The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

On January 12, 2010, the Republic of Haiti experienced a devastating earthquake. The Haitian people were left in shock; their whole infrastructure was destroyed including their communication systems. This left them totally dependent on other countries. The United States played a major role in helping create awareness for relief efforts. This paper will focus on how the media chose to report on this natural disaster, background information on how natural disasters have been covered in the past by media practitioners and the role ethics played to influence the decision making of media practitioners. The writer will relate the three ethical perspectives, deontological, teleological, and virtue to their decisions made thus far and the media’s continuing role for Haitian rebuilding. Lastly, an evaluation of the strengths and weaknesses of each ethical perspective will be discussed.

The goal of this paper is to present the advantages and disadvantages of the media coverage on Haiti, the impact the media ethical decisions had on Haitian relief efforts, and the influence it may have on future rebuilding efforts. Finally this paper will aim to relate the different perspectives on the media role during natural disasters and the positive and negative effects. The emphasis of this paper will be on the following eight ethical dilemmas regarding the Haitian tragedy.

1.) The focus of investigation and what information is reported
2.) The length of time media practitioners stay and do their objectives change over time
3.) Dual roles of doctor/ journalists
4.) Whose perspective to portray
5.) How graphic should the depictions be
6.) The impact of celebrities on relief efforts
7.) The safety and well being of media practitioners as employees
8.) Keeping Haiti in the minds of viewers as they progress

The Haiti earthquake, hurricane Katrina, volcanoes, droughts, and the Indian Ocean tsunami of 2004 received significant media coverage, but why these natural disasters while other news worthy events receive only a mention. Factors that influence decisions made by media practitioners to cover world events include location, number of deaths, type of disaster, entertainment factors, and impact on our own country, politics, and other recorded events occurring at the time. Thomas Eisensee, found a positive relationship between the amount raised of media coverage and the relief funds received. (Paulsson, 2006)

The Good
The good that comes from mass media is the fast up to date information the public receives. “During crises, the public depends almost totally on the media for news and for vital messages from the public and private authorities. The news media are the only institutions equipped to collect substantial amounts of information and disseminate it quickly to the general public.” (Graber, 2010) The media played a big role in the Haiti relief by locating loved ones and getting them in touch. The media informed the public of details on the earthquake, survivors, and the progress being made. Through the media strong efforts of the “Hope for Haiti Now: A Global Benefit for Earthquake Relief” telethon they encouraged people to donate. On January 22, 2010 the telethon aired for two and half hours. It consisted of actors, athletes, singers, and television host answering the phone lines and musical performances in hopes of raising money for the Haitian victims. (Vena, 2010) According to MSNBC $57 million was raised from the telephone lines, web, and text. This total did not include the amount raised from corporate donations and what was made from iTunes.

Our generation is consumed by mass media, technology, and social media outlets. These outlets help generate fast responses and the resources to help in emergency situations. “Philanthropy.com, a publication that tracks non-profits, noted that: “The pace of giving for Haiti is running ahead of the amount donated in the same period after the Asian tsunamis in 2004, but slower than the outpouring of gifts after the flooding caused by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.” (Shikhvarger, 2010) The total amount of donations according to philanthropy.com shows the effectiveness the media has on the public. Social media outlets give their audience a feeling of instantly making a difference.

The media justifies what is seen as negative by the good that they do providing information, and news. The bottom line for media practitioners is that what they are doing is their job and way of helping. The ethical issue of the media what their reporting, how long they stay in Haiti and what do they do while there is justified by the teleology theory. The end result promotes their means. The media actions included filming what was going on and meeting their goal of informing the public. Do the media stay as long as it takes to reach their goal of raising awareness and gain support or do they stay until it is no longer watched and then move on regardless state of Haitians?

The Bad
Television media investigated and focused on the plight of people and not the military, government and where the money was going. The stories focused on the victims, number of deaths, survivors, and how they were in need of help. Newspapers however covered the issues that the television reporters left out. The Associated Press who informed the public “that out of every dollar of US government aid, 33 cents went to the military and only ONE cent went to Haiti’s government.”(Schechter, 2010) TV media practitioners were more concerned with entertainment television which resulted in bad reporting. The media had no balance on what they were investigating and later reporting. It was presented in a way to promote empathy but not give the public facts, information, and answers.

