Tsunami Relief Reporting: Tiresome liberal media tendencies
Disclaimer: I hold liberal positions on some issues.
An article out of the Boston Globe today notes that analysts and economists say U.S. government tsunami relief efforts are not as generous as other countries' government efforts on the basis of both a per capita and percentage of wealth basis; and that by these measures, our government efforts rank along that of developing nations as givers to this crisis. These conclusions are true. However, the article also concludes it is false that "Americans believe...that their country is being its typical 'generous, kind-hearted' self."
What is not discussed, or rather importantly ignored, are our financial efforts measured in two far more revealing ways: 1) total contributions, by both a nation's government and its citizens' private donations, toward the relief effort, on either a per capita or percentage of wealth basis, and 2) government contributions as a percentage of tax revenue. In the United States, we have far lower amounts of federal taxes than exist in other nations, as a matter of political choice. Our federal government has less money to spend, as a percentage of national wealth, than do most other nations around the world. As a result, it is not surprising to find our government's relief efforts on a per capita and per wealth basis lower than many other nations. However, if an accurate count would be made of the sum of donations by both American citizens and our government, I'm quite certain our donation amounts would be very impressive.
As usual, the segments of the media that are liberal start from the belief that government is the answer to all ills. They ignore the money donated to and work done by aid foundations and charities toward disaster efforts, work often performed far more efficiently than governments who have neither the same skill or capacity for such work. They equate contributions by the United States in general as contributions only from our government, and make false conclusions such as that America is not generous and kind-hearted. I'd like to see a study in the future detailing how much private money was given by Americans vs. money by citizens of other western nations toward tsunami relief efforts, either on a per capita or percentage of wealth basis. If one ever does comes out, don't expect the Boston Globe to report it.
UPDATE (1/1): As of noon today, US private donations to relief efforts are up to $170 million. I am swelling with pride at our generosity as a nation.
UPDATE II (1/4): Tom Carter's Notes (thanks Carla) makes another relevant point about the US' tsunami aid contributions. Since we provide 16% of the World Bank's budget, it can be safely assumed that $40 of the $250 million provided by the Bank to tsunami relief efforts comes from our tax dollars. International organizations aren't run for free!
http://tcarter.blogspot.com/2005/01/world-bank-contribution.html
8 Comments:
One thing I haven't noticed and that is the cost of military assistance. Wasn't there an aircraft carrier sent to assist? Did anybody think to figure in how much it costs to be driving aircraft carriers around? Maybe they did and I just didn't see it - but I doubt it.
Tom Bowler
Some thoughts in no particular order...
Given our government's enormous level of military spending, compared to the rest of the world, perhaps it's not all that surprising that a skeptical eye is cast towards it's willingness to spend at the other end of the peace/war spectrum. Particularly when viewed within the context of our government's current war of aggression in Iraq.
Given how people in the know from across the ideological spectrum aknowledge that the American military-industrial complex has a highly incestuous relationship with our federal government... I'm not so sure that drawing a distinction between federal spending on disaster relief and private spending on disaster relief isn't an imminently fair and equitable way to frame the issue... in the context of the above paragraph.
With the pervasive nature of today's world wide web... private citizens can and do give money to groups from other countries. Which would make it problematic to draw hard and firm comparisons between private and government spending on disaster relief. Just the other day I was listening to a radio talkshow and the host, who earlier in life had extensive experience with disaster relief, recommended three organizations which his American listeners could donate to and know that their monies would be used wisely and effectively. Only one of the three organizations was American.
I don't buy the idea that meaningful segments of the media is biased along ideological lines. Where partisans see ideological bias, I see (for the most part...) financial bias. I bet that if the population of Mass. were largely conservative and the Globe had the exact same staff with the exact same personal opinions that they do now, we'd see a pro-conservative stance from the Globe rather than a pro-liberal stance. For the most part the media panders to whomever will jack up it's ratings, and thus it's ability to profit by selling advertising.
