Notes: I originally wrote this article for my Popular Culture course. I later submitted it to the McMaster Student Newspaper, and it was first published in 2006.
Hurricane Katrina and the Portrayal of Death by the Media
by Randy Ai
If there are only two words that can characterize the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, then the two words are “destruction” and “death.” Whereas the former describes the widespread devastation that Katrina left in her terrible wake, the latter stands as a testament to the lives claimed by this most horrible ordeal. Although the former is now synonymous with the vernacular of Katrina, it is the latter that I wish to examine in more detail – primarily because of the way it was represented by the media. Most notably, the media representation of the victims of Katrina speaks volumes about the priorities of American society, especially when compared to the media treatment of American soldiers slain abroad. These priorities, I shall prove, are the products of deeply entrenched cultural ideologies and continue to shape the ethos of the American nation.
To begin, I distinctly remember being glued to the TV after Katrina had flooded New Orleans. The social order of the city had fallen prey to chaos; food and medical supplies were nonexistent. Then, one by one, the citizens of New Orleans began to die. Inside the many houses of New Orleans, the residents met their sullen demise at the hands of the rising waters. Soon after, cameramen and news anchors entered these battered houses, finding bloated bodies above festering ponds of water. However, showing no respect to these victims, the media cameramen filmed them in their most ignominious state and the images of their humiliating deaths made headlines within hours.
Compare this now to the media treatment of American soldiers killed in the line of duty. Rarely, if ever, does an American TV network actually show the body of a slain combatant. Usually, when an American soldier is killed, all any TV audience will see is the general location of the death, and possibly images of an immobilized armoured vehicle. The issue is so sensitive that there is even controversy surrounding whether or not it is appropriate to show flag-draped coffins. Why then is it appropriate to show the deaths of innocent citizens who have drowned in their own houses, yet it is inappropriate to display images of fallen soldiers?
The answer appears to lie with what America has chosen to be its top priority: nationalistic pride. The media display of fallen soldiers undermines nationalistic pride; it acts as a discouraging reminder of the brutality of war and it challenges the notion that the American war effort is perfect and free from causalities. Thus, to show the image of a slain combatant is to emphasize America’s weakness. This is deemed to be forbidden, and through an unwritten contract, the media has agreed to play by these rules.
But if nationalistic pride is such a priority, why then is it appropriate to show images of drowned civilians? Do these images not undermine nationalistic pride as well? Are these images of death not symbols of America’s weakness? After all, if one were to closely examine the causes of these deaths, it is obvious that long term government neglect and poverty were contributing factors. The people who drowned in New Orleans were predominately poor and black; these were also the people who lived in areas that were most affected by the flood – their homes having been built in the most susceptible areas. Moreover, these people could not afford cars, so they could not leave; they could not afford phones, so they could not call for help; lastly, they did not have the education to understand the full gravity of the situation before they succumbed to the flood. Why then are these not travesties of the American ideal?
The simple answer may be that the audience of American media is unwilling or unable to digest the plethora of information presented to it, and thus does not fully understand the reasons why so many people died in Katrina’s aftermath. The failure to understand the broad social influences that contributed to this travesty may indeed provide a preliminary explanation, however, there are deeper, more ideologically ingrained forces at work here.
I have already established that the majority of Katrina’s victims were poor, so allow me to pose the same question in a different manner. Why is there a difference between how the media treats the deaths of poor people and the deaths of American soldiers? To examine this question more thoroughly, one must understand the different types of weaknesses that these two differing events expose. The death of a poor person exposes a weakness in the notion of American social equality. But the death of the American soldier exposes a weakness in something more powerfully ingrained – the idea of American military invincibility. Even to this day, America is not ready to accept the idea of that her military is anything but the world’s best. And as a corollary of such, Americans believe that their military has the ability to crush any and all foreign opposition.
The framework from which this ideological expectation derived has been in the works for centuries: ever since the 1840’s America has continually embraced the philosophy of “manifest destiny” – seeing imperialism and militarism as prerequisites to power and economic might. During the 20th century, and now in the 21st century, America has frequently used its military aggressively – often through the outright invasion of foreign countries. In the process of achieving Pax Americana, America gave her citizens a vision of militaristic supremacy. This vision was infused into the cultural ethos of America, and remains to this day as a powerful and permanent ideological construct. The death of an American soldier is an event that challenges this construct; however, the American media – being strongly influenced by the aforementioned ideology itself – will not display the images of fallen troops, thus refusing to challenge the belief of American military invincibility.
And where does this leave the poor flood victim? Why does the image of a dead pauper not offend the senses the same way that a dead soldier would? This is because the notion of equality within America does not have the same weight; simply put, a deeply ingrained expectation of equality does not exist within the nation. If anything, there exists the well entrenched idea of the American Dream; upon closer examination, however, it’s obvious that the American Dream does not promote equality, rather it promotes hard work and a distorted vision of economic just desserts. The American Dream overemphasizes free will while simultaneously undermining the worth of poor people – labelling them as individuals who have the potential to save themselves, but choose not to. Under this paradigm, the interpretation is that the flood victim chose to stay behind. Also, because he didn’t work hard enough over the years, he did not deserve the money to pay for a means of leaving the city. Finally, and most importantly, because the poor have little intrinsic value, it is fine for the media to display their dead and bloated bodies to the world.
Concluding then, there was a reason why we saw the images of dead flood victims on our TVs as opposed to images of slain American soldiers. The American media is strongly influenced by America’s deeply imbedded cultural ideologies and standards; hence we receive a biased perspective. The dominance of the American military and the illusion of such take precedent; images that challenge this dominance are forbidden. Oppositely, there does not exist a strong cultural ethos of equality in America, hence, the death of a poor person can be shown without offending the sensibilities of the American public. In analyzing these differences, the true face of America can be observed; and to deconstruct her societal values is to unveil significant, and often frightening, implications.
© Randy Ai, 2007
