#869
Inactive

Media has been instrumental in drumming up financial support for disasters but can differ depending on the nature of the coverage. I recall the 2009 Victorian bushfires response received a reasonable amount of negative press, for example, which led to swift identification of the key communication issues with managing and coordinating the statewide response – but would have been an additional pressure to handle for embattled emergency services. The international media response to the 2011 Japanese earthquake/tsunami/nuclear disaster proved very effective at raising international concern and funds, but the Red Cross and Japanese government ended up with ‘too many donations’ that they could not redistribute to other needed areas due to the donors specifying precisely what they wanted the funds going toward (clean-up of the nuclear power plant, house reconstruction, etc.). And as we’ve noted in the first module, media attention, international support and funding are highest during the Emergency Response process – to the point that many states struggle with long-term recovery, DRR and capacity development due to resources and support drying up beyond the acute crisis. It could fairly be said that the media determine where a significant focus for resources and support are allocated, playing a large role in sustained redevelopment and recovery – albeit an infrequently played role. Effective media engagement would appear to be instrumental across the entire DRM cycle. Thoughts?