During this crisis how long do the media need to stay, what do they do while they are there and how many media practitioners need to be covering the story? The Huffington Post listed fourteen media outlets that rushed to Haiti to cover the incident. It is media practitioner’s job to observe and report but when do they put down the camera and start helping? CNN’s Ivan Watson made it appear he was strictly there to report. He broadcasted live coverage of a group of men trying to rescue an 11 year old girl trapped under rubble. “Ivan Watson was standing right among them on that same pile doing a play-by-play of their efforts.” (Kils, 2010) He didn’t assist in the rescue. Another example of what is ethically correct involved Brian William’s reporter for NBC nightly news. Williams described how people were without food, water and carrying what little they had left on their heads. He interviewed Haitians who expressed their need for help. At the end of the segment Williams is swinging a water bottle around and then tried to hide it in his pocket. Do the ends justify this behavior?

A controversial issue that questioned the media ethics arose when networks sent their own doctors who were also reporters to Haiti. CNN, CBS, ABC, and NBC all had physicians “juggling their roles as doctors and reporters.” (Christensen, 2010) There are two arguments to examine in this issue. Some believed that broadcasting doctors while they practiced their medical abilities were motivated by self promotional acts to boosting ratings. The networks argued that emotional live footage touches their audience in a way that straight reporting cannot. (Health in the Media, 2010) To whom do the doctor journalists have stronger loyalties? The ethical conflict is between justifying journalism as their primary job or their loyalty as a physician and to their medical oath.

After the earthquake in Haiti many networks sent media practitioners to cover the story, but whose perspective did they portray? After going back and watching some of the first stories aired about the Haiti tragedy the viewer will notice there are no stories from the Haitians point of view only the media perspective on the situation. For example, Central Coast News was one of the first to show live shots from Haiti and their ten minutes news broadcast focused on locating survivors, help arriving and a twenty second interview with a woman who survived. (Jnavarronews, 2010) The woman was asked one question and responded about how grateful she was. Another example is the Listening Post which had a six minute broadcast about the “Challenges, success and shortcomings” in Haiti. During this broadcast the viewer gets Adrian Wells Head of foreign news, Sky news (UK) informs the audience “there was something about this Haiti quake that felt like it was going to be significant.” They also have Glenda Cooper, with Reuters Institute stating her opinion on the situation. CNN was showed having eight reporters covering the story in Haiti. Then Julie Millican, with Media Matters for America was interviewed and explained how the media is doing its best to cover the Haiti story. (Crisisready, 2010) In these broadcast and many others the viewers are made aware of what the networks perspective is, and the viewpoint of the people they interviewed. There was no coverage of the Haitian people telling their story from their perspective of what happened and what needs to be done. Some Haitians were interviewed but that doesn’t do justice because there is no independent thought when the media asks the questions.

Extremely graphic and shocking images filled the media after the earthquake in Haiti. Is it necessary for media practitioners to show human suffering, decomposing bodies, people dying on the streets. The ethical issue presented here is do journalists stay loyal to their audience or do their loyalties go to the victims of natural disasters in their time of need? When does is become crossing the line of accurately reporting to being dehumanizing. Is what we see from photojournalist images accurate representation or a deception? For example, the Los Angeles Times showed photos of “a man lying face down on the ground with this caption: A Haitian police officer ties up a suspected looter who was carrying a bag of evaporated milk.” (Solnit, 2010) Other ethical questions with photojournalist are do they have a loyalty to families and protecting children from viewing such horrifying and graphic images?

