The media is not there to help. It does not feel your pain

Updated February 23, 2011 17:23:00

Rescue workers carry a survivor from a collapsed building

Rescue workers carry a woman survivor after she was rescued from the ruins of a collapsed building in central Christchurch on February 23, 2011. (Reuters : Simon Baker)

The coverage, as they say, is ongoing.

No one doubts for a moment that the Christchurch earthquake is a saddening, confronting thing, and that clearly it is a story that will occupy a lot of our attention.

Story. I just said it, instinctively framing these events -- this rolling tragedy -- as a piece of journalistic raw material. Quite a story.

The quake aftermath has been wall to wall on Australian TV for nigh on 24 hours now and looks like shouldering normal programming aside for a while yet.

Key network anchors and reporters were en route to New Zealand within hours ... papers and websites can't get enough of the words and pictures. Maybe we should be honest about the way in which our media treats events of this type, maybe we should ask whether coverage like this in a nation once removed from the scene of devastation, can in any way be constructive. And if it's not constructive, can it be anything but voyeuristic? Are the networks, the papers, the websites milking our collective fascination and turning it inevitably to profit, for no good end?

Maybe that's a trifle harsh, but so much resource is thrown at something like the Christchurch quake, we are confronted by so much detail that the question demands asking.

The media presents itself as being in some way empathetic. They are there, they are broadcasting, because they care, because somehow bringing the images into our homes, over here across so much water, can ... well, what?

Surely anyone with a true need for information can access it through official channels? Appeals for donations are hardly a key feature of the current rolling cover. It follows then that everything else is a sideshow staged purely for amusement.

The relationship between media and victims is so often plainly exploitative. Look no further than this afternoon's News Limited websites, the Herald Sun and the Daily Telegraph. Both featured screen-wide images of a family, a father and two children, moments after they had been told there was no hope that their mother could have survived the crushing impact of the quake.

All three are caught by the camera in a frozen spasm of grief. It is torture to see. It is an extraordinary intrusion ... a stolen moment of agony that has nothing to do with any of us. The news agencies that flog the image have nothing to offer these people in return. No empathy, no support, merely a momentary exploitation of sorrow in the hope the image might arrest the passing internet eye and draw traffic. Grotesque.

In these situations the media trade on the rather generous assumption on our part that they must be there because they care, that in being there they bring the tragedy home to all of us and therefore, somehow, make a difference. We ought to challenge that. Or at least question it.

Here's another case in point. This morning Fairfax papers published bold paper-wide images of a man pulled from the Christchurch wreckage. Dirt smeared. Bloodied. But alive. The paper does not come to these things through some disengaged, mechanical process. People are involved: shooting the image, moving on.

The picture was of one Shane Tomlin. His image raced round the world ... a sudden visual shorthand for disaster, tragedy and loss.

And then he vanished. His family -- as of this afternoon -- can find neither hide nor hair of him.

Used, you might say, and forgotten. Because that's the sad truth in these things: that the media does not empathise. The media is not there to help. The media does not feel your pain.

Tags:

First posted February 23, 2011 17:21:00

Comments (60)

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

Kerry:

24 Feb 2011 9:26:56am

First of all I'd like to say thankyou for one of the most honest and truthful appraisels of how Australian media behaves today. Most of the time I don't read or watch past the first day of any similar occurance for this very reason. Australian media has become bold in its treatment of these types of tragedies in that it attempts to create the news rather than report it. There is a search for anyone that can be photographed or interviewed, regardless of what that person may have experienced, and Sevn and the herald Sun are the worst I have seen. It should be renamed the Melbourne Truth.

Agree (4) Alert moderator
Mary Thomas:

24 Feb 2011 9:39:21am

I hate the media disaster hype so much that I listen to the 7pm ABC news only. I read the lead story in the 3 broadsheets (Age, SMH and Australian) on line each day. Then I leave the wireless and television turned off until the crisis is past. The rest is just unnecessary emotional exploitation.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
- Anita Gudruht:
  
  24 Feb 2011 10:15:53am
  
  Although during the Brisbane flood crisis, even the ABC dropped regular programmes and concentrated on ghoulish footage that was repeated ad infinitum. The voices you hear on PM on the radio are often the same ones you see on the TV news that night.
  Short factual summaries are preferable to pointless soundbites.
  Also, could someone please take away David Koch's passport. Any whiff of a tragedy and he's hovering like a death raven, usually in some ridiculous outfit that has been nicely selected by the Wardrobe Dept. to imply "disaster".
  
