. So the question is whether resorting to such methods is ethical. It might not be utterly wrong, because there are children hurt in the disaster, but how badly hurt are the children? If the article makes it sound as if the children are dead, but in fact they are not, then is the editor still being ethical to mention children in order to create the drama and ensure people pay attention to their writing?
But well, in this article, there are several casualties. I may not know the true number of adults and children injured or killed. Perhaps the number is not that important afterall because a life, no matter how old or young, is precious. Any number written on the article will not wipe away the pain, or suffering the people on the ground are facing. However, I feel that there could be less appeal to the emotions, and perhaps more sticking to the facts.
Many houses were blown off, leaving debris and torn homes everywhere. Nearby states of Louisiana, Arkansas and Alabama were also hit by the tornadoes. The tornado blew through the centre of Mississippi and blew down roads. Meteorologists estimated wind speeds at 150 miles per hour, which is approximately 240kph. The tornado brought heavy rain to many areas, and flooded some low lying regions.
Looking at this article reminded me of Hurricane Katrina a few years back, but the degree of destruction is much milder compared to the latter. Disasters are always etched deeply in our minds, and it's hard to forget the amount of emotional and economical damage it has done to many lives and families.
However, the main focus I wish to bring forth is the first sentence I saw on the introduction of the article. Almost all disasters would mention the death of children, or the number of children affected by the natural disaster. In my previous article, I wrote about the earthquake in China. It also made specific reference to an elementary school destroyed in the quake.
That set me wondering about the society we live in today. Do we need additional sensationalizing of the disasters to bring about greater sympathy? It is true that many people generally have a soft spot for children, therefore mentioning them in the articles would most probably create more readership and evoke more emotions among readers. So the question is whether resorting to such methods is ethical. It might not be utterly wrong, because there are children hurt in the disaster, but how badly hurt are the children? If the article makes it sound as if the children are dead, but in fact they are not, then is the editor still being ethical to mention children in order to create the drama and ensure people pay attention to their writing?
But well, in this article, there are several casualties. I may not know the true number of adults and children injured or killed. Perhaps the number is not that important afterall because a life, no matter how old or young, is precious. Any number written on the article will not wipe away the pain, or suffering the people on the ground are facing. However, I feel that there could be less appeal to the emotions, and perhaps more sticking to the facts.
Wednesday, April 14, 2010
Earthquake
Environmental issues is a fairly hot topic recently, so I've decided to touch on it for the next few entries for this hypermedia course.
A strong earthquake hit Yushu, China on Wednesday morning. This region, which is near the Tibet border is very susceptible to siesmic movements. The 6.9 magnitude earthquake killed 400 people and injured thousands, of which many were buried alive. Approximately 20 children from an elementary school was reported buried in rubble. Rescue teams are on their way, but most have difficulty reaching the injured because of damaged infrastructure. The series of after shocks are said to cause more destruction and impede soldiers' ability to reach the wounded.
As I was reading the article, I was wondering how many others outside China would seriously reach out to the victims upon viewing this piece of news.
Natural disasters used to be rare, and whenever anything major happened, there would be extensive news coverage. However, in recent years, the rising number of major natural disasters seems to have desensitized the impact on people. People appear to be less concerned or non-chalent, unless the disaster is happening right at their doorstep.
On the other hand, we could argue that there are still many efforts worldwide to support disaster victims. A good example would be the recent Haiti earthquake where donations from all over the world poured into this poverty striken nation. However, the massive help garnered could be due to extensive media coverage. Then the next question would be, how long will the donations sustain the people of Haiti? What would happen after the funds are depleted? Is the world still so kind to continue supporting Haiti?
Taking my attention back to the earthquake in China, I was initially shocked that a major earthquake has struck a poor region again, where houses are mainly made of wood and earthen walls. However, a few seconds into reading the article, I thought to myself, "This is another earthquake." This makes me wonder what would happen to our world if more people were to take my viewpoint. Would this world become a place where there's no room for sympathy? Or is this just an effect due to the never ending number of natural disasters that are happening around us, which "normalizes" every other disaster?
A strong earthquake hit Yushu, China on Wednesday morning. This region, which is near the Tibet border is very susceptible to siesmic movements. The 6.9 magnitude earthquake killed 400 people and injured thousands, of which many were buried alive. Approximately 20 children from an elementary school was reported buried in rubble. Rescue teams are on their way, but most have difficulty reaching the injured because of damaged infrastructure. The series of after shocks are said to cause more destruction and impede soldiers' ability to reach the wounded.
As I was reading the article, I was wondering how many others outside China would seriously reach out to the victims upon viewing this piece of news.
Natural disasters used to be rare, and whenever anything major happened, there would be extensive news coverage. However, in recent years, the rising number of major natural disasters seems to have desensitized the impact on people. People appear to be less concerned or non-chalent, unless the disaster is happening right at their doorstep.
On the other hand, we could argue that there are still many efforts worldwide to support disaster victims. A good example would be the recent Haiti earthquake where donations from all over the world poured into this poverty striken nation. However, the massive help garnered could be due to extensive media coverage. Then the next question would be, how long will the donations sustain the people of Haiti? What would happen after the funds are depleted? Is the world still so kind to continue supporting Haiti?
Taking my attention back to the earthquake in China, I was initially shocked that a major earthquake has struck a poor region again, where houses are mainly made of wood and earthen walls. However, a few seconds into reading the article, I thought to myself, "This is another earthquake." This makes me wonder what would happen to our world if more people were to take my viewpoint. Would this world become a place where there's no room for sympathy? Or is this just an effect due to the never ending number of natural disasters that are happening around us, which "normalizes" every other disaster?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)