Celebrities have a positive and negative impact on disaster relief efforts. The telethon for example had a huge impact on raising money to send to Haiti. Celebrities started working together to create organizations and raise donations. A major negative is how celebrities can distract relief efforts. For example, when Hilary Clinton flew to Haiti, January 16, 2010 the airport had to be shut down for three hours. This prevented planes with supplies and help from landing during what was a important time for Haitians fighting for survival. Hilary Clinton held a press conference letting the Haitians know the U.S government was going to help. (myVox, 2010) Celebrities took some of the focus away from Haiti. The media started to make their news about how much celebrities were donating and their stories. These celebrities attract Americans attention, but when the celebrities move on to something else does the public move on too? Haiti could either continue to be a mission for celebrities and Americans or could end up a fleeting project. (Ellis, 2010)

The safety and well being of media practitioners as employees appears to go unnoticed. Reporters of natural disasters are put into high pressure situations and play a critical role in relief management. The media is usually the first to arrive at a crisis. Media practitioners “Face dangerous situations, the first raw and harsh reactions of victims, law enforcements and the public”. (Media and Safe Disaster Coverage, 2010) These traumatic situations would take a toll on any individual’s emotional and mental stability, but even more so for media practitioners because they are put in this environment on a regular basis. Employees of the media will be branded with these images for the rest of their lives. What is the media doing prepare their employees for the horrifying scenes they find during natural disasters?

Keeping Haiti in the minds of viewers as they progress has become a problem as it fades from the news media. Donations started to weaken only a few weeks after the disaster. According to CNN Money, on January 25 2010, “the American Red Cross, donations are down by more than 50%.”(Ellis, 2010) Individual’s attention only last so long if the media continued to cover Haiti then would the public still lose attention? The media has the power to focus Americans attention on the crisis, but is overexposure leading to fading coverage in the media and causing Americans to gradually stop helping. The media tends to bring attention, awareness, and relief efforts but after they stop telling the story the disaster victims vanish from our consciousness. (Don't let plight of Haiti fade, 2010) Bill Clinton recently addressed the issue of Haiti cautioning that failure to continue relief would have bad results. “We know one thing for sure: If you like the gunfight that’s going on in northwest Mexico, you will love Haiti ten years from now,” he said. “If that’s what thrills you – this horrible chaos from Monterrey to the border, you will just love Haiti if you walk away from it.” (Gables, 2010) A main reason the media stops covering the crisis is because something else more news worthy occurs. For example, the Tsunami of 2004 received a lot of media attention and attention to the island nation of Sri Lanka. When a civil war broke out on their island nation only a few years later, they tried to get attention and help but were ignored. “More attention was paid to protestors blocking roadways in Toronto than to the plight of the country itself.” (Don’t let the plight of Haiti fade, 2010) Haiti might be fading from the news media but the country is still in need of help and support in order to continue making progress.

The Deontological theory is based on moral obligation and actions supported by the rules. According, to this theory their needs to be rules and structure to protect members of the society. When media practitioners operate within the frame work of the society they are not subjected to criticism because they have complied with the rules. This ethical approach was not practiced by the media because they had no laws or rules to abide by in Haiti. There are no laws stating the media cannot photograph people in a crisis therefore this ethical perspective would not apply. This is why the media is criticized and left to take responsibility for their actions involving natural disaster reporting, because they have no rules to follow. Lack of direction made them rely on the other two approaches to make their decisions.

Does receiving large amounts of donations justify exposing Haitian victims in their most fragile and vulnerable state? The teleological theory is based on the outcome and having positive results. With the media at what expense do they go to get positive results? This approach doesn’t ask whether media practitioners are doing right or wrong but what is the best possible result. From the media perspective they are achieving the best possible results by supplying the public with information that will encourage them to assist the cause. A key focus in this theory is minimizing harm, but do the media minimize harm for the natural disaster victims?

Most media practitioners follow the virtue theory which has less concern for the rules and more for living virtuously and doing what is right. This approach leaves room for gray areas because each media practitioner has different perspectives on what is virtuous and may justify their means differently. This approach involves weighing what is the virtuous thing to do in a specific situation. The key factors are balancing between two extremes and focusing on moderation. The broadcast we saw on TV made it appear that the journalists were all being compassionate and virtuous.