  Agree (1) Alert moderator
- Me:
  
  24 Feb 2011 10:37:44am
  
  This is pure bile. Can I have my 8 cents back?
  
  Agree (0) Alert moderator
  - pj:
    
    24 Feb 2011 12:21:05pm
    
    Only if I get my money back for the roads you travel on that I invariably don't.
    
    Agree (0) Alert moderator
sherose:

24 Feb 2011 9:43:10am

i read this, expecting an intelligent discussion about thats going on, and whilst i understand this as 1 opinion........

in my opinion you've just done exactly what you are complaining about .

you are no different. there are many parts in this article that you too could have assisted through words, complaining about media no running donation numbers.

The only thing that made a difference was the last few lines that mention the mans family cant locate him

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jonathan Powles:

24 Feb 2011 10:03:15am

Great piece, Jonathan.

There is a curious thing happening here: in the interest of "human interest", the actual humanity of the subjects the media reports is stripped away. The human dignity and respect; the families and relationships; the complexities of why, and how, and what it means for individuals to be caught up in these terrible events - these things are stripped away so the media can easily and quickly project an uncomplicated, powerful, but ultimately superficial image. Get the bloody headshot on the front page, and bugger the consequences. Or the context, or the respect, or the sympathy.

You pick yourself up on how the story becomes a "story" - going from a complex, human narrative with a beginning, a middle, and an end, with characters and richness and depth, to a short, sharp, media moment. But the word - "story"- has lost its meaning. The actual story just an excuse for the images and their predictable effect. Just like porn, really, which a lot of this voyeuristic coverage is starting to resemble quite closely.

On ABC local radio just now there was an interview with a NZ Salvation Army major who is in Christchurch helping with the necessary counseling for shock, loss and grief. He is staying in a motor park, and talked of overhearing the occupants of the next-door cabin, a father and daughter. The doughtier was asking when she could go home; the father was gently telling the child that their home was broken; then it caught fire; and now it is gone. They will not go home.

This is a story; and its a story that is being told hundreds of times across Christchurch.

Maybe we need more stories, and should grow up enough to read the ones that don't have pictures.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Nick:

24 Feb 2011 10:26:43am

And yet, as happens with every disaster, we complain when the world moves on.

Eight months on from the Pakistan floods (remember them?), thousands of people are still without homes as winter hits and temperatures are many degrees below zero overnight. Surely an emotional story, a "sudden visual shorthand for disaster" wouldn't go astray in reminding the world people are still in need?

Yes, rolling coverage of the Christchurch earthquake is probably a bit excessive, but then if your relatives were under one of those buildings, would it be? And emotional stories might be intrusive, bordering on voyeurism perhaps, but in the case of the Pakistani families suffering through winter in tent cities, might it not also be a praiseworthy reminder for the world to not move on until these people are looked after?

Editors, journalists, cameramen, photographers are people with families and loved ones too. Corporations don't feel your pain, but people do. And people make the editorial decisions. People tell the news. In the midst of a tragedy when when at present we are witnessing our corner of the world pull together to help each other out, isn't it a bit too cynical by half to be criticising those who would show those with family or friends in Christchurch (or the myriad other places affected by disaster this summer) what is happening? Those who help us to see where help and love and support is needed? Those showing us how we ourselves as people and as a nation are helping, supporting and encouraging others to do the same?

Yes there are unfortunate and unnecessary elements to rolling coverage. Yes some of them might be cynical decisions chasing ratings and dollars. But maybe news people, like normal people, aren't always that cynical.

