INTERNATIONAL, Opinion: Disaster Profiteering
By Ding Xiaoyue
A disaster denotes something very bad that happens and causes a lot of damage or kills a lot of people. However, for certain kinds of people, a disaster amounts to something quite the opposite.
Politicians excel at taking advantage of disasters, from which they often find opportunities to win popularity in the first place. The 9/11 attacks, the catastrophe that dropped a shadow over global security for international peace-lovers as well as the American masses, turned out to be a golden opportunity for the Bush government to wage a war in furtherance of its goal of dominating the Middle East.
The Bush administration also succeeded in diverting public attention away from national affairs as well as realizing its geopolitical strategy. Of course, a disaster can be a double-edged sword if not handled carefully. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is not as lucky as Mr. Bush.
Merchants are another group that benefits from disasters, natural and manmade. They never miss a chance to make fortunes while supplying aid to victims, or bargaining the price of ammunition and ordinance with governments on all sides of a dispute.
Statistics show that before the Iraq war, shares of U.S. arms merchants, such as Raytheon and General Dynamics, staged a rally while the stock market as a whole was plunging downward. So far the biggest arms merchant that made the biggest profits on disasters is beyond dispute the United States, which to a large extent credits its enormous strength and power to arms trading during World War I and World War II.
Similar to merchants, entertainment circles--via philanthropic parties, beauty contests, etc.--benefit from disasters. A star that takes part in these fundraisers may be utterly ignorant of where the disaster even took place. But he or she is definitely clear about whether there are VIPs attending, with whom he or she can build a commercial relationship.
From another perspective, it is rather ironical that people turn on the TV to admire the gaudiness of the activities and the stars, while showing total indifference to the segments when the stars make speeches of tender mercies for the victims of the disaster.
It is hard to define whether the last on the list is a group of opportunists or humanists--the media. On the one hand, we truly appreciate the courage and professional spirit of field journalists who keep shooting and reporting at war fronts or in disaster areas. On the other hand, a disaster does offer opportunities of fortune and fame for the media; in some cases it can be an overnight success, e.g., the Peninsula TV Station.
In 2004, Pulitzer prizes for International Reporting went to ten reports all relating to disasters directly or indirectly. Indeed, a good number of journalists admit that disasters, especially wars, are stimulating to cover. What's more, whether to rescue or to record in a disaster is still a question unresolved for many journalists.
Obviously then, for some a disaster can be expedient rather than destructive. No wonder the U.S. is considering another man-made disaster, the war against Iran.
Maybe one day we will no longer regard disasters as great misfortune because we have become so accustomed to them as entertainment or opportunity.
A disaster denotes something very bad that happens and causes a lot of damage or kills a lot of people. However, for certain kinds of people, a disaster amounts to something quite the opposite.
Politicians excel at taking advantage of disasters, from which they often find opportunities to win popularity in the first place. The 9/11 attacks, the catastrophe that dropped a shadow over global security for international peace-lovers as well as the American masses, turned out to be a golden opportunity for the Bush government to wage a war in furtherance of its goal of dominating the Middle East.
The Bush administration also succeeded in diverting public attention away from national affairs as well as realizing its geopolitical strategy. Of course, a disaster can be a double-edged sword if not handled carefully. British Prime Minister Tony Blair is not as lucky as Mr. Bush.
Merchants are another group that benefits from disasters, natural and manmade. They never miss a chance to make fortunes while supplying aid to victims, or bargaining the price of ammunition and ordinance with governments on all sides of a dispute.
Statistics show that before the Iraq war, shares of U.S. arms merchants, such as Raytheon and General Dynamics, staged a rally while the stock market as a whole was plunging downward. So far the biggest arms merchant that made the biggest profits on disasters is beyond dispute the United States, which to a large extent credits its enormous strength and power to arms trading during World War I and World War II.
Similar to merchants, entertainment circles--via philanthropic parties, beauty contests, etc.--benefit from disasters. A star that takes part in these fundraisers may be utterly ignorant of where the disaster even took place. But he or she is definitely clear about whether there are VIPs attending, with whom he or she can build a commercial relationship.
From another perspective, it is rather ironical that people turn on the TV to admire the gaudiness of the activities and the stars, while showing total indifference to the segments when the stars make speeches of tender mercies for the victims of the disaster.
It is hard to define whether the last on the list is a group of opportunists or humanists--the media. On the one hand, we truly appreciate the courage and professional spirit of field journalists who keep shooting and reporting at war fronts or in disaster areas. On the other hand, a disaster does offer opportunities of fortune and fame for the media; in some cases it can be an overnight success, e.g., the Peninsula TV Station.
In 2004, Pulitzer prizes for International Reporting went to ten reports all relating to disasters directly or indirectly. Indeed, a good number of journalists admit that disasters, especially wars, are stimulating to cover. What's more, whether to rescue or to record in a disaster is still a question unresolved for many journalists.
