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.
Again you raise an important and timely topic with this blog post. I think the issue of the way the media portray natural disasters would be a suitable focus for this blog this semester if you are so interested. You are also free to explore any other topics that are of academic interest.
ReplyDeleteThe personal tone of your writing adds an appealing authenticity to your posts. You might also consider including images and links to other blogs that discuss the matters on which you are focusing.
I did a google blog search for the terms "natural disaster media sensationalism" and found some interesting links, I've added some of them to mydelicious account that might be of interest.