Hey Kevin - I wasn't arguing that meaningful segments of the media per se are liberal, simply that this particular segment (the Globe) is liberal, for one reason or another. What I can attest to as a resident of Massachusetts, however, is exactly what you said--the majority of this state inexorably believes government is the cure for social ills. Unfortunately, the Globe feeds this viewpoint, with efficiency (and in this case, facts and appropriate analysis) be damned.
Happy 2005 to you!
Tom--I agree, I saw there were US naval units dispatched to south Asia. These are costs likely not included among the $35 million donated by the federal government. Since aid organizations use donated money for transportation and labor expenses, then yes these costs may well increase the $35 million number much higher.
I agree with you Kevin on the world desiring to cast at least a skeptical eye on our government's tsunami efforts in contrast to the percentage of our national wealth devoted to defense. However, I suspect they'd also be more than happy to ignore the true facts and related analysis in an effort to condemn the Bush administration.
Scott, I certainly agree that much of the international community takes some pleasure in condemning the Bush admin - with or without good cause. But, isn't that indicative of just how bad our national reputation is right now in the eyes of the world? Contrast that to the Clinton administration. Or better yet, contrast it to the outpouring of support and empathy from literally all corners of the globe immediately following 9/11.
While I do think that the international criticism of the Bush admin over this tsunami thing is arguably not as fair as it could be (depending on what contributing context one uses to frame the issue). I also think that it's a good example of Bush earning his just rewards... reaping what he sowed, if you don't mind a Biblical analogy.
That said, I do think it's a mistake to confuse the widespread antipathy and distrust of President Bush in the international community with an antipathy and mistrust of the American people as a whole. Undoubtedly there are many who do distrust us or even hate us. And undoubtedly the fraud-ridden apparent re-election of Bush has to have some wondering about the entire country. But, until I see some solid evidence to the contrary, I believe that most of the international community understands the difference between criticizing our government and criticizing we the people.
This wasn't meant to be political, anti-Bush, pro-Bush etc. I simply wanted to point out a front page article the Globe is running based entirely on skewed measures that fit their viewpoint; and that this sort of reporting is tiresome.
Scott, thanks for the reference.
I've lived in Europe and other parts of the world for about 15 of the last 18 years, and I agree with Kevin. In my experience, people in other countries are warm and friendly to individual Americans, no matter what they think of the U.S. government. The thing that bothers me is negative impressions of the U.S. are often based on inaccurate impressions, some of them pretty wild. When you track back a specific erroneous impression, you often find that it's something from the U.S. mainstream media.
As a perfect example, this one based on real facts, I was living in Belgrade before we bombed Yugoslavia because of the Kosovo problem. I was working for USAID in the American Embassy in Belgrade, and we were all evacuated to Budapest a few days before the bombing began in March 1999. We (the Embassy) officially returned to Belgrade in January 2001. I've been in Belgrade since then, and never once has anyone here said anything negative to me personally about my country bombing their country. Their views about the bombing itself (a tragic mistake in U.S. policy, in my view) is another matter, of course.
Things must have changed quite a bit since I spent any appreciable time in Europe. The misperceptions about both our government and our people that I ran into was directly attributable to the European media and was in stark contrast to what I saw in the America media.
For example... and this is gonna date me. LOL... in late '83 when Reagan was ratcheting up the pressue on Gorbechev I got into a conversation with an girl from the UK who was a student at the same university I was at. Her perception was that Reagan was just itching for an excuse to launch a nuclear strike on the Soviet Union. She was absolutely dumbfounded when I pointed out to her that we'd had a number of anti-nuclear demonstrations in the United States. Anti-nuclear demonstrations were commonplace in Europe. But, she'd never once seen or heard any mention of American demonstrations. And she directly attributed her knowledge to English television news.
Now... I hadn't personally been to an anti-nuclear demonstration. My knowledge of them was directly attributable to the America media... specifically domestic news coverage by the major networks.
Undoubtably the BBC was perfectly aware of American anti-nuclear demonstrations. But, they never even hinted at it to the English viewership.
At first this English flat out didn't believe me. What I was saying absolutely flew in the face of what she'd been lead to believe was true.
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home