Media and Disasters
Hey all, since the reading this week from Hannigan’s Disasters Without Borders is about Media and its influence on the politics of disasters, I’ve decided to do my blog post comparing the media coverage of disasters and how they shape the discourse surrounding an event.
For my case study, I chose a disaster that has been frequently population the international headlines recently, the annexation of Crimea by Russia. For context, in the past weeks Russia has made several bold moves by stirring Russian nationalist sediment in Crimea, an area of Ukraine that strategically borders the Black Sea and has a majority cultural and linguistic Russian population. Recently, in response to resistance by the Ukrainian government and some Ukrainians living in and around Crimea, Russia inserted a military presence into the region and has slowly began the process of annexing the region from Ukraine, citing a “referendum” that the Crimean population took that reflected a majority of the population supporting leaving Ukraine and joining Russia.
The crisis has received lots of attention from the international community and numerous of nations have condemned what appears to be a clear example aggressive imperialism by Russia. On the flip side, Russian president Vladimir Putin dismisses allegations of Russian pugnacity and has referenced Ukraine’s referendum as a rationale for annexing the territory. Notable about the situation also is Russia’s military and economic vested interest in Crimea. One of the Russia’s only warm water naval bases is in Crimea and operates it within the purview of the Ukrainian government. With recent developments however, Russia is in danger of losing operation authority over the base.
The reason why the Crimea Crisis is such a fitting guinea pig, ripe for analysis of the media coverage surrounding it is because it almost perfectly exemplifies how media coverage, and the political affiliations of said media outlets, help shape discourse surrounding a crisis along with frame the perspective that subscribers view the crisis hold. There is no better exemplar of dissimilarities between media coverage of the same event than the perspectives posited by The Washington Post, an American outlet, and The Moscow News, the longest running English-translated newspaper which is owned by the Russian state media outlet RIA Novosti. 
The Washington Post has run numerous articles covering the Crimean crisis, including “Russia threatens retaliation as Kiev orders military moves in eastern Ukraine” on 4/23/14 in which the authors report on the bellicose rhetoric of Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov stating that Russia would defend its interests militarily if provoked and drew illusions to Russia’s skirmish with Georgia over the South Osseita area in 2008. The article continues by documenting Ukrainian citizens and officials’ unrest and discontent over the advancing Russian military and political influence in the Crimean area. The article makes a point to reference the increasing kidnapping, assault, and other heinous crimes that are coming to light under the growing Russian military strong arm that is enveloping Crimea and surrounding areas of Ukraine.  Overall, the tone and rhetoric present in the piece conveys a very pro-Ukraninan report and tries to highlight the hostility and villainous behavior of the militarily domineering Russian might. The piece clearly espouses the general Western position of disdain and contempt toward Russian zeal to overtake Crimea.
Concurrently, the writing from The Moscow News on March 13th titled “Crimea could join Russia weeks after referendum” provides a markedly different outlook on the crisis. The article’s use of language, such as Russia “absorbing” Crimea after the “referendum” that reflected the majority of the province wishing to be annexed by Russia, illustrates the article’s attempt to downplay and avoid Russian aggression and malevolent influence in the event and euphemize the situation by obscuring some unflattering details about Russia’s imperial escapades. Additionally, the article also made sure to mention that Crimea is a linguistically and culturally majority Russian area in an attempt to soften Russian advances into the area and provide more of a rationale for Crimea to leave Ukraine.  
Reading the article from The Moscow News, which was written only a month before The Washington Post article I couldn’t help noticing the almost diametrically opposed tones, rhetoric, and subversive propaganda that are present in both. This drastic difference harkens back to Cold War tensions present between the US and the USSR throughout the 20th century. These tensions often manifest in the propaganda and rhetoric present in nation’s media outlets.  What the media feeds it’s subscribes often shapes opinions and cognition surrounding the same event. This phenomenon highlights a principle touched upon in John Hannigan’s Disasters without Borders chapter about mass media: Media outlets frame foreign disasters within a narrow “them vs. us” dichotomy where the U.S. media outlets tries to portray Russia as a foreign “other” with malevolent intentions through its coverage of events such as the crisis of Crimea while the Russian media tries to rationalize and defend its nations action while often omitting key information for media reports to purposely keep subscribes not fully informed on events such as the Crimean crisis. It is interesting to note how where one lives, what sources one derives their news, and what political affiliations said news organizations espouse can significantly meld the prospective one has on an event such as the Crimean crisis.