Obviously then, for some a disaster can be expedient rather than destructive. No wonder the U.S. is considering another man-made disaster, the war against Iran.
Maybe one day we will no longer regard disasters as great misfortune because we have become so accustomed to them as entertainment or opportunity.
4 Comments:
At 5:29 PM , Anonymous said...
"So far the biggest arms merchant that made the biggest profits on disasters is beyond dispute the United States, which to a large extent credits its enormous strength and power to arms trading during World War I and World War II."
Ding Xiaoyue, It is nice that you point this out. My thoughts are that if China was in this 1st place rank you would feel proud. But maybe I am wrong. If you think that China doesn't take advantage of world events you are mistaken. Your nation isn't in first place but it is 4th or 5th in weapons sales. They aren't exactly responsible too. I would love and prase your "reporting" if you would actually be strong enough to report things that your nation does in the world of weapons sales. LAND MINES for instance. Those cheap little buggers made by your country end up in many places also destroying innocent peoples lives. Oh! I forgot, you probably don't know about this. Maybe I am off topic to your entire article but I wanted to make my comment.
By the way the people of the US are also the worlds biggest private donators in the world too. Please, please, please for once comment on your nations negative actions in the world.
At 10:12 PM , Anonymous said...
"It is nice that you point this out" was certainly said in jest! The US didn't get its "enormous strength" during WWI. Give me some facts. Some might argue about the unfairness Marshall Plan after WWII. You speak just like your senior high school Chinese teachers and they just repeat what their teachers told them. I think you are learning to work for Chinese propaganda not any kind of journalistic medium. You mention US military corps how about NORINCO? That is a Chinese weapons supplier. Oh, I am sure in your country you can get all kinds of weapons sales info. You have so much freedom of information here! Instead you just complain about something that your country see fit. No journalism here just anti-US venom. If it were at all balanced I wouldn't have bothered to write this.
At 6:07 PM , Anonymous said...
Excellent writing. I agree with most of what you said, though I detect an underlying tendency to equate American government policy with American culture. Individual Americans are, well, individuals, and a society of individuals is diverse and contradictory, because that is how individuals are.
At 6:00 PM , davesgonechina said...
Obviously then, for some a disaster can be expedient rather than destructive. No wonder the U.S. is considering another man-made disaster, the war against Iran.
Like many posts at WOW, I appreciate the effort that goes into your writing and I'm glad to see Chinese students expressing their opinions on the internet in English, making it possible to begin a dialogue. So cheers to that.
On the other hand, also like many other posts at WOW, I'm left rather confused as to the goals and intentions driving your article. In the above quote, you seem to suggest that the US government decides whether or not to attack another country based on how much money it will garner from selling weapons, fundraising and writing articles. You make this assertion with no connecting evidence; yes, US military contractors make money selling weapons, but that doesn't mean that this is the driving force behind deciding to go to war. If you could point to, say, a leaked memo from the White House or internal documents from Raytheon that reveal Dick Cheney promising them long term growth in sales - if you gave me a piece of circumstantial evidence like that, or even better a "smoking gun", then you could make this accusation in force. But as it is, its an unfounded accusation. You may think everything Bush says about democracy and stuff is a pack of lies, and you might be right, but saying it doesn't make it so. You need to show me evidence (and there is evidence to support this kind of argument, though its highly contentious).
You focus only on the US and its role in disasters. What about the rest of the world? You mention Peninsula TV as an example; that would been a perfect time for an added paragraph telling me that story, because I have no idea what Peninsula TV is or why it matters in this discussion. How about, as other posters mentioned, China? You've spent your whole life in China, what did life in China teach you about merchants, celebrities and journalists? Are there positive examples in China? Or is it this bad everywhere?
Another point is your fatal cynicism. You have nothing positive to say about fundraisers. You depict the celebrities as simply pursuing "commercial relationships" and the audience as admiring the gaudiness and being indifferent to the cause. There's no room in your story for celebrities or audiences that do care. Or world leaders who care, either. Maybe you feel Bush is truly a war profiteer, and you're entitled to that opinion. But there's no counterbalance in your article - you don't tell me if there are any world leaders or governments who are genuinely charitable and caring. Given that profiteering is bad, who can show us the way? Where are the people who treat disasters with an appropriate sense of sorrow and altruism?
When I read your post, I come away with these conclusions:
1) Any attempt to help disaster victims simply becomes part of some cynical manipulation.
2) The US is the undisputed champion at this sort of manipulation.
3) Anyone who sells something related to a disaster, even something like water purification tablets, has no interest in helping people but only in making money. Same for celebrities and many journalists. The masses pretend the whole thing never happened.
Post a Comment
<< Home