Reporting the News & Respecting Haiti's Dead

I was watching Sky News with Live Jeremy Thompson and the main story was, of course, the aftermath of the earthquake that took place 10 miles west of the Haitian capital Port-au-Prince on Tuesday. Not long into the broadcast images of the destruction were shown; the fallen buildings, the wounded and distressed plus 3 dead bodies.

There was no warning regarding the gruesome nature of the content of the report, and it came as a shock that such graphic imagery would be shown at 5pm. I don't know the official track record of reportage regarding such material with Sky News or the Western media in general, but it made me think about how choices of what is shown and when are made.

This might sound picky, but I feel that the broadcast of the dead, in this case, robs them of a certain dignity a dignity that, it seems UK and American soldiers  have - having never seen a dead body of any broadcast on TV. Don't get me wrong - I don't think these soldiers bodies should be broadcast out of respect for family and the dead themselves. But rarely, if at all, does one see the dead bodies of first worlders displayed in the international media for all to see. I can't recall seeing one dead body after the 9/11 catastrophe. I didn't want to see any - but that is also true for this disaster in Haiti. So what's the difference?

Does it have something to do with the nature of the event? Are the dead from natural disasters fine for broadcast, but those killed in violent conflict off limits? Apparently only black folks died in the Katrina disaster in New Orleans, also an acceptable image for the media as is the dead in Iraq and across Africa.

One could argue that there are simply more disasters in the developing world and so the appearance of more dead from the respective locales is only a matter of statistics. But I believe it has something to do with race and class. To be poor is to be overlooked - to be black is to be inferior. To be poor and black is to be pitied - but not respected. There seems to be a sense (and I sometimes see it in myself) that the poor of the 'third world' aren't 'like the rest of us'. They are more like animals - used to living in squalor and therefore not sensitive to pain and distress the way 'us civilised'  folks are. So, they can be treated differently from the more civilised and materially privileged.

If this incident took place in say Chicago, Paris, Oslo or London would it be dealt with in the same way? Likely there would be montages with touching music with crying and distressed humanity - dignified in the struggle to survive (not unlike the white flood victims who 'found' food during the aftermath of Katrina).

These musings may have no basis - but I do believe that with repetition and consistency, the subtleties in how stories and the subject matter thereof are treated have a deep impact on our perception of the world. We get used to certain groups being filthy, starving and fly ridden and other groups being clean, prosperous and dignified and become inured to the suffering of some and sensitive to the suffering of others. The suffering of Haiti began a long time ago, and this earthquake has highlighted the extent of the long existing poverty and only exacerbated the pain. In some indirect way, what we portray in the media, and how it is portrayed, helps to determine what we expect, and ultimately accept in the world.