Interesting question. There has been quite a lot of research on the mdeia reporting of disasters, and on the resultant public perceptions. Some of the things that emerge are: 1. Media reporting in the TV age is very dependent upon dramatic pictures. Thus, the tsunami was a perfect media event - terrible pictures of the event and of the aftermath. In Bangladesh communications are so difficult in the affected areas that media coverage is difficult; 2. The quality of coverage is also dependent on the number of correspondants in the area. In the case of New Orleans there were literally thousands. In Bangladesh there are very few. 3. There is also a big difference in perception between developed and less developed countries. The perception is that in more developed countries such events should not happen (nonsense of course) - therefore there is a sense of outrage - in developing countries this is considered to be part of life (also unfair, butr that is how perception works) 4. The media love disasters that involve lots of dramatic pictures of technology - e.g. firebombers attacking blazes; helicopters winching people from floods. Such images have been hard to obtain in Bangladesh. 5. There is a three-stage reporting process - a. a rather breathless wow! look at this disaster stage; b. a slightly more considered this is the impact stage, usually with a strong human impact element (Mrs Smith lost all her family and her home...); and c. who is to blame? If b. and c. are difficult to achieve or of low perceived interest to the readers / wtachers they got dropped; 6. There is a huge distance effect, both geographically and culturally. The further away a disaster occurs, the alrger it has to be to make the news. This is mitigated by culture -i.e. a culture that is similar to your own is more likely to make the news. Thus, a similar flood in New Zealand would be a massive story because in part because NZ is culturally close to us.
There is a lot more on this as well, but these are some of the key factors. Look at the above in the context of Bangladesh and you will understand why it is that this has dropped off the news so fast, and thus why there are comparatively few comments here.
No criticism implied of anyone in the above, including the media and PPRuNe posters - just an attempt to provide some (academic) context.
In an increasingly overpopulated world, people care less and less about so-called 'natural disasters' affecting loss of human life .... if it is far away. New Orleans was 'close', as is California and fires- we could have been there, the place was well protected, the people we can talk to and visit. It was close to us, it was unexpected (being a first serious overwhelming of the defences). As far as Bangladesh's flood region is concerned, I am aware of it being a regular occurence since a really big one in the early 70s. Doubtless it was a regular occurence before then. One must expect it every few years- hence the large number of cyclone shelters. It is really nature saying 'don't live here'. It can hardly be viewed as a cruel and unexpected natural event such as a volcanic eruption. People do go live there (sadly, many presumably have no choice). We have seen it many times before, we know it will happen again...and again and again. I'm afraid the human reaction is 'boring!'. That's how people are. An exceptional event like Mt. Vesuvius erupting will have a totally different reaction. Once in a lifetime (or 10,000 years) events provoke a different reaction to once every 5 year 'disasters'. Nature was just saying 'move here and you will get zapped'. Zapped they were- we all knew it was coming, it was inevitable.
Becoming cold hearted? No, nothing has changed, and amongst all the meaningless dross on JB thanks for picking my thread as a basis for comparison.
The answer lies, and always has lain, in the brutal truth that not all lives are perceived as being equal. I direct you to post #15 in the following link to avoid repeating myself. Sorry, I've forgotten how to name a link. http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthr...ls#post2043069
The unfairness and brutality of life can destroy our minds if we let it. That way madness lies, as I can assert with some confidence. Life is cheap in most places, we are just lucky to live in one of the others.
Your initial thread wasn't the target - by time scales you posted around the time the cyclone hit, it was more the response whilst the cyclone was having its full effect.
Having dinner with a select group with sublime menu is the antithesis of losing your family, home and those one often has over to dinner. (I've edited my post above)
Your link is most valid and I have in the past, posted similar views on the media and the global 'value' of loss of life. What can be done? This may be the best 'ignore' yet (a hundred or some Americans died in the Tsunami remember big global fund gathering) - this time no westerners, its all 'those poor' people who 'chose' to live there.
Rainboe
Quote:
Nature was just saying 'move here and you will get zapped'. Zapped they were- we all knew it was coming, it was inevitable.
Is that like living below sea level in New Orleans in a hurricane belt?
Last edited by Track Coastal; 19th Nov 2007 at 12:36.
Location: South of the North Pole, north of the South Pole...
Posts: 303
There are at least 3 reasons I could offer for why there has been so little comment here (or elsewhere) on the subject:
1) Humans are not yet an endangered species, unlike say, tigers, lions and pandas or any number of others. In fact, according to this UN report, there were already 6.3 billion of us in 2003, projected to grow to 8.9 billion by 2050. Bangladesh currently has 147 million (give or take a few thousand)...
2) It's one thing to make a fuss over furry or cuddly animals, but Bangladeshis are no more or less hairy than Europeans, North Americans or Africans. Lots of mammals are cute only during a comparatively short period of their lives. After which, most of us tend to view our fellows as competitors: for jobs, housing, benefits or whatever...
3) Newsworthiness...?! The loss of life in the most recent cyclone disaster to hit Bangladesh almost pales into insignificance when compared to the 140,000 dead in 1988 and 300,000 dead in 1970. Or if everyone in Bangladesh owned a car already, there would probably be anywhere between 50 and 100,000 deaths due to road accidents annually, which might bring a little perspective to the issue...
However, I have to admit being somewhat surprised that the usual NGOs or other variously charitable organisations have been slow to capitalise on this latest disaster. Perhaps they're still flush with the unspent funds leftover from the 2004 tsunami?
However, I have to admit being somewhat surprised that the usual NGOs or other variously charitable organisations have been slow to capitalise on this latest disaster. Perhaps they're still flush with the unspent funds leftover from the 2004 tsunami?
