Search

The authors "define disaster media as a heuristic, or approach, that recognizes the ways “natural” and human-made disasters are communicated about, constructed, and variously exacerbated or relieved through media means. This heuristic is not simply a temporary model for problem solving but tries to account for ecological forces and material conditions" (my emphasis).

They close the article with three provocations:

1) All Media on Deck: the current moment of combo disaster (COVID and climate crisis) requires the production of more public and open access materials (of various kinds), but also boosting of media literacy. The auhtors acknowledge the conundrum of producing more media, while being confronted with sustainability issues and the call for "no-carbon" media.

2) Relief and media Production: a critical look at the kinds of assumptions that governments/NGOs/industry bring to COVID-19 relief efforts (videos, websites, maps, algorithms...) -- what counts as relief and for whom? 

3) Focus on Social and Environmental Justice: "In moving forward, it will be crucial to approach disaster media as a domain in which structural reform agendas that interweave social and environmental justice can flourish."

In the article, the authors address visualizations of COVID cases, including related satellite mages of air pollution in Southern California and China (generated by NASA/ESA) as well as of mass graves in Iran.

First, they provide basic framing of how to critically read air pollution satellite imagery. Connections between COVID-19 measures and improvements in air pollution are not identifiable in a straightforward way.

"Figure 1a, for instance, uses bright magenta to indicate greater concentrations of nitrogen dioxide and light blue to signify cleaner air. However, such color choices can be misleading: there is no material correlation between nitrogen dioxide and the color magenta; and reduced traces of this chemical do not turn the sky a paler shade of blue. [...] color-coding selections imply, satellite images are not just scientific; they are cultural as well."

Second, they point out the paradox role of satellite imagery to account for the inequitable impact of COVID-19

"satellite image, from a US satellite operator, locates pandemic “excesses” in an Iranian “elsewhere.” But this is an increasingly deceptive proposition, given that the United States has one of the highest COVID-19 per capita transmission and fatality rates in the world."

Third, they draw comparisons between the "hockey stick" visualization of global Climate Change and the various "curves" used to display COVID-19 developments:

From a disaster media perspective, the film’s global warming graph depicts a dramatic climate shift, projects imminent catastrophe, and issues a world warning. Its circulation in global media culture for the past fifteen years potentially informs the ways people are engaging now with similar-looking charts of coronavirus death and illness. Historically, news media have relied on sensationalistic photos of human suffering to convey a sense of disaster, but in the age of big data and the current pandemic, numbers speak, and graphs and curves tend to dominate the mediascape. In both cases, scientific experts and publics must grapple with how these graphs make meaning, what datasets they rely upon, and how these media come to stand in for highly complex conditions.

Finally, they remark that COVID-19 visualizations are always incomplete - because of lack of testing and withholding of data - but also because stories of e.g. workers are missing. They reference the cover of the New York Times (May 24, 2020) that displayed the names of 100,000 people who had died from COVID.

The article points out the simulation Crimson Contagion that was run by the Department of Health in 2019.

"Despite all of the pressing unknowns of the disease, one cannot call its emergence unpredictable. A simulation by the US Department of Health and Human Services, code-named Crimson Contagion, ran from January through August 2019. The aim was to prepare for the effects of an influenza pandemic. The findings reportedly “drove home just how underfunded, underprepared and uncoordinated the federal government would be for a life or-death battle with a virus for which no treatment existed” (Sanger et al. 2020)"

They also note the rise in Internet usage, pointing to environmental and energy implications:

"[C]oronavirus capitalism is interwoven with digital capitalism (Schiller 1999; Terranova 2004; Fuchs 2019). The pandemic has prompted a massive rush to online spaces of work and leisure activities. It is estimated that the COVID-19 pandemic has increased total internet use by 70 percent (Beech 2020)."

"Yet with this surge in online activities and virtual gatherings, the COVID-19 crisis has both exacerbated and laid bare the internet’s rising energy dependency, its growing carbon footprint, and issues of energy justice. The challenge is to be able to address crises of various kinds while reducing fossil fuel use especially, and developing sustainable and equitably managed energy sources. There is a burgeoning scholarly literature about the ill effects of the nuclear, petroleum, coal, and hydroelectric energy sources that power the grid and about the environmental devastation their industrial incursions wreak. In the meantime, the impacts of extraction and production of the various energy forms that keep the grid and the internet operating are often toxic and inequitable." 

Finally, they point to the connection between media and health, including civic archiving of HIV activists.

[F]ilm and media scholarship on public health [...] not only serves as crucial context for the COVID-19 pandemic but also extends the conceptual contours of disaster media to include disease and illness, outbreaks and pandemics, and the ways government agencies address or fail to address health-related crises. Alexandra Juhasz’s book AIDS TV (1995) explores community educational initiatives and activist videos that became vital means of conveying information about and perspectives on HIV transmission during the 1980s and '90s and continuing public health crises. Addressing media portrayals of other outbreaks, Kirsten Ostherr’s Cinematic Prophylaxis (2005) critically examines Hollywood films “that represent the spread of contagious disease across national borders.” In it Ostherr argues, “Audiovisual materials play a crucial role in the articulation of world health, not only as vehicles of educational and ideological dissemination, but also as metaphors for the spread of disease within the processes of globalization” (2). Her study sheds light on the current COVID-19 crisis by demonstrating how outbreaks become disaster media.

The film is primarily the narratives of many first responders, so they play a large roll in the meassage being protrayed. They are seen as heros but also paid the price of their decisions through health issues.

The film is geared towards the general public, all medical terms are explained fairly well. No medical or first response background is necessary, and it is fairly educational for viewers.

The real threats of air quality were covered up due to politics and other reasons, wanting to get america back to work. Instead, the reports were edited and people were sent back into the dirty air to clean up the scene or back to office jobs in the area, with contaminated air surrounding everything. Decontanimation efforts did not start until very late in the process. Bush did not wear a mask and the workers were told they didn't need to, so they didn't. As a result, there were severe health problems afterwards.

The first hand interviews from first responders are compiled in a way that goes through the stories of what heppened, how health information was released and changed. The first repsonder stories are intermixed with testimonies from the EPA workers, showing differences in the science that was found and the press releases disclosing the health concerns. Many tear up upon realizing how their health will hurt their families. The doctors in the area caught onto the trends in poor health and started a monitoring program to make sure everyone got the medical screening and help they needed. The lives of all of the first responders and their families were changed drastically from their public service.

First responders share their experiences, how they responded, how they realized there weren't going to be many survivors. Many of them suffered from health issues afterwards. The air was very toxic and led to cancers. It makes you wonder how other safety information is given to first responders. They weren't even doing a rescue mission at the point that asbestos was being hidden in reports, so their lives should not have been risked like that for simply cleaning up rubble. Was it worth it for them to shovel the debris and pull out parts of bodies at that point, while putting their well being and lives at risk? If they had waited a few months for the dust to settle and be cleaned up, would that have saved many of the first responders? Offices in the area and houses nearby weren't inspected until even later. Schools opened as a sign of American strength led to asthma, bronchitis, etc. Are those lives worth the public image?

The school parent was interesting - explaining that the public image of resiliance was paid for by the lungs of the children being sent back into the uncleaned schools.

The person in charge of sending out the EPA press releases (and heavily editing them) had previously fought against the EPA for large companies.

The doctors eventually noticed the issues and tried to get more of the first responders evaluated and treated.

The first responders that risked their lives saving others now can't get fair treatment or benefits to help recover. They want to work but can't.

They needed to testify that they were on the scene in front of a judge to get benefits.

The government and politicians that released the information do not share their defense of why they cut information out, at the cost of the people and responders.