Agree (2) Alert moderator
Richard:

24 Feb 2011 10:27:32am

I agree totally. After reporting the Shock/Horror story (which is legitimate reporting) there is a sickening tendency to exploit the human face of tragedy - Its pathetic - voyeurism at its worst. TV and radio should revert to normal programming and bring in updates when they are of significant importance on a need to know basis. I refuse to have my emotions drained and exploited hour after hour by these 'caring' reporters/adrenalin junkies and their 'vicarious' enjoyment' of the moment. On one channel a reporter -NOT wearing a safety helmet- goes into a collapsed building with a rescue team and stands there gabbing a description of what can be plainly seen to be happening. Get a real job mate.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
LOu:

24 Feb 2011 10:29:31am

I totally agree with this article, there are reporters in NZ who could update us factually from time to time. The inane questions and breathless anticipation of ,dare I say it, bodies being found is sickening and I have turned my television off. I have another gripe and that is the reporters standing in the dark, early in the morning outside ,for example, a court or football headquarters because later in the day something will happen. What is this about? Another is reporters asking a question that can only elicit a yes or no answer, we saw this during a refugee debate when an ABC reporter trawled camps in Indonesia and asked a man will this policy stop you getting on a boat ,or words to that effect, and the man answered no. Amateurish

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Uncle Fester:

24 Feb 2011 10:31:03am

This article reminds me of a first-year journalism lecture I attended once. The following week was a lecture on how to exploit people for media gain. It was delivered by a guest lecturer from News Ltd, who threatened that is anyone recorded his lecture he would walk out or sue.

I chose not to become a journalist.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
- Claire:
  
  24 Feb 2011 12:10:12pm
  
  Disaster is hardly to only issue on which the media manipulate the public - they have their political hands covered in cr** as well.
  
  Well said Uncle Fester.
  
  Agree (0) Alert moderator
Linny:

24 Feb 2011 10:36:44am

Jonathan I was pleased to read your article. I too have been appalled at how the media are invading the privacy of injured and grieving people in Christchurch and during other disasters. This is an issue that needs to be addressed more broadly and the journalists, photographers and their 'bosses' need to be brought to order over this invasion of personal privacy and personal space.

Please keep this issue alive with more extensive coverage. A name and shame approach regarding the individual reporters is appropriate in my opinion.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Magoo:

24 Feb 2011 10:46:57am

Good report, thank you. We all get sucked in by the dramatic footage and forget the human tragedy behind every pixel. Your examples are but a very small few among the hundreds of examples of media insensitivity, some others of which I highlighted on a blog yesterday.

Is it time for governments to regulate the press and their inability to avoid exposing intrusively into our lives? My own limited exposure to journalists over four decades ago left me determined to never grant another interview. Journalists lie, they misrepresent, they distort. Editors who are not able to sift reality from imagination in their journalist's work should be sacked, if not brought to court.

Freedom of the press is something we should all fight to protect. Blatant invasion of privacy and sensationalizing of individual's lives and follies is not.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Marty:

24 Feb 2011 10:47:37am

Modern Media

A frustrating little symptom of our new technology
is the reporting of the nearly and the almost that we see
it used to be that news was all about events quite real
now reports are all about what hasnt happened yet I feel

Potential rescue in the floods had reporters running wild
"we dont know who it is but its possibly a child"
Turned out there was no one , it was all a false alarm
yet they still report the fact that someone may have been in harm

Be it twitter or on facebook or some other e-news type
we are bombarded with the non news with a liberal dose of hype
Why cant they just wait til there's some news to fill our screens
not updates of the updates and the nothing in betweens

What happens when we get a story worthy of our time
it seems to me reporting on the facts is now a crime
I've taken up my pen and written harsh words to the paper
Bring back the news from olden days not this silly e-news caper

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Wolf:

24 Feb 2011 10:49:31am

Why do the commercial networks see the need to send "Personalities" to these disasters.

They are not focused on getting quality information for local knowledge, they are after ratings only.

What is the cost and imposition that a full crew of Breakfast crews puts on the already stretched resources in the disaster area.

And not to mention the outrage that 1 Australian life seems to be of more value to the 75 other people already confirmed as dead, given the importance that local media has given.