Location: South of the North Pole, north of the South Pole...
Posts: 303
Quote:
Among major donors is Saudi Arabia, which has pledged $100m in aid. The UK is sending $5m and the US will provide $2m in aid, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has announced.
What's the point of sending $2 or $5 million? Or is that just to cover the currency exchange costs for the Saudi's $100 million...talk about winning friends?!
And that's before deducting the costs involving corruption which will surely take a good slice off it all before any aid finally gets down to the level of Mr. Chowdhury...?!
Why should the Governments send (the taxpayers) money on their behalf? It belongs to the taxpayer. Governments should be banned from sending taxpayer's (ie other people's money) on their behalf. Charities are perfectly able to send out funds that the taxpayers want to pay themselves. By sending government tax revenues, those taxpayers are being made involuntary donors and their tax revenues are being stolen. Far better that people can decide themselves what money they want to pay of aid.
Track Coastal, you were selective in your quote: I also said:
Quote:
New Orleans was 'close', as is California and fires- we could have been there, the place was well protected, the people we can talk to and visit.....
New Orleans was well protected, for decades it stood the test- it took a big one to overwhelm it. It was not a regular occurence!
Location: Dublin, Ireland. (No, I just live here.)
Posts: 654
I did a couple of ballpark calculations, using Bangladesh's estimated demographic figures. Taking the estimate of 15,000 fatalities, I calculated that Bangladesh's population grew by that much in about 38 hours. In other words, all those killed by the cyclone, according to the worst estimates, have already been "replaced". I'm not trying to make a point by this - just looking at the numbers, which don't say anything about the human tragedy, and the effects of high population density.
Life is cheap in most places, we are just lucky to live in one of the others.
A fact I am grateful for everyday.
Luck of the (birth)draw is one I will never comprehend.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------- By the by, when p!ssing and moaning about the extensive coverage or lack thereof, I am assuming posters are referring to the Western media.
And their audience is where again?
Take New Orleans, for example, other than US networks for obvious reasons, why did so many, and for so long, of the other major Western (heck, even Islamic, Chinese, Senegalese, take your pick) networks cover that tragedy?
At first it was the damage to a major city - that would have generated coverage in its own right.
Then it was, in some cases, a not so veiled enjoyment of the difficulties suffered by those fat, lazy Yanks.
edited to add: And yes, I think it's ludicrous to pump tremendous money and effort into protecting a coastal city whose average elevation is several feet below sea level. The port, which is vitally important could be redesigned/moved (I am not an expert on that), but in my typically heartless way, I'd say the citizens of New Orleans had a good ride while it lasted.
And as long as I'm ranting, coastal flood insurance provided by the government? Are you kidding me? Well and good if one wants to live on the beach, but I think insurance should be strictly a private venture. The rates would astronomic, but one would have other options. There's plenty of open land in North Dakota.
All of the above is typed after a night in the hospital with pnuemonia (GASP! He mentioned healthcare!!! How come the attention whore whose name dare not be mentioned didn't come by to ask how my experience went?)
Last edited by brickhistory; 19th Nov 2007 at 19:53.
"Tha amount of money the UK and USA are sending in aid is an insult. But then i guess there is no oil in Bangladesh!"
Give it a rest Tigs.
After the Tsunami, the USA was criticized for initially committing a similar small amount. There is no reason at the moment to get all worked up with the "who cares the most" contest in the West. Take a good look at the relief tonnage numbers the USA was hauling in Indonesia within days of the Tsunamis.
No oil there either. (used to be though)
As for the Saudis, take a look at that $100 million number. Now tell me how much a private A380 costs.
Is everyone possibly skirting the real reason? Is it at all possible that it's really a case of " there's too many of them" or possibly something along the lines of "well at least thay won't be coming over to my back yard"? Harsh, cruel, inhumane thoughts, but isn't there a kernel of truth somewhere there? I truly despair of a world where there is so much hunger and suffering in the midst of plenty. Even developed countries with booming economies have large pockets of unbelievable poverty. Some third world countries have small pockets of incredible wealth among a sea of inhuman poverty. And perhaps, the most terrifying, disheartening thing of all is that there is no end in sight. Cry, people, cry, for a world gone and going terribly wrong. If only someone had a solution that would WORK.
And perhaps, the most terrifying, disheartening thing of all is that there is no end in sight. Cry, people, cry, for a world gone and going terribly wrong. If only someone had a solution that would WORK.
I truly do identify with your sentiments, sadly we have to face the cruel facts of the world when it concerns Bangladesh. It is very easy to say, 'Well that is the way it is, they live in a place that is flooded all the time'.
However you live in an area that has a very high risk of being destroyed every year by hurricanes, I live in an area that is hit by severe tornadoes every year. Why don't you move to a safer area, why don't I move to a safer area? Easy, we don't want to, it is our home and we can afford to take our chances. (However, I love Antigua and would move there in a heartbeat if I could afford it.)
You asked if anyone had a solution that would work. Well yes I do. Nobody would like it, because nobody would like my solution it would be very hard to pay for my solution, but it would work.
Very easy really. You use military force to remove these people in the Bay of Bengal to safer areas. Then the UN taxes all the countries in the world to provide food, shelter and teaching these same people how to live in the new area that they are relocated. Oops wait, what about the people living in the area that these people are relocated into. Well, what the hell, move them somewhere, use the military. I think the last person that tried that ended up killing about 25 to 30 million people, Mao.
Sadly my friend we cannot save the world. It would wonderful if we could. I do my small part and sent some money to the Red Cross for Bangladesh, I hope it helps.
