I was thinking about the differences in how we perceive natural disasters as opposed to man-made ones. A terrorist act like 9/11, etc., is set up for maximum public exposure--the images that appear on TV and online all over the world are the real point. Since we get those images so clearly and so immediately, the event seems real to us. But the natural disasters aren't set up that way. The news leaks out, a little at a time. No one was filming the waves that hit during the Tsunami, and only now are we beginning to get some visual images that make it seem real to us.
But it is real. This is a site about one refugee camp before the disaster and the people who lived there. It makes it real to me:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ceret/52383.html
But it is real. This is a site about one refugee camp before the disaster and the people who lived there. It makes it real to me:
http://www.livejournal.com/users/ceret/52383.html
From:
no subject
Other LJers have mentioned an "us" and "them" attitude in the reporting, in the sense that the focus has been "what if something like this happened to us?". I think proximity may be a factor. But more generously I think that sometimes we need to make an imaginative leap by projecting the figures onto landscapes and populations that we know, in order to grasp the immensity of such events. Also, in the first footage I saw, the death toll was under 5,000, and although it was steadily climbing I'm not sure anyone was prepared for the sheer loss of life we're seeing now.
I guess I was struck (again) by how acts of terror are planned with a careful eye to the media.
Indeed. Because it's rare to have a random act of terrorism, the whole point being to show people that you exist and then to use it to get across your demands or grievances (although, once those have been established, subsequent
acts are explained in terms of them).
From:
no subject
From:
no subject