There are two words which immediately spring to mind over the media’s coverage of the Victorian bushfires — mawkish and disproportionate.
Mawkish in the sense that there now seems to be a competition by media outlets to own the grief and suffering generated by the fires. Page after page, hundreds of hours of TV footage and hours of radio programs all dedicated to bringing to light one story after another of loss and destruction and the inevitable grief that is associated with it.
The Herald Sun’s front page headline this morning is cynical and manipulative. It reads, “The tiniest victims”, and includes a picture of a smiling baby. This picture and headline are designed to make you stop and buy a copy of the paper. Otherwise why put it on the front page?
And the Herald Sun website has a section called ‘Tributes to our lost’. Who is the “our” referring to here? It is as if the newspaper has assumed some form of proprietarial right over the victims of the fire. The Age is however no better. This morning its front page includes a quote from someone who compares the fires to Hiroshima.
There is a complete lack of proportion in this comparison and surely The Age knows this to be so. 220,000 people died when nuclear bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945, and radiation injured, maimed and killed people for many years after.
By the way, the ABC is no better. It has on its website a section where it encourages fire victims to “Share [their] experiences by text, photos, audio or video.” The term voyeuristic springs to mind here. The ABC is just as desperate to get the edge on its commercial rivals and asking for eye witness accounts and images are one way to do that.
Is it not time for the media to get out of the way of these fires, or at least scale back their coverage. Surely the survivors and communities of these terrible events need to be allowed to grieve and begin to rebuild away from the prying and always intrusive eyes of journalists and camera crews, all told by their editors to come back each day with tales and images that will give them an edge on their competitors?
Of course this will not happen. The media will hang around this story until it has milked every last drop of emotion and suffering and then the caravan will move on to the next big tragedy. That is the nature of the beast.
There is a term for the behavior of the media this week — “grief p-rn.” As Rob Lyons, a writer with UK online daily Spiked, observed a few days after the London bombings in July 2005:
A mother’s grief, the stench of rotting flesh, the terrifying near-misses: did we really need to know? The London bombings started as a genuine, multi-faceted news story worthy of in-depth coverage. Not only did the facts of the incident need to be uncovered, but the reaction to the attacks provided us with insights into society. But now all we are left with is a desperate attempt on the part of news organisations to maintain this fevered state of interest – and the result is a p-rnographic focus on tragedy.
Just substitute the words Victorian bushfires here and you have an accurate assessment of what is happening in this country today.
In reference to journalistic standards I am deeply concerned at the insensitivity of both The Australian and The Herald Sun in relation to the recnt bushfires The Australian published a picture of a child’s body being removed from a burnt out house. This was one of four children who perished in the fire and the the identity of the child would be would be readily identifiable to any of the relatives or associates of the family. Similarly the publication of a paparazzi shot of a man being told by his father that his mother had been burnt to death is an unnecessary intrusion into the personal grief of these poor people.
I attempted several times to contact the editor of the Australian without success to ask the question that if this child was one of Rupert Murdoch’s children or grandchildren burnt to death in these fires whether News Corporation would publish these pictures. Similarly if Rupert was being told that Dame Elisabeth had been burnt to death in the bushfire would his grieving picture also be on the front page of the Australian?
Now if Conroy’s internet filter could be tweaked just a little bit to block all of this grief & disaster porn . . .
Big fan of your pieces, but this feels a little misguided. You know, as well as anyone does, that people find it hard to grasp the tragedy implicit in cold, hard facts. The reason people have been so affected by these stories is not the recitation of death tolls and hectares burnt and the debate over forest fuel. It’s because they read stories of kids crying for their parents and people who lost their lovingly restored homes and think, as Rudd had it, “there but for the grace of God go I.” Or some secular version thereof. It makes the events seem tangible in a way that statistics and climate figures and policy debates do not.
Is this kind of coverage exploitative? Probably. But it’s a reason for, as well as a reflection of, public sympathy for the victims. If the media didn’t report this stuff, there is no way the public would’ve donated $50 million and counting. Surely sensationalism – even “grief porn” – is a lesser evil than public apathy?
As for complaining that the Herald Sun’s front page was “designed to sell papers”… um, are you new here?
Several fine points made there Greg. You mention Rob Lyons from “Spiked” and the term “grief p-rn.” I found a similar term being used by friends and colleagues here in Australia in the aftermath of Steve Irwin’s passing – “Mournsturbation.” It appears that “mournsturbation’ is what the media engage in when they have created sufficient “grief p-rn.” Perhaps we could create a regular award for the best and most prolific producers of “grief p-rn” or practitioners of “mournsturbation.” We could call it the “Wankley”…..oh, right yes…that may already be taken.
Thankyou Greg – Grief Porn is the phrase that came to mind as I saw Lisa on Ch9 Today show hold up that Herald Sun cover. Walking through the hospital I work in I overheard others debating the need for that front page. The related issue of the media reporting how other media are reporting this (ooh look, we’re on US news!) is pathetic at best and insulting to the actual victims. Generally I thought the coverage of the first few days including Ch 9 reporting on Bryan Naylor was restrained and respectful, but in lieu of newsworthy updates there has been reversion to form.