I don't watch those shows or read those papers for a reason.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Pete:

24 Feb 2011 10:54:33am

I find this piece a bit odd, in that the crux of it is suggesting that when the (commercial) media tell us they are at these disasters because they care, we believe them. I don't think the average Australian media consumer actually gets the impression that any media organ "cares". Hardly any-one believes this - or has the impression that the (commercial) media has any intention other than to entertain and to extract profit. It's the same as when we see commercials from banks - telling us about how much they "care" about us: I'm sorry, but I really think as a nation we are made of more pragmatic stuff than to actually swallow this line. Am I wrong? Do I overestimate the average Australian media consumer?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Ceri Davies:

24 Feb 2011 10:56:51am

And added to the exploitation is the fact that the talking heads (Kochie etc) are in Christchurch taking up space, rooms and resources that are sorely needed by the locals.

Not only exploitation, but serious selfishness.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Fiona:

24 Feb 2011 10:58:01am

Well said, Jonathan Green. Whilst I'm a bit wary of lumping every media outlet together under the pejorative term "THE MEDIA", you're right in saying that most media report breathlessly on major disasters for their own benefit, not the general public's. Anyone who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves.

Even the ABC, which is ostensibly run for the public, funded by taxpayers, has to justify the existence of its new 24-hour news channel and fill up air time on stalwarts like Lateline, the 7.30 Report, PM etc.

That said, I'd rather know what our Kiwi friends are going through at such an awful time, and what people in Qld endured during the recent floods and cyclones, than subject myself to a complete media blackout. As media consumers, it's up to us to draw our own 'line in the sand' about what we want to hear/read/watch, and whether the 'information' we're getting is truly news or sensationalism.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jupiter:

24 Feb 2011 11:01:05am

I think it was very telling that one reporter and TV crew from a large commercial network was "on the spot" at Christchurch Cathedral almost immediately after the earthquake and before the Cathedral was cordoned off. He wandered through the ruins reporting on the extent of the damage but did not call out to see if anyone was buried amongst the rubble.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
wandererfromoz:

24 Feb 2011 11:01:53am

The media also includes the ABC and when stupid questions are asked by stupid reporters akin to the question asked of the captain of the aircraft carrier that sunk the destroyer on night maneouvres - "how did you feel when you saw all those men drowning?" I just switch off and last night watching the 7.30 report I switched off in anger.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
ardy:

24 Feb 2011 11:13:28am

Emotion as a substitute for information is all they do. They know that 'crying is better than dying' in terms of raw numbers.

This is rubbish and dangerous rubbish as it impacts on politics and many areas where an emotional response gets you up the approval ladder and you don't have to do anything apart from emote.

When are we going to get sick of this and get back to doing things worthwhile rather than try to fill an emotional void in the public's imagination that can never be filled. It is the same as violence in the cinema you just need more and more of it to get the same result.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jenny:

24 Feb 2011 11:18:21am

There is an old journalists joke about a photographer relating his experiences traveling through India. He described pitiful condition of street beggars showing photos of one in voyeuristic detail, His companions asked "What did you give him?" The photographer answered " A 250th of a second at 5.6 through a 105mm lens".

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Misha Ketchell:

24 Feb 2011 11:22:49am

There is much true about what JG says. Recording the grief of victims is voyeuristic. There is something false and cloying about the "we feel your pain" subtext. And it is true that the journalists on the scene are doing a job, and professionally part of their brains will be tuned into what will create good vision or words on a page -- especially emotion and grief. All of this is competitive and opportunistic and ugly.
But that's to focus only on the dark heart of journalism. It's an inherently hypocritical trade. It's dirty work -- yet it's also work worth doing. The media does create a sense of connectedness and increase our knowledge in ways that are important and that can help drive a positive response. Would Jonathan really have it that an event like this is not reported, or that the media entirely shy away from any emotional dimension? Such an approach would be to deny a legitimate part of a real story. At the risk of sounding like a tabloid editor in self-justification mode, it would be to suppress part of what makes us human.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
john:

24 Feb 2011 11:27:15am

I agree with you completely Mr Green.

