Oh, Forgetfulness...

The article used for this blog can be found here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/25/business/media/25coverage.html?partner=rss&emc=rss

After the tragic earthquake in Haiti, journalists and news companies rushed to the scene as perhaps billions of people around the world were glued to the coverage. There was constant exposure to the devastation; what seemed like around-the-clock reports of pictures, stories, and updates. The New York Times article mentioned above reports a new conflict that is emerging: the high cost of the coverage, combined with decreasing interest in the stories, is causing the TV networks to take their journalists and crews out of Haiti. The article begins by acknowledging the great amount of attention that has been given to the earthquake, as well as making the comment that “the attention has come in large part because of the news media’s reportorial muscle, the kind that is harder to flex in a challenging economic climate.” It continues with the explanation that many TV networks, at the outset of this crisis, proceeded without worry about the cost, but are now starting to feel the ramifications of that decision. The article estimated that each news company would spend about $1.5 million on their reports of the earthquake. In addition to the expenses, the article talks about the “24-hour news cycle,” in which watchers are beginning to become less interested in the stories that are being told. Anderson Cooper is quoted as having lamented, “People are just going to lose interest in this as a story. They’re going to stop watching.” The article also briefly discusses the struggle of journalists to balance helping people with reporting, as well as reports that some organizations were critical of news companies using their aiding efforts as “self-promotion.”

One of the things that caught my attention in this article is how it relates to the bigger question of the degree to which media impact our lives. Taking all the variables into account (i.e. expenses of coverage and people’s loss of interest), we have to ask the question, are we losing interest and not watching the stories, thus causing the networks to change their stories, or are the networks lack of reporting (possibly due to the expense) causing us to become disinterested? This question is discussed in the theory of normalization. Part of the philosophy of normalization is that “ideas and attitudes that are routinely included in media become part of the legitimate public debate about issues. Ideas that are excluded from the popular media or appear in the media only to be ridiculed have little legitimacy.” (Croteau and Hoynes, pg. 163). The New York Times article itself seems to recognize this phenomenon of media effecting people’s responses, whether positively or negatively: “Some say the media’s ability to arrive so swiftly and show the widespread suffering in a place like Port-au-Prince influences the public’s reactions.” Although this comment was made in relation to government reactions, it has telling implications for the general public’s reactions as well.

Aside from these “which came first, the chicken or the egg?” type questions, I am also caught in a more personal question: will I forget? Will you forget? In the coming months, as the economy fluctuates and new stories pervade our senses, will we leave Haiti behind? I would like to think the answer is no, and to an extent past experiences with catastrophes such as Hurricane Katrina tell me that we will not forget completely. However, with the idea of normalization in play, and the news companies having to (perhaps understandably?) withdraw their stories, it is important that we still remember, and, that we do not stop there, but remember enough to continue to do something.