Perhaps you’ve not seen this yet, but you will, soon. CNN’s Anderson Cooper dragged a bloodied boy from the scene of looting in Haiti today, and has blogged about it. There’s both live footage and some pretty vivid images, including this one:
- ANDERSON: SAVED BOY FROM LOOTING
Here at the Mercury, we’re inclined to think that so-called “journalistic objectivity” is a sham, usually pushed by rich white publishers, to market their point of view. We try to be fair and accurate, and of course, if there’s a motivation behind what we’re writing, we do our best to be transparent. It’s not a perfect system, but it strikes me as more honest than the bulk of what you’ll see out there.
If I were in Cooper’s position, I think I may have been tempted to save the boy. But I would have recognized that by doing so, I would have been involving myself in the unfolding situation in a way that might be to my news outlet’s advantage. I would then have considered whether publishing the footage and images of the saving mightn’t be more about marketing myself than my organization’s supposed role as a documenter of “objective truth.”
I don’t know. There’s just something about this that stinks, to me. What do you think?
By the way, tickets for Stephen Beaudoin/Mercycorps Songs For Haiti event tomorrow night at the Bagdad are selling fast. Got yours yet?
Matt, I really think that you’re over-thinking Cooper’s “Oh-shit-that-boy-is-about-to-die-and-I-need-to-do-something-about-it” reaction. And look at the opposite reaction that the reporter who interviewed the woman trapped in rubble got. The media is going to be criticized regardless of what they do. Might as well do something helpful in the meantime.
What else? And maybe by showing a more personal reaction to the horrors unfolding in Haiti, Cooper forces the viewer to make the situation more personal. That maybe the viewer now has more of an emotional investment in the situation. And that’s not a bad thing.
@Graham
I don’t think you can overthink these things, but I agree that there’s possibly something positive in doing what Cooper did.
If you look at all the comments on the story at Cooper’s blog, however, there’s nothing on there but “you’re a hero, Anderson,” and the like.
That’s what makes me really uncomfortable, because I suspect Cooper knew what kind of a reception this would get.
Looks like paint.
By ‘rich and white’ do you mean like Anderson (Vanderbilt) Cooper?
As a college student studying journalism, I have been lectured endlessly about “journalistic objectivity.” However, I think that above all the most important thing, maybe more than a job or cases like this where objectivity was in question, is to remain human.
Maybe not all reporters would have done what Anderson Cooper did. Plenty would have hung back and watched the scene from afar or interviewed participants of the looting rather than actually being part of the situation. After all, that’s what we’re taught and trained to do. But Cooper, although he risked his journalistic objectivity, chose to do the humane, instinctive thing by saving the boy.
Although he probably realized later on (I highly doubt that the only thought running through his head as he ran for the boy was news ratings) that it might pluck at the heartstrings of Americans, maybe that’s what we need. Maybe its a good thing that we were able to see someone familiar to us like Cooper be part of the tragedy, to make it real to us. Maybe, right now it’s more important that instances like this enable us to wake up and open our eyes and hearts rather than passively watch passive, objective reporting.
@Matt: His actions and reactions can be be analyzed in hindsight very easily. And I’m sure that the comments on the CNN are going to be more congratulatory and toady-ish than feels comfortable or correct. But if you want to see the opposite reactions, check out how the redditors and freepers reacted. They were droaning incesitantly about how the color on the images was over-saturated to make them appear worse or that the kid deserved it for being a looter or other crap.
I haven’t been following CNN’s or Cooper’s coverage of this since the day of the incident, but I think it would be even more disengenuos for them to NOT cover the fact that they’re doing work on the ground. What with Sanjay Gupta telling CNN to fire him if they don’t want him treating the injured, this is a media story that can not have impartial observers. I wouldn’t trust an impartial observer of these events (That is unless it was Spock or Data [really, I’ll trust any robot or Vulcan]).
Great question! Of course he should have helped the boy, but it would be disingenuous to not publish the footage, or pretend that it didn’t happen. Their whole team is in Haiti to document what’s happening and educate viewers on the situation. Having the cameras cut away for a minute just because Anderson did something nice would feel dishonest to me.
We can probably test our beliefs here by imagining the opposite: if Anderson had joined the looting and stolen a TV, should they have cut THAT footage from their broadcast in order to ‘stay objective?’ Or would it have been worth reporting as part of the actual situation, just as they did here?
I think the danger (if there is any) is in providing a sense of catharsis to people watching at home. It’s kind of a subtle argument, but it’s been a tenant of progressive fiction for a long time (If you solve the problems for your audience, they have no incentive to go out and solve anything themselves).
I don’t blame the man for doing something, but perhaps it might have been more effective if done off-camera.
I agree almost completely with Graham here, though it was a little nauseating to go to cnn.com and see all the shameless self promotion (which Cooper didn’t have anything to do with personally).
To me, the journalists are in a natural disaster area; without getting into their possibly icky motivations for getting on the first flight to Haiti, now that they are there, what “slant” am I afraid of?
Frankly, I’m more troubled by Matt’s thought that he might REFRAIN from saving a life he could save, because he was concerned about how such an act might reflect on HIM, HIS CAREER or HIS EMPLOYER.
I personally agree with Colin. You can’t bring someone back to life once they’re lost completely, but you can (usually) repair your reputation after the fact. I think the loss of life completely would (obviously) be the graver of the two instances. Besides, American’s have an attention span of about 20 minutes. Those who were pissed about Cooper doing this will forget and move on soon enough and if for some reason they didn’t…if Coopers reputation was permanently marred..I think he could face that fact in good conscience knowing he prevented the potential death of that boy.
Not saving the boy is unthinkable. Who would vote for that?
‘Maybe, right now it’s more important that instances like this enable us to wake up and open our eyes and hearts rather than passively watch passive, objective reporting.’
Aside from reasons of the near future death of journalism, I would suggest going into medicine or social work.
I know exactly what you mean, Matt. You would have stood there deliberating on the fine points of ethics about saving the boy and how your ubercorporate employers would take advantage of your altruism. Makes perfect sense.
Matt, why did you let the boy die? Why?
Unless he writes a book on it, or accept a ‘medal of freedom’ or some shit, he’s done alright by me.
Anderson Cooper is human and he reacted as most would in that position. As did Sanjay Gupta when he chose to treat patients abandoned by UN workers.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/americas/01/…
I don’t think either man was looking to set up a hero storyline for themselves. Anderson saw a child in immediate danger and acted.
That blood doesn’t look real. Not necessarily saying I think it isn’t, but for some reason it doesn’t look real in that photo. Too opaque and bright.
Anyway, just because they happened on this situation which was fortuitous for them, doesn’t mean he would have just left the kid to rot if the cameras weren’t rolling. Not that Cooper deserves the amount of dick-sucking he’s going to get for this…
Most human beings would be compelled to help the boy in that situation. There are stories like this going on all over Haiti. However we only see Anderson doing them. Anderson should not be promoting himself as a hero. If he does not realize his own self promotion, he should not be a journalist. If his intent is to really just help the people of Haiti, he should put down the camera and go to work. If he happens to help people along the way while doing his job, he should not file each individual act as a story.