Applying the deontological theory to this situation is difficult. Living by the rules and regulating our actions based on what is correct can viewed in a negative and positive light. This approach puts emphasize on morals and the ideas of Emanuel Kant who strongly believed in God but also the power of the human mind. For the media if there were set of rules reporters in Haiti wouldn’t have taken so much heat for what they covered. However, this would be a potential negative for the mass media because following the deontological theory would restrict them from covering and reporting some of the events they did. Major disadvantages of this approach are there is no exception to the rules. “The ends do not justify the means.” For the media this puts a bad light on what they do. This theory would portray the media actions as deception and not in sync with the rules. This ethical perspective is to extreme in regards to the media and would limit our information too much.

Teleological theory is based on good outcomes and minimizing harm. A major strength of this perspective is that it weighs the benefits and harms. It’s not a set in stone, yes or no structure. This approach is more flexible than deontological. For media practitioners covering a crisis this theory still isn’t the best advantage because in a crisis there’s not much time to think about the situation and determine what course of action is going to have the best outcomes. The problem with this perspective is valuable outcomes are different for everyone. This is made clear when media practitioners take photos of the victims in Haiti; to them they are providing the world with information to help get relief. To the victims or other people it may be viewed as uncompassionate.

A major strength in virtue theories is it avoids the extreme situations. It is based on developing a moral characteristic to help decide what is right in difficult situations. The crisis in Haiti was a hard situation and the media performed their job. They covered the stories and generated photos which increased awareness and funds. From the media stand point they were completely virtuous in conveying the right amount of information and in the right manner.

The Ugly
Some media actions had a negative effect on relief efforts in Haiti. “Red Cross just came under fire for so far only using up $80M out of $225M raised.” (Shikhvarger, 2010) The earthquake in Haiti occurred on January 12, 2010. The media did not investigate and report on where the donations made to the American Red Cross were being allocated until late March. Why did it take the media over two months to investigate and produce this information that the public wanted to know? Where the money is going, if it’s getting to Haiti, and how it is being spent are all questions the media needed to address. It’s a scary thought that to think organizations are holding onto this money while the Haitian people are in need. Organization scams was an ethical issue being addressed in the media. If every news media is covering the story about faulty organization and their scams will it scare the public out of donating and helping? Another aspect of the coverage that has been considered negatively is the issue of how pictures are being distorted? According to TheWeek.com, “U.N. says wall-to-wall media coverage of Haiti's earthquake has become too sensationalist — and is distorting the truth,” and journalist Marc Cooper said, “This isn't journalism. It's "disaster porn." (Haiti coverage: ‘Disaster Porn’, 2010) Did they go to far in showing morbid photos and video footage? If these photos and new broadcast are being questioned then should they be aired at all? Does the public need to see the extremes of the ugly disaster in Haiti?

The conclusion will discuss my ethical evaluation of the eight dilemmas regarding the Haitian tragedy. The writer will define the situation, analyze it and conclude a decision for each issue. Each evaluation will be related to an ethical perspective. Finally, the writer will defend the issue or recommend an alternative solution.

The first situation is the focus of media practitioner’s investigation and what information they reported in Haiti. External factors that would be influential include the employer or higher authority, advertisers, viewers, and the reporter’s personal value system. The decisions made in this situation would affect the reporter, their job, the Haitian people, the network, and the audience who receives the news. Media practitioners have obligations to both their profession and as a person of compassion to help people in need. The reporter has to decide what issues are most important to cover during the disaster. The situation and the principles involved remain the same for all eight of these ethical dilemmas while the analysis and decisions and recommendations vary.

Where do the media practitioners loyalties lie, this is the ethical question. Are they trying to increase ratings and out do competitors, are they trying to increase donations to help with this cause, or are they trying to assist and save lives. Many media outlets chose to keep the focus on the needs of the Haitian people as opposed to reporting on other issue such as U.S. government and military roles, why relief was so slow and the allocation of donated funds. Most of the media practitioners appeared to care more about the people and less about their job responsibilities, as was evident by their emotional reporting. Viewers also expressed their belief that the media was doing the best they could. “These reporters truly give a damn and I think while some of what we have been shown isn’t really helpful, they are doing a tough job and doing it well.” (Telethon and more Haiti earthquake TV, 2010) Regardless, of the ethical stance that the reporters went down there with, they were so impacted by the horrible plight of the Haitians that their value system took over.

