Bushfires – schadenfreude or philanthropy?

Amy recently sent me an article published in smh.com – a rather cynical article about the insatiable hunger the Australia tabloid media has for natural disasters and Australian’s voyeuristic attitude to such events – and great ability to throw money at these issues in a way to mitigate person guilt/responsibility: http://business.smh.com.au/business/the-punters-love-a-good-disaster-20090217-8a98.html

It also makes me wonder why the fire disaster received so much publicity and fundraising energies yet those affected by the floods up north receive virtually no media or fundraising attention (not to mention the state of affairs in Central Australia). The media decides that it will jump on the bandwagon of two disasters a year and is sure not to exceed this quota. I understand that all disasters cannot receive hype-attention otherwise we just raise the basal line and the care-factor will return to a relative stable level. However my issue is that people are being praised for giving money/services/blood/basic needs to the bushfire disaster yet fail to give blood routinely throughout the year/acknowledge the health problems with Indigenous Australians etc. The real heroes are those who give when NOT in a time of disaster. The unsung heroes, if you wish.  I must say that it is incredible that Australians give so generously during these times of need but it is interesting that people don’t give to charities throughout the year. However when the media personalises the issue we are more than happy to give money – almost thanking god that it was not I who was affected. Cancer? Poverty? Mental illness? There is no face, no story… surely I can’t donate to these causes… 

Do we donate because we care or because we fell guilty? Why does it take a disaster for people to donate? Is it vogue to donate? What will your contribution be in a month’s time? 

Another issue that I find interesting is the dilemma that arises when determining where such funds go. I was at the pub the other having a discussion with a friend who was suggesting that the money donated should go proportionally to those affected by the fires. Such that those who have insurance will receive less than those who have paid insurance. I understand that the purpose of charity is to help those in need but I find it hard to accept that someone who has paid insurance their whole life should be disadvantaged by such foresight or risk-management. (I should clarify that I am not advocating people profiting from such fundraising efforts). The money should be allocated to rebuilding the community. But this is such a ambiguous concept – nebulous to the extreme. Do we look at short term problems or a 5 year plan? Where should the money go? By what criteria do we merit funding? Compensate lost income? Tangible as well as conceptual loss? 

After spending a month in Bangladesh mid 2008 I was involved in determining a criterion for which local families were assessed to receive payments to improve their living conditions. I thought this was a hard and ambiguous task – and I admit that I thought that this was exacerbated by the fact that I was working in a third world city – where poverty is at an all time high and desperation is the currency of the day. However thinking about it now, I don’t think that being in a developed country will make the criteria any easier to determine – except that hopefully the process may be a touch more transparent! We can hope. The sad thing is that it will hard to compensate everyone equally… or should that be proportionally?