The extent of public and government response to natural disasters and other humanitarian calamities is directly related to the amount and nature of media coverage, according to Jo Chandler in a recent article in The Age. This creates an ethical dilemma for news reporters, who often feel that they are intruding on others’ privacy or interrupting more essential tasks such as the provision of medical services to needy people.
The article refers in particular to a report last week on the devastation caused by flooding in Pakistan. Desperately sick children and their mothers were vying for a doctor’s urgent attention, but they stood back and gave way to a Western reporter who was asking the doctor questions. While the questions were continuing, a little girl died. Perhaps the doctor could not have saved her, but it seems strange that it was more important for the doctor to spend time with a reporter than with patients.
However, the public response to a disaster is dependent on the story being reported. Aid agencies recorded a surge in donations after the report was aired. Even governments, it would seem, make their aid allocation decisions based on media coverage of disaster events. If the media did not provide coverage, many people would suffer in silence.