Noam Scheiber asks this question today in The New Republic

In his article he states:

“In a wrenching dispatch yesterday, one Time magazine correspondent described how “dozens of reporters watched and filmed” as rescue teams dislodged bodies from the Hotel Montana, where a contingent of UN aid workers was trapped beneath the rubble [...]we rarely bat an eye over the redundancy of the coverage. We just chalk these things up to the cost of a vibrant news media. But in Haiti, the dozens of redundant dispatches are stressing an already perilously fragile situation, as all the journalists scrambling to get into the country chew up valuable capacity and resources. Surely there’s a better way.”

While Scheiber makes a great point in raising the question, he doesn’t touch on the dark, grim side to this question. When you have dozens & dozens of cameras swirling around rubble while the rescue workers pull out a survivor, is it for news, ratings (which unfortunately are tied to revenue), the competitive-exclusivity-on the-story, or all of the above?

What happened in Haiti is beyond horrific, it’s an international tragedy. Social media has (probably for the first time) played a more valuable role in expediting relief efforts, but Scheiber brings up some valid issues in his piece, and raises some questions the media (and it’s critics) often don’t have the courage to address. Let’s hope the rest of the media can pull an Anderson Cooper down there and lend a helping hand when duty calls…and don’t suck up the few resources that are already widely needed down there.