The first live broadcaster of hurricanes was Dan Rather, a former CBS News anchor. In 1961, he broadcast an image of a live radar of Hurricane Carla on TV and proceeded to report live from the streets so people could see firsthand what the conditions were. Over the past several decades, TV stations have sent journalists to the scenes of specific issues. These events include natural disasters, war and protests. Often times, journalists put themselves in threatening situations in order to report on the story. The question of how far journalists should go to report on an issue is becoming a highly debated topic. People on both sides of the argument have different opinions on a reporter’s duty to society. Some see the idea as hypocritical and unnecessary while others believe the very opposite. Despite the fact that some situations may be dangerous, it’s important for journalists to cover these stories because it brings attention to a variety of issues.
Naturally, dangerous situations are considered so because they put a person directly in harm’s way. Looking specifically at natural disasters like hurricanes, a journalist could be severely injured or killed as a result of being in the storm. One of the main arguments against sending reporters out into a storm is that it’s contradictory. Journalists are telling people to evacuate the area and stay indoors; yet, the reporters are standing out in the middle of the storm. Mark Strassmann, a CBS News correspondent who has covered hurricanes for 25 years, says he “think[s] it’s a fair question: Why would you have reporters standing potentially in harm’s way who are telling people to do exactly the opposite?” His point is true, as many viewers complain about watching reporters in the storm. It can be hard to watch a reporter struggle to remain standing while doing a live shot. People feel that the reporters shouldn’t be out in the storm just as much as they shouldn’t.
Another argument people make is that covering dangerous situations sensationalizes the event. The Slate states that, “putting reporters on camera in the teeth of a hurricane makes for compelling TV. It takes a massive impersonal event and gives it a human protagonist to whom the viewer can relate.” Sending reporters out to cover these stories can make them appear to be entertainment rather than hard hitting news. With an increasing disdain for the media, viewers feel that TV stations are focusing on ways to improve ratings. In a way, this is true. The Nielsen rating system measures what people are watching and when they are watching it. It also provides a number as to how many people viewed a specific show. Nielsen fosters competition between TV stations by emphasizing ratings during “sweeps.” According to the Nielsen website, “sweeps” is a “specific periods during the months of February, May, July and November.” They do this by collecting “more than two million paper diaries from audiences across the country” with TV meters” (7). Since TV stations are in constant competition with one another, they may feel pressure to send journalists in order to have the most viewers.
A final point that could be argued is that reporters can suffer from PTSD as a result of covering a particular story. Reporters are some of the first people to get to a scene and come into direct contact with the issue. Because of this, they may be subject to similar emotional and psychological struggles that victims go through. It’s been found that “journalists are at risk for exposure to work-related traumatic events.” They often suffer from injury, hunger, panic and trauma in a similar way as disaster victims would. As a result, sending reporters out to cover natural disasters can cause unnecessary adverse effects long-term.
While there are valid points arguing why journalists shouldn’t cover dangerous situations, there are overwhelming benefits that outweigh the risks. For one, a journalist has a specific duty to its viewers. The Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ) lists a code of ethics that reporters should try to emulate. One of the key duties of a journalist is to provide context about a specific topic. SPJ explains this as taking “special care not to misrepresent or oversimplify in promoting, previewing or summarizing a story.” One of the easiest ways to provide context is go travel to the place where the incident is occurring. Simply standing in a studio reading statistics of the storm may not provide the full context on the situation. It makes the storm seem impersonal and distant from many people. Standing in the affected community, however, allows the viewers to see the significance of the storm and places the storm into greater context. They can better relate to the situation as they see someone else in it. Another duty listed is to “boldly tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience.”6 Dangerous situations like natural disasters cause emotional and physical damage. By covering the storm firsthand, viewers are able to establish a connection between the disaster and the people living there. It can inspire people to donate to the recovery efforts because they understand what the victims are going through. They see the power of the storms and can imagine the damage people have sustained to their houses, cars and families. In addition, SPJ broadly summarizes a journalist’s role in society by stating they “should be honest and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.”6 By going out in a storm, journalists are being courageous. They are doing everything they can to accurately report what is happening even if it they are put in danger.