However, the ABC are not perfect either. For example, the story titled 'signs of life in Christchurch rubble' seems a bit much. http://tiny.cc/kyx2y

Tell me the story if and/or when this person is rescued, they may well be a story. If what they heard was a stray cat and by the time they get there it is dead, I will be disappointed.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
shortmemories:

24 Feb 2011 11:28:27am

It is a case that for any one to do their job, particularly in emergencies a certain level of detachment needs to be in play. And goes for journalists/reporters as well: BUT

I remember reading Craig McMurtries? article on the Haiti earthquake where in the end he had to stop reporting on it and start helping people - human victims. That brought to me an overlying emotion to his on camera reporting. With the help that he and his team gave was also conveyed an honest and non contrived sense of his helplessness of being able to do little really: but do what he could through compassion and empathy and at a minimum provide comfort. And it conveyed so much more of the helplessness and vulnerability of the victims that we saw and he wrote of. To me that brought a new human/humanity dimension to the Haiti tragedy which is still being played out.

The ability for the media to be there or access images or video of events and tragedies as they are happening is ever evolving. But the technology seems to have consumed the emotion, the humanity, the tragedy of shattered lives. And without that the audience is left with a spectacle without a basis that is emotional, compassionate or empathic. The 24 hour non stop coverage needs to be reviewed. People are switching off to things they should be emotionally glued to. We can't afford to switch off to tragedy and others distress and pain or be desensitised to it by over exposure.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
- Kath Grant:
  
  24 Feb 2011 1:22:50pm
  
  More journalists and photographers like Craig McMurtrie and Dan Sweetapple could only be a good thing.
  
  Agree (0) Alert moderator
GrassyNoel:

24 Feb 2011 11:28:37am

You guys gotta check out Sunrise at the moment. They're even keeping their voices low to imitate empathy.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
G:

24 Feb 2011 11:31:01am

The commercial media outlets profer stories that are sensationalised and trivialised, with newsworthiness being measured by whether there is good video or photographic footage to support their inane commentary. This works. A huge amount of people swallow this junk up. Personally I can't bring myself to watch any televised news except the occasional SBS broadcast (and really, ABC is often not much better than 7, 9 and 10). I stick to on-line print media where I can quickly skip through the drivel to find the news. ABC on-line is a great service, although I don't know why they thought it was a good idea to provide us paragraphs of details on an approaching cyclone in Anna Bligh's own words; she is not a meterologist.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Noel Butcher:

24 Feb 2011 11:32:14am

Seeing that picture brought back memories from my previous career as a daily newspaper photographer working the the now defunct Melbourne Herald. The story involved a search for a skier who had been missing for three days in Victoria's north east snowfields. With the prevailing conditions it had become obvious that there was precious little hope of him being found alive.

An 'Age' photographer and I were sitting near the search HQ when the sister of the missing man came out of a doorway, leaned against a railing and simply howled her eyes out in a torrent of emotion. From our position, she was a perfect 300mm lens shot, the angle of the railing helped the composition and the soft backlighting helped separate her from her surroundings. Coupled with the fact that at day 3, there were no new pictures to be had, this was a golden opportunity for a strong news picture.

I can no longer recall who started the conversation which ran something along these lines:

"Do you see that?"
"No"
"Neither do I"

In those few words we decided that she should be allowed to grieve in peace without the intrusion of our long lenses. Perhaps these days the competition is too intense for there to be such decisions, but it ought not to be.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
johhnyboy:

24 Feb 2011 11:33:38am

Sadly,
I have to agree wholeheartedly with Jonathon's comments.
More sadly though I need to point out that only yesterday, reading the coverage of the Christchurch earthquake on the ABC website, I was struck by the exact same thought myself.
What made me come to this realisation was the way that very early on in the article, readers were encouraged to send photos or videos to the ABC if they were in Christchurch, with links to ABC Facebook pages, Twitter pages and the like.
At the end of the hyperlinks was one to DFAT in case relatives wanted to check on family members in Christchurch.
The priority that was given to the ABC "improving" their coverage over the potentially useful service of contacting DFAT said it all for me.
You want to look compassionate but in fact you're no better than those that you mock
Please, please, please Aunty don't sell out on us now.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
nonsuch:

24 Feb 2011 11:35:43am

Absolutely agree. Wall to wall coverage is not reporting. If you want to report the facts known at the time it would take up less than 5 minutes of a news broadcasts. The same happened in the Queensland floods and the recent Cyclone. The probing 'journos' questions to survivors along the lines of 'how did you feel when...' are not reporting. They are a sickening pedalling of other peoples' miseries.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
ken:

24 Feb 2011 11:54:42am

I am depressed at the way ABC News 24 literally wallows in human misery. The more footage it has the more it goes on and on.

