4 ms·

Those reporters are taking up valuable resources that could be used to save people. Just imagine the money news organizations spend to have their contingent do

Those reporters are taking up valuable resources that could be used to save people. Just imagine the money news organizations spend to have their contingent down there. That money would go much farther if used to fund rescue & recovery activities.

robg 17y ago
Covering the event doesn't amplify the need for donors?
- gsmaverick 17y ago
  You don't need to have a team of ~70 over there!
  - robg 17y ago
    Take the nightly news. Of the broadcast networks, one channel (NBC) gets 10 million views. The other two get 8.5 (ABC) and 6.7 (CBS) million viewers. Now add up the long-tail. Isn't the sum greater than the parts? http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/ Sure, in an ideal world resources would get shared. But that's ignoring (1) they're not sharing already, where they can; and (2) they'd have to negotiate a bunch of things when they could be simply covering the stories.
  - jonknee 17y ago
    I doubt they have 70 people there just for fun. They can't exactly drive around in a sat truck and do a live shot with a reporter and a camera operator. There's no place to stay, no place to eat, no easy way to travel, no easy way to communicate, no security, etc etc. Tons of legwork just to get basic reports out.
  - TrevorJ 17y ago
    As somebody who has worked in video production for 7+ years, I can tell you that crew sizes are down to a science. There's no profit in traveling overseas with more people than you absolutely need.
jrwoodruff 17y ago
Just imagine if no reporters were there to inform the rest of the world of the disaster and bring the scale of destruction home. How much aid and money would be available to Haiti then?
- InclinedPlane 17y ago
  Probably about the same amount. The aid and money started flowing before the first reporter set foot on Haiti. How many reporters do we need to tell us the same stories about Haiti? How many reporters in Haiti right now are actually reporting legitimately worthwhile stories and how many are taking part in filming disaster porn where Haiti is nothing more than a stunning visual backdrop for their hackneyed monologues?
  - almost 17y ago
    I think you underestimate the fickleness of the general public. It probably wouldn't take more than a sex scandal to wipe all awareness of this from the public consciousness.
    - InclinedPlane 17y ago
      I think you may be confusing the public consciousness with mainstream TV news coverage. A lot of things, even important things, happen in the world without being covered by the news media.
      - almost 17y ago
        And the public by and large ignores them, which was my point.

robg 17y ago

Covering the event doesn't amplify the need for donors?

gsmaverick 17y ago
You don't need to have a team of ~70 over there!
- robg 17y ago
  Take the nightly news. Of the broadcast networks, one channel (NBC) gets 10 million views. The other two get 8.5 (ABC) and 6.7 (CBS) million viewers. Now add up the long-tail. Isn't the sum greater than the parts? http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/ http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/evening_news_ratings/ Sure, in an ideal world resources would get shared. But that's ignoring (1) they're not sharing already, where they can; and (2) they'd have to negotiate a bunch of things when they could be simply covering the stories.
- jonknee 17y ago
  I doubt they have 70 people there just for fun. They can't exactly drive around in a sat truck and do a live shot with a reporter and a camera operator. There's no place to stay, no place to eat, no easy way to travel, no easy way to communicate, no security, etc etc. Tons of legwork just to get basic reports out.
- TrevorJ 17y ago
  As somebody who has worked in video production for 7+ years, I can tell you that crew sizes are down to a science. There's no profit in traveling overseas with more people than you absolutely need.

jrwoodruff 17y ago

Just imagine if no reporters were there to inform the rest of the world of the disaster and bring the scale of destruction home. How much aid and money would be available to Haiti then?

InclinedPlane 17y ago
Probably about the same amount. The aid and money started flowing before the first reporter set foot on Haiti. How many reporters do we need to tell us the same stories about Haiti? How many reporters in Haiti right now are actually reporting legitimately worthwhile stories and how many are taking part in filming disaster porn where Haiti is nothing more than a stunning visual backdrop for their hackneyed monologues?
- almost 17y ago
  I think you underestimate the fickleness of the general public. It probably wouldn't take more than a sex scandal to wipe all awareness of this from the public consciousness.
  - InclinedPlane 17y ago
    I think you may be confusing the public consciousness with mainstream TV news coverage. A lot of things, even important things, happen in the world without being covered by the news media.
    - almost 17y ago
      And the public by and large ignores them, which was my point.