Water, Present Crisis, Future Disaster

Water Crisis

People are always arguing how society needs to find new ways of producing energy. Always stating that the oil crisis is becoming each time more prominent. But what many people fail to see is that there is another resources crisis that is also growing and becoming a bigger threat each day that passes. The water crisis has been growing problem and its effects are starting to become each day clearer. This vital resource is becoming each day scarcer and eventually it can developed into a world scale disaster.

            It is possible to see the scale of the water crisis by analyzing the current drought present in California. One of the major issues that the State government is facing these days. The droughts present in the state of California are affecting the crops and other industries present in the area. But the damage is not present only on the state. Other areas not only from the United States but from the world are starting to feel the consequences of the water crisis. The damage on the production levels of California are reflected on the overall capacity of the country which then can affected affiliated countries.

            As it was discussed the consequences and impacts of the water crisis do not stop only in the region directly affected by it. Many of the individuals and communities associated with the industries present in the region affected also suffer from the consequences. If by having a single state being affected by the drought it is already possible to feel an impact on the international community. Then what would happen if the whole nation suffered from the same disaster? What would be the implication on the international community? And how could the international community act to prevent such a disaster?

            In conclusion it is possible to state that the water crisis can be far more devastating then what may people imagine. It is a clear crisis that requires the action of the international community in order to prevent it from becoming a full scale disaster. In which case could cause way more devastation then it is causing today.

         

By Pedro Vargas

Media: Helping or Hurting Global Action?

Why does the media choose to highlight certain natural disasters and not others? An interesting article from the Daily Texan titled, “Media’s focus on celebrity aid lessens probability of political action,” calls to question the power of media on making effective change. We’ve given the media, with its 24/7 constant reporting, a power greater than any authority- in the sense that the media has the power to control politics. The media is aware of its ability to manipulate its viewers, and also the institutions that can enact change. But what the media also has the ability to do is create great inaction, desensitization, and an inactive global community.

            The article talks about celebrity aid, and how the spotlight is being put on the donors instead of the victims. The “glamourization” of natural disasters highlights and epidemic in our technology based society. Instead of looking at the factors contributing to a disaster or what’s being done, we’ve removed a sense of government accountability and need for policy reforms. For example, its important to analyze a situation, like Ethiopian famine and it’s history of oppression, government corruption and the mishandlement of foreign aid. Knowing the political, geographical, and sociological contexts are crucial when looking at the crises, because underneath every disaster there is a deeper instability that needs to be addressed. For global citizens, combating the medias portrayal of disasters come in three steps. Firstly, gather as much knowledge as you can about the circumstances in a disaster. And when you think you’ve understood the situation and what’s happening, keep looking for more. Look at the culture, the government, hear stories from the victims, but use knowledge as tool. The knowledge you gather is a means of power that we can hold over the media and say, “This is the reality of what’s going on, we won’t be satisfied with bias, one-sided stories for sensational purposes.” Secondly, if we’re pursuing knowledge then we must look at more quality of our news being produced, showing a bigger picture of the situation. We shouldn’t subscribe to bias news stations, which can be challenging especially for Americans that let it’s two party politics reflect a two-party media outlet. And lastly, we need to give more focus to the victims, not as stories of personal tragedy but how we can end human suffering. This will only happen if we enact larger institutional reforms and create a stronger, lasting structure like upholding international norms.

            Hopefully, we will touch on a lot of these issues tomorrow when we discuss the media. I think this issue really calls to question, as evident in this article. Although some people are altruistic when giving aid, is the media doing more harm than good to enact long-term institutional changes?   

Here is the link: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2014/03/04/media%E2%80%99s-focus-on-celebrity-aid-lessens-probability-of-political-action

BP Oil Spill

            Remember the BP oil spill in 2011? On April 20^th, 2010 an oil-drilling rig called the Deepwater Horizon exploded in flames 41 miles off the coast of Louisiana. It’s estimated that a total of 4.9 million barrels of oil, or 205.8 gallons, leaked from the well.

The BP oil spill is a perfect example of a man-made disaster, which we discussed in the beginning of the semester. According to the New York Times, BP was running weeks behind schedule and millions of dollars over budget prior to the explosion. Federal investigators concluded that BP took tons of shortcuts that led to the oil spill.                  