They do not seem to grasp that, in a 15 minute news update, NOTHING warrants more than 3 minutes. Yet they go on and on, and then go to the man on the spot and go over the same stuff again and again.

Pathetic. And Painful.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Sack:

24 Feb 2011 12:02:21pm

What I dislike about the media's handling of these events is not what they report, in the way you describe. It is that is there is nothing more to report then they keep retelling the same bits of the story in more and more emotive terms in the hope that we will be more and more moved by them. It does not work.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Michael:

24 Feb 2011 12:23:42pm

I felt exactly the same. I saw a picture of a woman with her face smeared with blood coming from a workplace where her colleagues had probably been killed minutes before. I felt ashamed that a photographer was standing in front of her snapping away while other were attempting to help. I didn't need to see this. I didn't want to see this. I felt that the media had descended to yet a new low - is it little wonder that media companies are in trouble. Of course they put it down to technology since this means they don't have to examine what they are doing to disgust the general population. Every dinner discussion when it gets to the media is met with everyone - yes everyone - giving voice to their frustration and lack of trust in the media including unfortunately the ABC.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Berenice:

24 Feb 2011 12:23:42pm

The media invoke sympathy and interest and that in turn generates funds for emergency situations. It is a two way street. I would like not to have a media blackout but perhaps the media can be more sensitive about family and friends involved and hold back with news events untill the situation is clear for the family of victims.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Olde Bob:

24 Feb 2011 12:35:17pm

I agree entirely , but it is not just disasters that are "over-reported". Did the ABC really need to give us extensive daily updates prior to the last United States' elections?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Imac:

24 Feb 2011 12:39:01pm

This piece sums up how I have been feeling about this "disaster porn" and the way the media has become obsessed with showing up people in distress. Over and over again we have syrupy "reporters" asking questions of people in extreme distress that are just designed to bring them to tears. At that point the camera closes in to capture the full effect - and to hide the sly smile of success by the questioner. It is sickening.

Case in point: that media whore David Koch, doing his best to extract tears from survivors. I only saw a few seconds of it before turning off channel 7 for the rest of the week.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
bill:

24 Feb 2011 12:54:03pm

While I agree with you, the breathy tabloid coverage of Fran Kelly this morning tells me that the ABC is just as bad as the rest of them

Agree (1) Alert moderator
Clotho:

24 Feb 2011 12:55:49pm

Stories of disasters sell newspapers and up the ratings.

The mass media gives the people what they want,it's an indictment of us, the people.

That's why 'realit'y shows are so popular.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Coralia:

24 Feb 2011 1:01:00pm

With all due respect to media freedom & transparency & accuracy in reporting & getting the news across to the genral public....the NZ Media has a lot to learn about covering a human tragedy such as this. A lot of live on the scene reporters need to be more tactful in the way they pose their questions to family members waiting for news of their trapped/missing loved ones. American journos. do this really well...they bring us the raw news but in a tactful way that don't torture survivors further (9/11 coverage)..

Yes definately "The media does not feel your pain"...ummm what about the journalists???? Are they also as stone-cold??? Definately not! On TVNZ news last night a reporter interviewing a St.John volunteer who has missing family members "Mate I can't believe you're here when you have people in your own family missing"....its indirectly saying "what the hell...go and look for your family!"

Agree (0) Alert moderator
DaveX:

24 Feb 2011 1:17:03pm

My dismay at the contemporary media industry's view of its ownership of the images and sounds of tradegy will only deepen when - inevitably - they start adding Hollywood-style music soundtracks to the already disturbing vision....And they will!

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Andrew Murray:

24 Feb 2011 1:19:04pm

The only thing new and appaling about the way MSM is reporting news is that the ABC has been rapidly going down the same road of so called news reporting, seemingly presented by drama departments, not journalists.

However, if the general populous really cannot see how overtly appaling the news services have become in their pathetic struggles for ratings then perhaps the public deserve what they get. And perhaps opinion pieces stating the obvious like this one are needed.