Sending reporters to the scene of a natural disaster is also essential because it provides a visual for the viewers. For most people, seeing is believing. CBS News correspondent Mark Strassmann agrees with the importance of live coverage, telling the Huffington Post that “you want to persuade people that what they’re seeing is real and matters to them. And if they can see me standing out there getting knocked around, it’ll convince them that they should not do the same thing.” Telling a person that a storm is bringing 60 mph winds is very different from showing them. By watching a reporter in the storm, viewers get an accurate portrayal as to how severe a storm may be. It also persuades people to take hurricane threats seriously and evacuate if they still can. Ted Scouten, a journalist for CBS4 News explains that “We [reporters] want to make sure that viewers have all they information they need to keep themselves and their families safe.”7 The way reporters go about doing that is critical. Standing in the eye of a storm is an easy attention grabber. Viewers can see what will happen to them if they don’t take the storm seriously. Because of vivid visual, they are more likely take precautions as a way to keep themselves and their family safe.
Travelling to the site of a hurricane also helps a TV station establish credibility. Lester Holt, in an interview with Esquire, discusses the finiteness of a storm. He says reporters like him are “giving you raw data, we're giving you the best projections. You're seeing things unfold in a way that you expect. So people believe it.” Viewers can see the truth behind what the reporter is saying because they are watching it occur right behind him/her. Viewership will increase because people will want to tune-in to the news when a disaster is occurring. They trust the news source more and will therefore be more likely to absorb the information given and head a reporter’s warning.
Another reason sending reporters to covers dangerous events is justifiable is because Journalists don’t enter dangerous situations without the proper preparation. Most journalists sent to cover these types of events have a years of experience. On top of that, they train to handle a variety of situations, whether it be survival or helping wounded citizens. Lester Holt describes the preparation he goes through before covering conflict overseas. He says he has to go to “special hostile environment training. We learn a lot of first aid and some things that are specific to covering regions in conflict.”8 The preparation for a natural disaster like a hurricane is similar. Reporters are trained in first aid and things relevant to waiting out a storm. Holt attributes many of the lessons learned from disasters from plain experience. He says he has an entire toolkit he brings while covering a hurricane. He lists some of them including “a glass-break hammer, in case you're in a vehicle that ends up in the water. A lot of waterproof gear for your electronics, of course. Lots of flashlights and headlamps.”8 Clearly, journalists carry the tools necessary to avoid or escape dangerous situations. CNN’s Kyung Lah says “We take a calculated risk because we want people to know … what is coming your way.”7 Lah does admit that she faces many risks on the job. Many reporters do recognize the situation they are entering to be dangerous. However, they see their duty as a storyteller to be more important. Journalists don’t enter a situation blindly, though. Instead, they take the proper precautions in order to keep themselves and others safe.
A final reason that reporters should cover natural disasters is that safety consistently remains the top priority. Reporters do their best in order to create the best story. However, there are some instances where the weather conditions are too dangerous. Whitney Burbank, a reporter for WPBF in West Palm Beach, Florida discusses how important her safety is to her boss. She says “My employers are pretty careful if something is unsafe… They don’t want you to do a crazy live shot in the middle of a tornado. If it’s too windy to go out, they’re going to say, ‘Don’t do it.’”7 Lester Holt echoes a similar experience. He shares the mindset of NBC News Headquarters, saying “We're encouraged, from [NBC News headquarters] in New York, to think safety, safety, safety. I've already had several conversations about, are you comfortable with the plan?.”8 Evidently, a journalist’s safety is of top priority while on assignment. The power is placed into their hand to decide whether or not a situation is safe. Since a reporter is placing the highest regard on safety, they should cover the storm in order to benefit the public.
As long as reporters take precautions, they should cover stories on natural disasters like hurricanes because it provides the viewer with an unparalleled context and explanation for what is happening. While each dangerous scenario should be treated on a case by case basis, eliminating live reporting from the scene hinders a journalist’s duty to society.