International Law

More Quake Coverage

By Stan

Danny asks a fair question about the media coverage of the quake:

[W]hat is causing so much more foreign attention about the earthquake now versus the low amount of attention the devastating annual floods in China cause in the foreign press? Is it because of the Olympics? Or because of attention already on China over the past few months with the torch run problems? Is it because the annual floods are unfortunately expected, while the earthquake — a natural disaster in as much the same way — was unexpected?

Or is it because, as CNN mentioned, one of their journalist colleagues in Beijing was personally affected because his family was evacuated from their apartment after the earthquake. Must a foreign journalist in China be directly affected by a natural disaster for the foreign media to take notice?

That seems right to me. If reporters are affected, and moreover if they can interview people immediately about their reaction to the event, then it’s news.

I also think that other disasters, like floods, are much more "normal" in the eyes of the press. Earthquakes are somehow more dramatic, aren’t they? Floods cover stuff up, earthquakes knock stuff down - the latter has better potential for video.

Full post as published by China Hearsay on May 15, 2008 (boomark / email).