No one knows how they will react when confronted with such a dire situation. My belief is people do the best they can in any given circumstance. The focus appeared to be very narrow which is understandable with the reporters based in Haiti but the networks should have employees removed from the situation look at the big picture. These people would address other issues such as, the slow influx of relief and the military’s role. This way the network could answer the question most Americans wanted to know. In this type of situation I would recommend the media give broader coverage of information.

The length of time media practitioners stay and do their objectives change over time is a situation with conflicting values. Do the ends justify the means, reporting the story versus their presence detracting from the relief efforts? After how long after people become over saturated and donations have leveled off can the media justify their actions. The dilemma is how much does their presence impede the relief effort? However, their professional obligation is to get the information to the people and rest of the world. The media objectives change because they are shifting from relief efforts to rebuilding. I recommend initially being as unobtrusive as possible while reporting on this event. This way the media could help raise funds but wouldn’t hinder the people getting help. Move outward and not be in the way but still be able to report but not be on the front line. Decrease the size of their staffs in time. Also it’s not geographically that far maybe send people, want to keep it in the news and know how things are progressing.
Networks that sent their doctor/ journalists placed them in dual roles when in Haiti. As a doctor the loyalties should be with the victims as they are patients. Also as a doctor the loyalty to their medical oath to save lives as many live as possible. As a journalist they have loyalties to the network, their viewers, and to their job as a journalist. Keeping the two jobs completely separate is a difficult task in this situation. In other parts of the world including our country filming people while receiving medical treatment is a clear violation of privacy laws. This relates directly to the deontological theory because it’s breaking a law. This is not a law in place in Haiti but it is America. Does the reporter who is also a doctor and can give insight to the medical condition; have justification to not use their medical skills to save lives. An ethical question relating to the individual reporters values is what’s higher than human life? My recommendation is not to send these doctors at all. I believe by sending them the networks put them in a difficult position, especially if they sent them to report and not assist in helping. Keep the doctor/journalist here and give their inputs, while sending other doctors to practice medicine and not journalism.

Whose perspective do the media portray while covering the natural disaster in Haiti? The ethical dilemma is telling the whole truth versus what the media wants to cover. Do you report as you see it or give a voice to Haitian victims? The media used the ends to justify the means because it appeared they mainly told it from their perspective. For example, on INewsCatcher.com they have a selection of article relating to the Haiti earthquake, but none from a Haitian perspective. The articles include, “Haiti earthquake brings out generosity, and scam artists,” “Gisele Bundchen Donates $1.5M to Haiti Earthquake Victims,” and other stories about the U.S. relief efforts and ways to donate. (Haiti earthquake response, 2010) Initially the media may not have had time to get the Haitian’s stories because of the language barrier and not enough time to translate. The virtue perspective would play a role in trying to get the Haitians perspective and what their needs are. I suggest the media try to empower the victims. Let them tell their story which might bring some relief to know that people will hear their truth behind the incident.

How graphic should the depictions be that photo journalist release? The ethical dilemma is do they show some of graphic things or is it necessary to show everything. Base on individual value system the journalist decide how far they go. Media practitioners have a loyalty to their viewers, children and families that watch the news. They have a loyalty to their networks to produce the best images. What did they hope to accomplish by showing these gory photographs? There is no data to support that airing horrifying pictures in the mass media will cause people to donate more money. The values of some photojournalist may make them feel the need to show the public what it is really like in Haiti. Could they use their words to depict the same image? Also who defines what is too much to show, what may be horrifying to one individual may not be for the other. If the network feels they have to show the graphic images then I recommend they caution viewers. Showing emotional images is one thing but decaying bodies and broken limbs should be rated. Otherwise I suggest not airing images so graphic out of respect for the deceased.