               

   The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Regulation, and Enforcement report stated that the pollution in the Gulf of Mexico was a result of poor risk management, last-minute changes to plans, failure to observe and respond to critical indicators, inadequate well control response and insufficient emergency bridge response training for the operation of the Deepwater Horizon. The report concluded that BP, as the well’s owner, was ultimately responsible for the accident. But it also said that BP’s chief contractors, Transocean, which owned the mobile drilling rig, and Halliburton, which was responsible for the cementing operations, shared the blame for many of the fatal mistakes.

If BP acted, as it should have, the oil spill would not have occurred. Instead, BP used dodgy cement for monetary reasons, misinterpreted a pressure test, and did not spot a leak.            

BP acted in its own-self-interest as any state would. BP knew that they it was running weeks behind schedule and severely under budget so BP took shortcuts in order to ensure its own safety. BP spent less money on cement and didn’t follow the Federal Laws and did not train their staff correctly. The disaster was a direct result of BP, Halliburton, and Deepwater Horizons actions but it was also worsened by their actions as well. The situation was made worse because none of the companies listed above wanted to admit fault and realize the extent of the situation. The oil spill was initially worsened by the immediate action taken after the oil spill.            

The example of the BP oil spill just goes to show environmental disasters can be byproducts of human action. If BP hadn’t cut back on spending money, the oil spill may not have happened. Which is something we have been talking about in class for weeks. We discussed how human action could worsen a disaster but… can human action cause a natural disaster? The answer is obviously yes.

Oil Spill today:

The BP oil spill also ties into to our discussion for tomorrow’s class, media coverage of disasters. Initially, the media made it clear that the BP oil spill was the worst environmental disaster that America had ever faced and called for immediate action. The media stressed the impact the oil spill would have on our fisheries and our economy as a whole with a strong emphasis on the eleven individuals who died. The media spent months on the BP oil spill, making the disaster even bigger then it was. In fact, the action that the media called for made the extent of the situation even worse initially and the media predictions about the extent of the disaster were far off. It is interesting how the media can determine the attention a disaster will receive even if the information they publicize is incorrect.                                                                                                                            

         In this case, however, the media coverage was so widely publicized because the disaster directly affected the United States of America. If this oil spill were to occur much further away from our borders, it would be interesting to see if the oil spill would receive as much help and/or as much air time as the BP oil spill did. Location and US self-interest are a big factor in deciding how the media portrays disasters, which is why it makes sense that the BP oil spill was so highly publicized. So what do you think, if an oil spill were to occur (same extent) further away from the US… would there be as much media coverage or would the media dismiss the oil spill and talk about the missing plane instead?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/15/science/earth/15spill.html

http://www.nals.org/?p=3503

Internet Security – Can it become a Disaster?

In view that it is a topic that we did not discussed largely in class I thought that we could better expand and discuss this topic of internet security and how it can become a disaster through the blog.

            When we talk about disasters the first thing that one think is the physical, usually, natural disaster that have clear and physical consequences on society as a whole. As we discussed in class there are various factors that can cause or aggravate a disaster. We also discussed that there are other types of disaster then the natural disaster such as the man-made disasters. But there is one thing that is very close to us and that indeed have the potential to damage society in such a scale that trespass the damage caused by various natural and man-made disasters.

            Bank accounts, huge amounts of money, company and governmental secrets and various others information's that could damage society are present on the internet and therefore automatically in risk of being used against their purpose. Although there are various security mechanisms protecting these information's there is also people able to break those systems and get these information's.

            In the past years hacking attacks have happened constantly and the targets varied from governments, to companies and individuals. Examples of theses hacking attempts can be seen everywhere, Sarah Palin got her personal account during the elections and many governments around the world have suffered hacker attacks to government websites. In Brazil for example there are various threatens of hacker attacks in relation to the World Cup of 2014. These threats are being done in protest against the large expenditures that the government has made for the World Cup. The internet disaster is something that can happen at any time and it is almost impossible to predict when, where and how it will happen.

            

So I present the following question to all of you. How secure is the internet, and how much of a threat can it pose to us? Is this threat measurable?  How does the internet disaster compare to the other types of disasters that we have discussed before?

Sources:

http://www.cybernewsalerts.com/2014/02/several-italian-government-websites-are.html

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/02/26/us-worldcup-brazil-hackers-idUSBREA1P1DE20140226

http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-26969629

By Pedro Vargas

Posting for Lorraine:

The Syrian Crisis

           

            In light of the coming class on Syria, I have looked into the current events that have created such a crisis in the country. We are (probably) all familiar with the international situation several months back concerning the use of chemical weapons in Syria, and whether or not the United States would take action against that. However, the state of the war between the rebels and the government in Syria obviously did not stop there, though the interest of the people did seem to.

