REPORTING DISASTER

Reporting (natural) disaster: Some stray points to talk about

By Julhas Alam

In our careers, we cover inevitabilities. Disaster -- natural or manmade – often confronts us, or we push ourselves into that to stay with victims.

Covering disaster as a reporter is not that easy. It involves physical and mental strength of a reporter since one needs to vigorously go through physical and mental adversaries to report the situation, the victims, the most vulnerable of the moment. We need to work under an air-tight deadline pressure. Adjustment of emotion is also often difficult to deal with in such a situation. Beyond personal capabilities of a journalist in case of covering a disaster, it also matters the financial and editorial capabilities of a particular media organization to better serve the victims when a disaster strikes. This is different from the hit-and-run journalism.

When ICRC means disaster it means both manmade and natural. The modern society is overwhelmed by the frequent occurrence of disasters and responding quickly to disaster situations from authorities’ end is vital. Media’s quick response is also crucial since it helps authorities, aid agencies and the people know what is happening on the ground. Accurate information is the key tool in such case.

But here this paper will mainly and briefly focus on media’s role in handling natural disasters in Bangladesh context. And I couldn’t ignore some of the points of widely-recognised yardsticks of standard journalism.

My senior colleague Farid Hossain will discuss practices, perhaps loopholes or lapses in the practices, in Bangladesh context in covering disasters. Feb. 25-26 mutiny in Bangladesh Rifles headquarters will come as a prominent topic for that part of the discussion. No doubt, BDR mutiny was an acid test for Bangladesh media, especially for the broadcast media. There are points in our mind to debate those things to correct our position.


BEYOND RELIEF: SHIFTING PARADIGM IS IMPORTANT

IT IS OFTEN NOTICED THAT BANGLADESH MEDIA IS TOO FOCUSED ON RELIEF ISSUES. SOME PERTINENT ISSUES ARE OVERLY IGNORED. Definitely, relief activity is a vital part of the disaster management operations. There’s no scope to ignore this very important element of the disaster management activity.

It would be better if media can focus on other areas too to benefit the people.

Pre-disaster briefing for media:

Media has a role to vigorously check if authorities are well-prepared to handle a pre-disaster situation for quick evacuation. Or if the volunteers are adequately equipped to warn the would-be victims.

Media needs to check: Are resources available in the hands of the authorities to minimize the loss of lives and properties?

As reporters who are interested to deal with disasters like cyclone and flood need to know what are the basic tools the volunteers need for evacuating and warning the people. .

We need to know which government departments are involved in the disaster management activities, what mandates they have etc.

We need to know how Bangladesh Red Crescent Society works, how ICRC is related.

We need to know how local resources can be used in the affected area to shelter the villagers.

We need to know details about the approaches of Bangladesh’s disaster management discourse---weaknesses and strength.

Post-disaster situation:

Who is the most important to media: Dead or Survivor?

This is a big question to any global or local aid agency, government authorities or any other party involved in any disaster situation. To media too.

Usually, in a disaster situation, the survivors are given the priority over dead in any healthcare system. However as the survivors have a right for healthcare assistance, the deceased have the right for proper identification and dignified disposal. But what should come first and how--that is also a very important matter to discuss. Nobody expects a mere disposal of dead would come first after a major natural disaster like tsunami or a devastating cyclone as many other urgent issues need to be fixed very quickly in such a situation.

About the survivors, the ICRC says: (In a disaster situation) The surviving community has to face physical, psychological, religious and cultural issues raised by the dead in the aftermath of every disaster.

BUT, there’s no way to ignore the matter of the dead people. It needs urgent attention from media since media reports let the authorities and “the people” know about the situation on the ground after a disaster. MEDIA CAN’T FORGET THE DEAD WHEN IT DEALS WITH A DISASTER.

ICRC, being the global actor in this case, uses the term “management of dead”. It means in a post disaster situation, the management of dead is comprised of three main spheres:

-Physical management of dead.
-Information management of dead
-Specific support to bereaved families and communities.

In this light of discussion media needs to check if all these phases are being maintained when aid agency people and the authorities deal with the dead after a disaster. In that case media should check if authorities

-Respect the dignity of the dead,
-Respect the bereaved, including their right to know the fate and whereabouts of their missing loved ones
-Identify the dead positively.
-Ensure dignified disposal of the dead in line with religious and cultural values of the affected community.

