Media: Relationship Between Economic Self-Interest and Disaster Aid

In reference to the Stromberg article we previously referenced would explain donor-recipient relationships based on factors of similarities, ties, and proximity. This explanation contributes to the constructivist perception of disaster aid between governments, where historical ties and relationships foster the elements necessary to provide aid. However, the aforementioned relationships did not include an analysis of the relationship between media coverage and it’s effect on allocating aid for disaster assistance.

The CARMA Report in 2006 on “Western Media Coverage of Humanitarian Disasters” revealed through its analysis of 6 disasters the way into the hearts of foreign disaster assistance is not through the tear-filled stories of survivors, but economic self-interest of the donor governments (e.g. tourists, tourist industry, etc.).  Hurricane Katrina generated 570 stories focused on its political and economic implications, rather than the 273 designated to reports on it as a humanitarian crisis (11). A similar pattern was recognized in the media coverage of the Kashmir and Bam earthquakes, where the data reveals coverage of politics and economy is reported on over 6% more.

The reason for political and economic coverage of disasters is not because there is a lack of humanitarian sympathies, rather the exact opposite. Humanitarian coverage is effective to gain the attention of media, but it cannot provide the critical linkage between the countries to intervene. In contrast, the concept of self-interest with underlying themes of economics and politics incentivize a donor government, beyond the simple explanation of moral obligation. I want to specifically reference the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami to emphasize certain actions of Australia’s aid allocation that indicate there is additional complexity than the relationships Stromberg highlights.

Australia had donated a substantial amount of aid during that disaster and from a constructivist perspective their relationship based on proximity as a regional power contributed to why they provided aid. Liberals were arguing that the proximity emphasized the economic interdependence between Australia and the countries stricken by disaster. However, the CARMA report reveals 40% of media coverage was dedicated to how the disaster affected westerners (7). Brad West and Ruthie O’Reilly, professors at the University of South Australia and University of Adelaide, conducted a study of Australian media coverage of the 2004 Indian Ocean Tsunami and argue that the Australian population was mobilized with a concept they refer as national humanitarianism (341). This concept highlights how countries use aspects of their own economic and political interests to tie them to the disaster in order to take initiative. This concept recognizes a key idea that sovereign states are not motivated by ‘moral obligation’.

Furthermore, the Australian media coverage included discourse-highlighting Australian interests – ranging from Australian tourists affected to praising Australian aid efforts. This self-interest component is a mechanism that overcomes the differences between governments, allowing them to find aspects they can find in a country in order to aid.