The Australian media ground to a halt in horror as superstorm Sandy hit the US. Blanket storm coverage ensued; continuous television footage, newspapers covering little else, Australians living in NYC penning their breathless stories of when they had to eat tinned food.
More than 60 people died when the storm hit the US. Each one is a tragedy.
But where’s the blanket media coverage of the 71 deaths the storm caused in the Caribbean? Why are those deaths less tragic?
Two years ago, floods in Pakistan killed more than 2000 people and affected 20 million. Remember the saturation media coverage then? No, you wouldn’t.
Floods in southern China last year killed more than 350 people and affected 36 million. Ringing any bells? Just two months ago, more than 80 people died and 20,000 homes were damaged in earthquakes in China’s Yunnan province. Remember that?
There are all sorts of reasons the US storm made for great news — it affected international icons, there was plenty of media on the ground, etc. But it’s hard to escape the conclusion that part of the reason behind Australia’s storm obsession was that the people affected were mostly white, and the country affected is one we gaze up to as an adored big brother.
If Australia really wants to ride the Asian Century, if we want to reorient our gaze northwards and develop a greater affinity for our neighbours, this might be a good place to start.
You shouldn’t have to live in NYC for your life — and death — to matter.
The fact that a hurricane hitting NYC, where there is oodles of TV footage. Complete with English language commentary and all the Oz networks have reporters on the ground….Is obviously nothing to do with the different levels of coverage either.
Isn’t there an old newspaper saying on the value of a death
Fair point but then I suggest you look at what is the lead story in the newsletter.
Perhaps Crikey can lead the way in this
Perhaps it’s for the same reason you have a roving reporter covering the US elections, but not in China.
I can see the points made above about crikey but to be fair, half a dozen staff in an office in Melbourne don’t have the same capacity to tap into news networks around the world as the mainstream media do. Outlets like SBS TV do a much more balanced coverage but their audience is small. I think its a good point made in the editorial about the MSM being ethnocentric. The only time it covers natural disasters in non-english speaking countries is when Australians are involved.
I think that is a really poor observation to make. From memory the Asian tsunami had blanket coverage here and I think you’ll find most of the victims were tinted. The reason the NYC got attention was because it is a city of around 12m people and arguably the world capital. The Carib gets less attention because, frankly, they get a storm like this seemingly every year, the communications are poor, and the importance to the rest of the world is less. Nothing to do with skin colour – or lack thereof.