All quite disturbing.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Redfish:

24 Feb 2011 1:25:51pm

While I agree they do go overboard, some of the footage is useful in getting folks to dig into there pocket and give, nothing describes pain like a picture of it. Yes the media outlets are profiting from this type of coverage, but indirectly this can assist the victims as well.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jim:

24 Feb 2011 1:29:12pm

You are absolutely right. Start with the ABC. News 24 talking about little else, live streaming on the website, one would think that the ABC was after ratings!What we need is factual information not opinions.

I took umbrage with the 7.30 report the other day when Heather was repeatedly tyring to force the Immigration minister to commit to releasing the 12 year old asylum seeker who was attending the funerals in Sydney. The ABC should leave the sensational/populist reporting to the commercial stations, there are plenty of them whose standard of reporting is questionable, no, beyond belief.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
anaglyph:

24 Feb 2011 1:38:26pm

Well, it's the inevitable consequence of monetizing something with the intention of making an ever-increasing profit, isn't it? The 'something' eventually becomes less relevant than the making of profit. These media outlets don't really care what's on their screens - what's important is that it's got some 'spike' factor that pokes it above the general noise. Then it gets noticed and they sell a few thousand more newspapers.

Isn't that the age in which we now live? Music? Literature? Movies? News? Who cares about the worth of the content, as long as you're selling a lot of it? That's why all the Old Guard are having such a problem with the internet - why, people are taking stuff FOR FREE. Jeepers. Maybe everyone is finally getting their money's worth.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Jason Conlon:

24 Feb 2011 1:39:03pm

I feel that it's not just the news media that are peddling stylized or false compassion--but that our australian society as a whole has has bought into something that i call 'push-button compassion'. Just look at the way Rudd, Gillard etc behave when there's the death of a soldier , a major environmental castastrophie-the long faces, the carefully intonated speech patterns,the 'just holding back tears' look. Or indeed,after the Victorian bush fire disaster, the way that grown men would often break into sobs on sometimes flimsy pretext. Also note that if you critisise certain groups behavior publicly[over the top feminists,various 'ethnic groups,refugees]--even with the best intentions--the 'chattering classes' can then put pressure on your employer,friends and associates to ostrasize you.
Thus negative feelings are driven underground--hence the simmering anger in Australia tawards women,refugees etc.
A more balanced approach would see both positive and negative feelings ventilated.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Roger:

24 Feb 2011 1:42:06pm

I agree wholeheatedly with this article .

I remember even back during the Thredbo disaster , where , if I'm not mistaken ,
there was only one person being rescued , the coverage was still unrelenting ,
shovel by shovel until Mr Diver was rescued .

The people of Christchurch should have their grief and privacy respected .

The other thing is of course that there are other major events unfolding around the globe
that also are entailing considerable levels of injury and loss of life , and are bound to have important repurcussions on the world polictical landscape as we know it , but these events
have been relegated to 90 seconds at 6pm .

Agree (0) Alert moderator
chris:

24 Feb 2011 1:42:41pm

Props to Jonathan Green for being honest enough to bring to our attention his callous disregard.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Just a tick:

24 Feb 2011 1:51:02pm

You say: "Are the networks, the papers, the websites milking our collective fascination and turning it inevitably to profit, for no good end?" Absolutely. It is nauseating to watch the repetitive re-flogging of footage again and again over the news, the news analysis reports and late night news reports. It is not as though they were actually reporting "news" as there isn't any to report on a minute-by minute basis. ...And the longer it goes on the more inane and stupid the questioners frame their question to anyone they can hijack whilst standing in the middle of the distruction. The media is bereft of anything that is remotely acceptable. My advice is to switch of. Then the offence stops.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Dan:

24 Feb 2011 1:56:58pm

When I was a working journalist I would have said this was a stupid article and you were a clown. However, having been out of the business for some years now, I think you are right. I think the fact that you remain a working journalist but still have these views makes you even more right. What you see depends on where you stand. I'm glad, Jonathan, that you can see around the obstacles of your profession.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Wining Pom:

24 Feb 2011 1:58:22pm

Sadly Jonathan you are right, So, don't leave us and encourage like minded people.
A thought; are journos like the US. The crap is in your face, the good stuff is there, but you have to look for it.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Dr K:

24 Feb 2011 2:01:38pm

Thank you Marty for expressing this discussion in something more than the usual way.

