PressEthic

After taking in weeks of Hurricane Katrina coverage from popular news outlets like CNN and Time magazine, I finally got to the past two issues of The Economist .

The conclusions they came to on things like the inadequacy of FEMA, continued racial problems in the U.S., and high oil prices are echoed in our mass media. But in other ways, it’s very interesting to read their global take on Katrina and its aftermath.

The article “A city silenced” from the September 3rd issue includes the following in its opening paragraph:

It will be deceptively easy for statistically minded historians to play down the magnitude of what Hurricane Katrina did to America’s Gulf coast this week. It pales in comparison with last December’s Asian tsunami, which left more than 200,000 dead. Indeed, the death toll in Louisiana, Mississippi and Alabama, which could turn out to be 1,000 or more, was sadly and promptly matched by this week’s other tragedy, the deaths in a stampede of Shia pilgrims in Baghdad.

Remember the tsunami? A government official speaking on CNN made the comparison shortly after Katrina struck. Although the tsunami disaster elicited a response that consumed the world for weeks, it now feels like ancient history.

And the Iraqi stampede? That was the same week? I hadn’t really thought about it.

This gives a whole new dimension to Hurricane Katrina. Somehow, these comparisons weaved us into the world fabric; we can talk about the U.S. in terms of hardship as well as policy and prosperity.

In the September 10th issue, the article “The shaming of America” says, “Since Hurricane Katrina, the world’s view of America changed.” I wonder if Americans really sense this shift. Our media, by and large, spends a disproportionate amount of time covering all things American (both major and minor), with only nominal coverage of what’s happening in the rest of the world.

During a course I took over the summer in London, the instructor attributed this to the size of the U.S. We’re so big that an entire newscast can focus on what’s happened within our borders without venturing out. Perhaps this is true. There are attempts made at international news to varying degrees at different news organizations, but the overarching U.S.-centric coverage has created an unintended sense of isolation.

When news organizations referred to the hurricane victims as “refugees,” it caused great offense. In part, it had to do with our perception of “refugees” as poor people in third world countries who are nothing like us. Expanding news coverage would not only bring an American sense of inclusion with the rest of the world, but would also make us see how other countries handle problems and (gasp!) perhaps encourage us to use some of their more successful tactics.

Maybe this is asking too much, but there is a disconnect between what we think of ourselves versus the rest of the world. Our media can take an active role in changing that by providing more information about those far-flung places we don’t pay much attention to.