Through the whole process, media needs to scrutinize procedures in handling the dead:

-Recovery
-Transportation
-Storage
-Identification
-Disposal of dead


MEDIA is often infested with wrong ideas when dealing with disasters:

It is noticed that in a post-disaster situation media quickly projects that dead bodies are causing EPIDEMICS. But often local officials make such statements creating a wrong impression and giving wrong signal to the people, and when media uses those angles, authorities take wrong measures like quick mass burial without proper identification and religious or cultural practices. Depriving the dead of their rights to be properly identified, creates a psychological disaster to the surviving family members and relatives.

But the fact is that:

-Victims of natural disasters are normally killed by injury, drowning, or fire --- not by disease.
-At the time of death, victims are not likely to be sick with epidemic-causing infections (i.e., plague, cholera, typhoid, and anthrax).
-Most infectious organisms do not survive beyond 48 hours in a dead body. An exception is HIV, which has been found six days postmortem.



FORMULA: MASQ

SORRY… WE WERE HOAXED:
Iraqi PoW abuse pictures handed to us WERE fakes

It was the Daily Mirror’s front-page apology. Daily Mail, 15 May, 2004 (Reference: Journalism: Critical Issues. Edited by Stuart Allan). We can avoid such embarrassment

When we report any disaster, we need to be most careful to avoid such any apology to the readers or viewers. In a disaster situation it can be fatal for a media outlet in case of misreporting since the incessant drive to be first with the story, to scoop one’s rivals whatever the cost, can claim its usual casualty---the truth. It’s like miscarriage of the outlet’s credibility.

Objectivity in reporting disaster enhances the standards of journalism, and thus ensures people’s welfare.


What can we do in this case to maintain basics of reporting truthfully? Let’s follow a simple MASQ formula.

M= Maths
A=Angles
S=Spellings
Q=Quotes

It has a 3-P effect:
P= Performance of government authorities involved with the disaster situation
P=Performance of the aid/UN agencies
P=Performance of the community involved in the post-disaster recovery

MASQ+3-P= People’s welfare

But there’s another VERY important issue, which matters when we talk about media’s credibility, especially when it is related to any disaster situation. That is
use of ANONYMOUS SOURCE.

We see rampant use of anonymous source in our media here. But so far I know no newspapers in Bangladesh have any formal guideline for the use of anonymous source. Sources said… many critics say in most cases it actually should be the PARTICULAR REPORTER SAID…

There’s no way to ignore this phenomenon of the anonymous source, but it should be the LAST OPTION in any news reporting. And when it comes to disaster reporting we as reporters or editors should follow a certain guideline for this.

We can raise some points here:

AP maintains some basic guidelines when we use anonymous sources. That is when we use anonymous source, it means we have enough efforts to get the information from other sources but failed to confirm it except the only source who wants to stay anonymous.

Secondly, we consider if it is information or statement. If it is information and it is very very essential for the story, we will use it. If it is only statement/comment we DON’T use it. AGAIN, we try to ensure that we have made all possible efforts to confirm the information from other possible sources and there is no other way but to use the source’s information without naming the person.

Thirdly, we try to give the readers an indication about the rank or the type of the source I have pursued for the particular information. For example, we say a senior official with the Bureau of Disaster Management if we use information like 4500 People Dead in Tropical Cyclone SIDR and it is actually obtained from a top official of the bureau. We don’t simply say A SOURCE SAID.

If we talk to one such source, we don’t say OFFICIALS SAY. We simply say ONE OFFICIAL confirms/says. We also consider how important the information is for the public interest.

INTERVIEWING DISASTER VICTIMS

In a disaster situation, the matter of extra care should be in reporter’s mind when it comes to interviewing victims or surviving family members.

About interviewing victims, The Associated Press’s Special Correspondent George Esper once said: “We should frame our questions with respect and research. We must be sensitive but not timid.”

Most victims or the victims’ relatives face a wall of grief in the aftermath of a death or disaster. We the journalists can’t reduce their pain of the moment. They have the right to mourn, they have the right to stay their own, they have the right to cling to their very own grieving space. As reporters we overstep into their grieving space. Still we do that since we ultimately serve the people, help them stand up again. We want to tell the world their stories so the unaffected can come forward. So we need to handle them with care.

