Yeni Safak – February 10, 2023
Cheap opportunism: politicizing natural disasters
By Süleyman Seyfi Öğün
Writing about disasters is not an easy task. It is extremely difficult for one to remain sane between emotional tremors. The 1970 Gediz earthquake was the first one I experienced physically. This was followed by countless other earthquakes I witnessed personally or through reports from afar. Frankly, at a time period when communication options were limited, “feeling,” or “hearing” about an earthquake that happened elsewhere was limited as well. How much of an impression could a few photographs in the newspaper, the emotionless expressions pouring out from a metallic-voiced speaker’s mouth on the radio give about the cataclysmic dimensions of what happened? The picture remained much the same in the early days of television. But in the current day, we are experiencing a period in which communication options are infinitely increasing. Regardless of how far we may be from the disasters happening, it feels as close as inside our homes, in our streets. Surely there are extremely positive sides to this. It allows us to take action at the national level in the case of a disaster. It facilitates aid and rescue operations (we first witnessed this during the big Marmara Earthquake. Private radio channels were very useful). There is much more that can be added to the list of how communication technologies contribute to states of disaster. Yet, everything in history has an opposite. Every enlightenment drags along with its darkness. Excessive communication that gets into necessary and unnecessary details can be harmful. Shocking information that is provided in extreme detail can be demoralizing. Getting the appropriate moderation depends, perhaps, on the media’s world of ethics. It is safe to say that the mainstream and conventional media in Türkiye goes beyond these professional ethics. Despite certain restrictions – such as the mandatory blurring of disturbing images – television channels seem to be competing against one another to cause a sensation. If it weren’t for these restrictions, who knows what horrific scenes they would have us watching. Regardless, what benefit do these serve? What else is the media’s job besides providing a general picture, appropriately and at the right dose, and helping ensure that help and rescue operations are conducted without problems in such situations? Instead, they do everything possible to make the disaster more dramatic than it is. It is obvious that many news is reported in efforts to boost the sensationalism factor.
Information processes are not free of disinformation and misinformation. There are other factors involved, such as intention. Sound information begins where the effects of disinformation and misinformation can be minimized. In this respect, social media is truly extremely problematic.
There is no doubt that national disasters will cause emotional trauma. The issue is how these emotions will be experienced. In fact, humanity’s general lack of position, and superficiality, push emotions to the surface. This is further encouraged by the obsession with authenticity. Sentimentality is commonly associated today with excessiveness. We are quick to get aggravated, scream and shout, cry unnecessarily, and laugh out loud inappropriately. I am not sure how much of these is truly authentic. But it is very clear that they are done as a show of authenticity, in the name of authenticity.
These are by no means a measure for those directly experiencing the disaster. Of course, they are going to cry out and scream. Surely those who hear these from afar will experience emotional shocks. But what else can we do other than our share in an organized state? Then? What else could it be other than remaining silent and respecting the pain and anguish of the sufferers, and praying? But that’s not what happens. Genuine, heartfelt cries mix with ones bearing different intentions.
This earthquake is a national disaster. The dimensions are only recently becoming clear. The impacts it will have are unknown. An earthquake that hit at least 10 provinces will challenge all preparations and existing capacities. Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. in 2005, had exceeded the world superpower’s capacity in multitudes and negated all official preparations. This earthquake is the same. It is nothing like anything we experienced before, including the Marmara earthquake. Surely there will be setbacks and shortcomings. But when we should be minimizing these with good intentions, that is not the case. Matters are immediately politicized. People start calling the ruling government during the disaster to answer for what happened. Really, is it the time and place? Using real cries, they ravingly and rancorously question and hold accountable the ruling government. Claiming, “They came [to power] with an earthquake, and they will go with an earthquake,” is what, if not cheap opportunism?
Süleyman Seyfi Öğün is a political scientist who worked at Uludağ University between 1985 and 2010. He currently serves as a teaching member of the faculty of Human
|
Published since July 2008 |
Your donation
is tax deductable.
The Journal of America Team:
Editor in chief:
Abdus Sattar Ghazali
Senior Editor:
Prof. Arthur Scott
Special Correspondent
Maryam Turab