Be it it prose, poetry, verse or the humble limerick, the words that are heard all of the time, are sooner made sweeter with rhythm and rhyme.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Dominic:

24 Feb 2011 2:09:12pm

I think it's absolutley fantastic that someone's taken the time to turn away from the emotional porn being reported in the television media at the moment to write this. Large scale disaster coverage in the Australian media has gone well beyond providing objective reporting; it's become, as Jonathan puts it, unashamedly voyeristic. It feels as though the images and words thrown across the screen serve no greater purpose then to feed some bizarre emotional fetish for other people's suffering. Let's be honest, reporting a natural tragedy is no different to attending a gladiator match in ancient Rome.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Shannon:

24 Feb 2011 2:11:52pm

Disaster porn. Why don't those media channels namely 7 and 9 and the papers donate their advertising dollars from times they are providing this "to the minute" coverage. Why should Packer and the Murdocks they profit from other people misery and misfortune.

Agree (1) Alert moderator
MT:

24 Feb 2011 2:13:59pm

Its called disaster porn, the punters cant get enough of it

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Duranki:

24 Feb 2011 2:16:57pm

A thoughtful piece Jonathan.
Journalists may not want to hear this but news, as we experience, it is entertainment. In the commercial world news is merely there to get the public to read or watch or listen to something so they can be exposed to advertising. In the public broadcasting world, it really isn't that much different. The ABC puts itself forwards as a independent, high quality news gathering service. It's motives are really no different to the commercial world in that it wants people to watch it's news so it can justify its existence and supply some much needed Australian content to the channel.

Why are people entertained by the news? Well it's the ultimate reality TV show. We as voyeurs can thrill to other peoples pain, feel horrified when someone dies, (or gets voted off) and cheer when someone gets rescued, (or wins).
As Jonathan says, the media is not there to help, it does not feel pain, only ratings. And we, as voyeuristic consumers, make no real difference to the plight of those being observed.

Awareness and fund raising you say? It doesn't really do anything for those who have lost homes and family. Nor do journalists breaking into the hospital to interview victims. Thankfully they were arrested.

The only really positive and caring actions taking place are the hundreds of search and rescue teams descending on Christchurch and the local community pulling together to support it's members.

Those things will happen without them being graphically presented on voracious news services.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Xmouth:

24 Feb 2011 2:23:17pm

A good article Jonathan. But as a paid member of the media pack yourself, what are you doing to change things from within?

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Vanessa:

24 Feb 2011 2:23:46pm

Great article. Well said. Thank you.

Agree (0) Alert moderator
Davetheflak:

24 Feb 2011 2:33:45pm

I too have switched off.

Have we yet reached the absurd point at which journos start to interview each other?

Agree (0) Alert moderator

Comments for this story are closed, but you can still have your say.

Search ABC News

News Just In

Open for Comment

Read our terms and conditions.

ABC Analysis

The media is not there to help. It does not feel your pain

Comments (60)

Kerry:

Mary Thomas:

Anita Gudruht:

Me:

pj:

sherose:

Jonathan Powles:

Nick:

Richard:

LOu:

Uncle Fester:

Claire:

Linny:

Magoo:

Marty:

Wolf:

Pete:

Ceri Davies:

Fiona:

Jupiter:

wandererfromoz:

ardy:

Jenny:

Misha Ketchell:

john:

shortmemories:

Kath Grant:

GrassyNoel:

G:

Noel Butcher:

johhnyboy:

nonsuch:

ken:

Sack:

Michael:

Berenice:

Olde Bob:

Imac:

bill:

Clotho:

Coralia:

DaveX:

Andrew Murray:

Redfish:

Jim:

anaglyph:

Jason Conlon:

Roger:

chris:

Just a tick:

Dan:

Wining Pom:

Dr K:

Dominic:

Shannon:

MT:

Duranki:

Xmouth:

Vanessa:

Davetheflak:

Search ABC News

News Just In

Open for Comment

ABC Analysis

Top Stories

Just In

Most Popular Today

ABC Analysis

Site Map

Sections

Media

Subscribe

Contribute

Feedback