One year after being hit by a catastrophic earthquake the population of Haiti is facing more than structural damage. On January 24th the Haitian Ministry of Public Health reported 4,030 deaths due to cholera and a cumulative total of 209,034 reported cases (Frerichs). The cholera epidemic has generated significant dialogue and debate on topics ranging from the source of the disease, the international response, and the media coverage. Amidst the frenzied discussions on Haiti’s cholera epidemic there is a reoccurring sentiment of blame.
Ralph R. Frerichs, of the UCLA Department of Epidemiology, recently sought to establish the factors causing the first wave Haitian case and was unable to conclusively attribute it between the Nepalese United Nations troops or climatic changes, which may have stimulated the growth of the cholera organism (2011). In the face of 4,030 deaths (and counting) it seems a waste of energy to engage oneself so passionately with finding blame in the epidemic rather than finding solutions. While I do not suggest that people should avoid examining mistakes, indeed they should learn from them, I do suggest that these examinations be productive rather than solely focused on blame.
For those of us who are not members of the U.S. Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and Prevention (the vast majority of the global population) and are not privy to their primary data, we must rely on the media for our information. In the following discussion on the media’s involvement in the Haitian cholera epidemic I will suggest that while the media is not complicit in the creation of conditions that led to the cholera epidemic it was complicit in the creation of an atmosphere of blame, which in turn inhibited productive responses to the epidemic and increased the suffering of those effected. On November 1st CBC News wrote that the Haitian cholera outbreak matched a strain commonly found in South Asia (available at http://www.cbc.ca/health/story/2010/11/01/haiti-cholera-strain-cdc.html). This particular article ended with a comment from a CDC researcher, Dr. Braden, “That’s all we can say at this point, and we’ll know more as more research is done”. The article did not mention other possible research that was being done to suggest other sources for the initial cholera strain (lack of productive examination) and instead presented incomplete research that would further contribute to the blaming of Nepalese UN Peacekeepers.
Philip Gourevitch of the New Yorker recently engaged the tricky topic of humanitarian aid possibly doing more harm than good. In his discussion, Gourevitch draws attention to Dutch journalist Linda Polman’s views that “reporters are exploited by aid agencies to amplify crises in ways that boost fun-raising, and to present stories of suffering without political or historical context” (106). Gourevitch raises important points about the lack of accountability for aid workers who, by their presence and claims to neutrality, may be worsening the situation (109). To a large extent this is true to the media as well, especially when we consider the relationship between aid agencies and media.
During a CBC radio interview in November associated press correspondent Jonathan Katz responded to the question, “are you concerned that you are doing more harm than good?” Katz replied, “From the standpoint of journalists who are here trying to cover the story all we can really do is try to follow the information wherever it goes and make sure that the things we report are accurate and make sure that we get all the various points of view that surround the story. As for what people are going to do when they read a story, that is impossible to predict and it is very hard to use that to direct your report”. Media workers, both on the international and local levels, have a responsibility to objectively relay information. Of course, this is easier said than done. Once done, we live in an age where digital media is so easily manipulated that one reporter’s comprehensive and objective report may be taken by another source and selectively quoted to present a different side of the story. Katz’ response to the ‘more harm than good’ conundrum highlights the ideal journalist mentality. The unfortunate truth is that not all journalists practice responsible and objective reporting. Inevitably people do have agendas and will manipulate the truth to suit those agendas and members of the media should take it upon themselves to report with a heightened sense of responsibility. While we cannot blame the media for a disease we can partially attribute the resultant suffering to the media for creating an atmosphere of blame. This atmosphere of blame is an exhaustive circular dialogue, which is not being used to productively improve the conditions that Haitians now face.
References
Associated Press
2010 Haiti Cholera Matches S. Asian strain: CDC.http://www.cbc.ca/healt/story/2010/11/01/haiti-cholera-strain-cdc.html (accessed Feb 1, 2011).
Frerichs, Ralph R
2011 New Developments Regarding the Origin of Cholera in Haiti. http://www.ph.ucla.edu/epi/snow/cholera_haiti.html (accessed Feb 1, 2011).
Gourevitch, Philip
2010 Alms Dealers. New Yorker Oct 11, 2010, 102-109.
Katz, Jonathan M.
2010 Haiti Cholera:UN Base. 8.3 min. As it Happens with Mary Ambrose. CBC, November 2. http://www.cbc.ca/asithappens/episode/2010/11/02/tuesday-november-2-2010/ (accessed Jan 17, 2011).
No comments:
Post a Comment