Introspection of the “Entering” Culture of Morakot Typhoon News in Taiwan/ By Chiung-wen (Julia) Hsu

Photo by Chien-Chung Chen, A TV photojournalist with the camera on his shoulder stood at the toppled-over buildings and made a phone call.

By the time writing this article, nearly 20 days have passed since Typhoon Morakot inflicted catastrophic damages in Taiwan on Aug. 8, 2009. According to my preliminary content analysis, observation and examination of recent news reports on effects of the disaster, we can find that besides typical sensational news that focuses on emotional stress of the victims, emphasis on “entering” affected regions has also become the mainstream of news. News media were fanatic about “entering” affected regions, including ones that have been considered as role models. Luckily, after negotiations with the military, on the 23rd of August first hand images of the holy ground for “entering” – Namasia were equally distributed among reporters as a pool. Reporters suddenly lost focus and the news fever gradually shifted from the Typhoon to the H1N1 epidemic.


The Namasia code was broken, the conflict point of true suspense suddenly vanished, and “entering” was no longer demanded. Yet, how many reporters, lacking both professional training and equipment, followed rescued teams into disaster areas in the past near twenty days? Luckily, nothing bad happened, but not without a considerable number of close calls. Some reporters tried to force their way through rivers and were nearly swept away, some followed locals into the forest and almost got lost, and some even rushed to take dangerous transport cages of military helicopters into potential mudslide areas; every “entering” reporter received a fair share of cuts and bruises. Still, these diligent reporters remain eager to make a stand upper or to produce a fake live report, ignoring water flooded to their waists, rapid currents or even when handing by a thread. Such an “entering” culture interferes with rescue work and endangers the lives of reporters, but no one will put a stop to it.


Maybe these reporters feel the danger they put themselves in, maybe they don’t, but what other way is there? Every news room sends a customary text message to show its concern, but still hopes to find buried villages before any other news channel. One reporter entered Siaolin village and became a hero to the news channel. Driven by encouragements from the news room, pressure from TV ratings and a sense of self-fulfillment, the reporter was ready to risk everything and further targeted Baolai, Sianshan and Namasia. Some news rooms even give red envelopes as an incentive. If the timing and motive is to recognize reporters for their efforts, then such an action should be applauded, but if it is to encourage “entering” disaster areas, then such implications should be criticized.


From the 921 Earthquake, Nari Typhoon, Mindulle Typhoon to Morakot Typhoon, it is apparent that Taiwan can’t avoid natural disasters. However, news reporting of every disaster is just a replica of a previous wrong experience. First of all, just how far reporters should be allowed into disaster areas to prevent them from interfering with rescue work and damaging the scene, because disaster areas are unlike crime scenes that have parameters and related regulations. During early periods, reporters utilized their connections to get on rescue helicopters. This time the military explicitly ordered that reporters are not to take helicopters without permission. Yet, they didn’t provide any supporting measures for reporters to gain precious images of disaster areas to show to the world, which would have attracted more attention and resulted in more manpower and funds being invested into “entering” work. Ironically, the reporters could only enter disaster areas by making themselves a part of rescue teams in the end.


Following the path of rescue teams to gain access into disaster areas is already a bad example, boasting about such dangerous behaviour should be viewed as an act of mental sickness. Maybe it’s driven by ambition, but I’m sure that the following scenario is more than familiar to many reporters: a supervisor in the news room is watching a line-up of TV monitors, sees a dangerous clip of people trying to force their way through a river, picks up the phone and questions the reporter responsible for the area: why did’t YOU get that? The supervisor might have forgotten that the reporter JUST reported a meaningful story, how is possible to be in two places at one time? If the reporter replied that the people trying to cross the river were in fact reporters that almost got washed away, even though the supervisor wouldn’t say “If you thought of that, you would have the same spectacular clip”, he would probably say “XX news channel is already getting into XX area, where the heck are you?”


News reports on disasters and social incidents should be more considerate. Is it right to amplify the trauma of victims without limits or to use them as tools so that the audience may shed a tear? How can news reports help victims and not merely dig into their wounds? Which disaster areas should be open for interviews? Which areas should be restricted? How can government aid for interviews help information flow more freely? What support do frontline reporters require and how should they express their traumatic experiences? These issues require more space for discussion, but there is one thing we can do right now, and that is to ensure the most fundamental element of reporting: safety.


Maybe the news industry feels it inappropriate to impose restrictions on disaster reporting, and that it will lower their competitiveness. However, before news rooms explain their considerations for the safety of their reporters, they should cease any actions that encourage reporters to enter disaster areas. Reporters should also reconsider the way they report a disaster that has already occurred, but make it seem more dangerous than a war zone. Is it appropriate? Is it worth risking your life for? What if an accident happens, do you think your family will be able to handle it? If these questions haven’t been thoroughly thought over, and reporters are not subject to rescue training on a regular basis, then finding a good story and reviewing the cause of such tragedy is the more practical and beneficial option.