           

            This connects to a theme about the idea that initial outrage or concern about disasters and its media coverage tends to die out quickly, while the crisis or disaster itself is prolonged. Of course, the presence of chemical weapons is always a taboo in the world, causing uproars all around. At that same time there were strong opinions one way or another as to whether interference in the country was necessary. Since that time, it seems that Syria has been all but forgotten by people, having moved on to bigger and more mysterious crises (such as flight 370, and the Russian-Ukranian conflict). We have also discussed that this tendency to forget goes hand-in-hand with the level of media coverage. While the media coverage is significantly less concerned (which cannot really be surprising considering that we are no longer in danger of joining the fight), but it was still very easy to find two articles on the state of Syria in two newspaper companies. This was interesting for me to note that, though international concern seems to have died down, news coverage about the war is not obsolete yet.

            It leads me to wonder, do you think that the only reason people in the United States was concerned was because of our possible participation in the world (which the country just could not handle at the time considering the wars in Iraq and Afganistan)? Or was it because of the outrage over the use of chemical weapons (which would have made the crisis in Syria not unlike other typical disaster coverages)? Ought we to show continued concern for it? 

            According to the two articles by the New York Times and the Los Angeles Times, their is an imminent threat against particularly historic cities due to the war, Palmyra and Maaloula respectively. Both articles concerns themselves as much with the loss of culture because of the danger to the historic ruins in Palmrya and religious structures in Maaloula as it does with the violence that is plaguing the nation. However, both also follow along the same trend that leads to one ultimate conclusion: the rebel forces are losing. These rebel forces are aiming to denounce the rule of the current president, and for a change in government. Considering this, one has to ask, would it be a worse disaster for the rebels and the people they are fighting for if the Syrian government comes out ahead, or is it the continued strife that is turning this crisis into a disaster?

 

Maaloula before the battle

 and after (taken from LA Times):

Both sides are blaming the other for the ruin that the war is causing to the monasteries, historic churches, and other Christian sites.

 

Palmyra before:

and during (taken from NY Times article):

The damage to the ruins has so far not been as destructive as initially thought, however no one has been able to go in and inspect. The only people now in the ruins are Syrian armed forces, which had previously been held by the rebels. 

http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-christian-town-20140416,0,1530461.story#axzz2zB7GENpy

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/17/world/middleeast/syrian-war-takes-heavy-toll-at-a-crossroad-of-cultures.html?ref=world&_r=0

Sri Lanka's economic growth, temporal growth for a natural disaster prone state?

Sri Lanka’s economic development, has a natural disaster contributed to investment and stability? Food for thought. As we’ve been discussing the background of Sri Lanka, its turbulent civil conflict, and its vulnerability to natural disasters, the question of institutions and economic development arises. In an article from the world bank, Sri Lanka’s economy has grown “7.2 percent over the past financial year, making the island one of Asia’s fast growing markets after China.” At the end of civil conflict in Sri Lanka, when a peaceful agreement was met, the Sri Lankan economy grew by 8 percent. Although the institution played a part in Sri Lanka’s stability, what played an even bigger role was private and public investment. “Public investment contributed through large infrastructure investment, including post war reconstruction efforts in the North and Eastern provinces.” After civil conflict ended in Sri Lanka, it also became a recipient of global aid. Other nations states have invested heavily in reconstruction and recovery efforts for Sri Lanka. The country has been able to outperform other south Asian countries in meeting its Millennium Development goals, including reducing poverty, accessible education, and has meet goals for clean drinking water and risk reduction plans. Why has Sri Lanka been on the fast track to meeting many of its MDG goals, while other countries have remained more stagnant? In part, global aid and intervention has given Sri Lanka a stepping stone that puts itself ahead of other south Asian countries. But as climate change continues, and Sri Lanka is predicted to experience more natural disasters, can it maintain and grow its economy from internal resources? Or has Sri Lanka become dependent on state intervention and global aid for its ability to revive its economic development? I’m curious to hear what the group has to say, and I thought this train of thought would help us prepare for the final exam essay question as well.

You can find the World Bank's overview here: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/srilanka/overview

And another news article from the London Times covering the same situation here:

http://www.lankaweb.com/news/items/2014/04/09/economy-grew-at-7-2-in-sri-lanka/