The media can make celebrities impact on relief efforts negative and positive. Media practitioner have loyalties to the network to produce ratings and to the celebrities who help generate these high rating. The ethical dilemma is celebrities that go to Haiti take away time, energy and resources from the people in need of help. The other argument is visiting Haiti and lifting spirits is how they can help. For example, ABC News reported Angelina Jolie made a trip to Haiti Tuesady, Febuary 9,2010. They took pictures of her visitin the MSF hospitial in Port-au-Prince. (Angelina Jolie Visits Haiti, 2010) Does bringing in all the money justify celebrity’s planes taking up the run way while other plans with relief wait to come in? There is the value of trying to save every human life and the value of just helping. The virtue theory relates to this because giving money and helping is the right thing to do.

How do media practitioners ensure their safety and well being as employees? The ethical dilemma is reporters taking care of themselves versus preserving their job. Does the ends, saving your job, justify taxing yourself emotionally and psychologically? Each employee has their own value system to help them say what they need or if they need a break. Organizations need to value their employees enough to ensure them they will help. Under the virtue approach the networks should first be concerned with the health and emotional state of their employees. I recommend trying to prepare media employees in advance and have a trauma therapist they can talk to and help them work through the horrific things they have seen and dealt with.
The ethical question is do the media keep Haiti in the minds of viewers as they progress? The media has a loyalty to their viewers to inform them about other news worthy events taking place in the world. The media other loyalty is to Haiti to keep helping them receive coverage. Now that things are underway in Haiti does that mean the media can let it drop completely or do they stick their story their story out until its rebuilt. Based on the virtue theory the media made a commitment to Haiti by going there to help them receive relief, and they should not just abandon it. I recommend keeping Haiti in the media, maybe with less coverage but still in the minds of viewers. If the United States doesn’t help them rebuild strongly we will have a bad situation. I think what Wycleaf Jean said explains how to keep Haiti in the view of the world. “When you plant seeds for a mango tree, you can’t grasp the fruit from the tree the next day; it has not grown yet. That’s like our work in Haiti. We’re planting seeds day after day. The fruits of our labors are starting to grow, and before we know it, we’re going to have groves of mango trees. Thanks to our volunteers and the efforts of so many others, we are going to fill the holes in the Haitians’’ hearts.” (Jean, 2010)








Reference

ABC News Entertainment. (2010). Angelina Jolie Visits Haiti .
Beth. (2010, January 16). Clooney/Jean/Cooper Telethon and more Haiti Earthquake TV .
Christensen, P. (2010, January 19). Doctor or journalist? Roles become blurred in Haiti.
Crisisready. (2010, March 3). Haiti Media Coverage. Ellis, B. (2010, January 25). Is Haiti just a passing fad? Donations are already slowing .
Gables, C. (2010). Bill Clinton asks world not to ignore Haiti. Sarasota Herald Tribune.
Graber, D. A. (2010). Mass Media and American Politics (Eighth Edition ed.). CQ Press.
Haiti coverage: 'Disaster porn'? (2010, January 20). Retrieved fromHealth in the Media. (2010, February 1). Poll: Journalism ethics for physicians reporting from Haiti.
iNews Catcher. (2010). Haiti earthquake response – Haiti Earthquake Victims.
Jean, W. (2010, April 15). A healing journey in Haiti. Sarasota Herald Tribune.
Jnavarronews. (2010, January 18). Disaster in Haiti Coverage on Friday 1-15-10.mpg . Kils, B. (2010, January 16). Is the Haiti earthquake media coverage impeding rescue crews and supplies? MyVox. (2010, January 19). Pity! When Hillary Clinton Visited Haiti... Aid Shipments Had To Be Stopped!! News Saftey.com. (2010). Media & safe disaster coverage.
Paulsson, A. (2006, February 2). Does media coverage increase the probability of receiving disaster relief?Schechter, D. (2010, January 31). As Media Coverage Fades, Urgent Issues On The Disaster Go Uncovered .Shikhvarger, Y. (2010, February 18). Haiti Disaster Relief: Evaluating the Impact of Social and Digital Media .
Solnit, R. (2010, January 21). When the Media Is the Disaster: Covering Haiti.
Telegraph journal. (2010, January 18). Don't let plight of Haiti fade.
Vena, J. (2010, January 22). 'Hope For Haiti Now' Telethon Airs Tonight At 8 P.M.