-When approaching a victim, we need to identify ourselves politely and clearly before asking them questions.
-We should allow the victims to say “no” to our requests. We can again retry, but with care and softness.
-We need to realize that we are violating the victim’s space and we may receive a harsh or emotional reaction at first. We should not react harshly in return.
-We should never ask “How do you feel?” or say “I understand how you feel.” Rather saying “My name is…” and “I am sorry for what happened”, then ask questions such as “Could you tell me about your relative’s life?” or “How did this occur?” or “What did you see when it occurred?”
-We need to treat each victim with dignity and respect.

TRAUMA is a fact for journalists involved in covering disasters: DON’T deny it


Again BDR mutiny is a good example for us who saw those decomposed bodies, and were overwhelmed by the emotional wave of the survivors and their family members. Personally, I could not sleep well for several nights. Many of my colleagues have reported that they could not eat well for days. Counting dead bodies after a ferry disaster is not that easy. When I covered Sidr and traveled from Patharghata, Barguna to Khulna touching Pirojpur, Jhalakathi, Barisla, Patuakhali, that was a terrible experience as we needed to report on the vast swath of the region so extensibly that it was difficult to stay afloat, both physically and mentally. Trauma and fatigue gripped us easily in such a situation. If it happens we need to speak up. Please don’t ignore this before you collapse. If we can’t manage we should talk to our colleagues and family. We may need to even visit doctors. If I can’t continue, bear the load I should tell my boss I CAN’T.


There are some points from a research: Let’s get some insights for disaster reporting (Note: This information has been taken from a Reuters story published on 30 June, 2006)

How do you get a humanitarian crisis into the headlines? And how can you convince editors to keep covering it? A 2006 study by U.S.-based media analysts CARMA International may provide a few pointers.

The survey of disaster reporting in newspapers in the United States, Australia and Europe found that it is not human suffering but Western self interest that dictates how disasters are covered in the press.

“The ultimate challenge for victims of disasters and those who wish to help is to capture and sustain media attention by using national economic and political self-interest as hook,” Tom Vesey, managing director of CARMA International, said in a statement.

The authors scrutinised the content of 64 daily and weekly newspapers from nine countries for coverage of Hurricane Katrina, the Asian tsunami, Bam and Kashmir earthquakes, Darfur and Hurricane Stan. Here are some of the key findings:

• Hurricane Katrina dominated with 50 percent of the coverage. The Indian Ocean tsunami came second with a quarter of the coverage, followed by Darfur with 15 percent, and Bam, Kashmir and Hurricane Stan making up the remaining 10 percent.

• There was no direct link between the number of people who died and the amount of coverage. The death tolls for Darfur and the tsunami were similar, but Darfur received much less coverage. The 2003 Bam earthquake in Iran attracted the same level of media coverage as Kashmir, even though 3.5 times more people died in Kashmir.

• The U.S. press provided the most coverage of humanitarian crises.

• Media reports on Katrina focused on the political and economic implications of the disaster ? only 27 percent looked at the suffering of the survivors.

• Some of the language used had racist overtones, including widespread reports of black groups raping and pillaging in New Orleans ? many of which turned out to be false.

• 40 percent of the tsunami coverage focused in Westerners affected, even though only 900 Westerners died compared with a total of 230,000 dead or missing.

• The German press gave three times more coverage to Katrina, in which no Germans died, than to the tsunami, in which they lost more lives than any other European country.

• Food shortages were mentioned far more than water shortages.

• In all the disasters except Bam, local government relief work was criticised.

• In some cases there was less coverage of crises involving celebrities than those without.


To prepare this briefing I have taken help from various publications and web sites. I need to mention about some of them here.

1. Guidelines for first responders on Management of Dead in major disasters in India. (ICRC publication)
2. Journalism: Critical Issues. Edited by Stuart Allan.(Open University Press publication, England)
3. Investigative Journalism: Context and Practices. Edited by Hugo de Burgh. (Routledge publication, London, UK)
4. Various publications of The Associated Press (AP)
5. Reuters resources


This paper was presented at a media workshop organized jointly by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU) on July 24, 2009 at Rajendrapur. Some 40 journalists from various media houses took part in the workshop. Commonwealth Journalist Association’s International President Mr. Hassan Shahriar, The Associated Press (AP) Bureau Chief Mr. Farid Hossain, Dhaka Reporters Unity (DRU) President Mr Shamim Ahmad, ICRC’s Mission Head Mr. Finn Ruda and other local and regional officials of the ICRC also took part in the workshop as resource persons.