The catastrophe of the Gulf Coast Region of the United States struck a chord within America like no other tragedy since 9/11. The media in the United States, in general, covered 9/11 with the dignity and sensitivity that its victims and their families deserved. Such coverage didn't entirely happen right away, however. It was days before public outcry-and outrage-demanded the media cease unnecessary and insensitive relentless airing of the horrific footage of the second plane crashing through the former World Trade Center and the airing--over and over again--of shots of countless people jumping out of windows. As discussed in greater detail below, media coverage of the catastrophe of Hurricane Katrina, has to date (September 10, 2005) unfortunately demonstrated that the media is still learning from its mistakes.

Before addressing media responsibility in covering Hurricane Katrina, it is important to note the hurricane's impact on 9/11 memorials nationwide. The timing of Hurricane Katrina happened during the planning of numerous memorials in New York and across the United States for the fourth anniversary of 9/11. It is a truism both in the media and in life that when a catastrophe strikes, victims of tragedies that came before it are, at least in the immediate and short term, overshadowed- as the pain felt among the survivors obviously endures. There is hope that youth professionals and others will remind the children who lost their parents or suffered through other horrors of that tragic day that the world has not forgotten about them-and never will, regardless of the amount of media coverage.

For the young survivors of 9/11, the graphic and detailed coverage of Hurricane Katrina could ignite latent emotions which may have been lingering since 2001. In many ways, media coverage can have its greatest impact on children, who are able to see pictures in the print media and watch footage in the broadcast media, but are unable to understand what is happening. In many instances, they do not have the ability to articulate questions about the catastrophe that is unfolding before their eyes.

The tragedy of the Gulf Coast has been compared to the Tsunami which tore through Southern Asia on December 26, 2004. In many ways, the two events are strikingly similar. In other ways, however, they are quite and obviously different. Among other distinctions, the multiple dynamics and far reaching consequences on a vast range of significant issues will keep Hurricane Katrina in the media for a long time. In contrast, and consistent with what some people predicted, comprehensive media coverage of the tsunami ended abruptly, within a matter of weeks, giving way to inconsistent and sporadic coverage in the months to follow. Scores of advocacy groups, countless people, and numerous other efforts including former Presidents Bush and Clinton joining forces to raise money for-and media attention of-the aftermath of the tsunami failed to return media attention, either in substance or scope, even close to the level during the first days of the tsunami. The tragedy has not been totally forgotten by the media; updates and occasional news programming specials continue. Numerous questions, however, concerning the children of the tsunami, remain unclear or unanswered.

The media must learn from this mistake, and make a commitment to continually and comprehensively cover the innumerable issues the children of the Hurricane Katrina Disaster will long endure-not just in the present, but also for the many months and years to come. To be fair, during the first few days of coverage, the media faced a catastrophe that was unprecedented and unparalleled in so many ways. Now, however, coverage has looked past the initial shock and is beginning to delve into the myriad issues surrounding the disaster.

Among these countless issues, must be ongoing and thorough coverage of the children of the disaster. And such coverage must be provided with appropriate sensitivity.

First, they are children. They are not refugees. Whatever technical or literal definitions set forth to justify the term, it is abhorrent to label them as refugees. The hurricane shattered their innocence while destroying their homes, forever ruining life as they knew it. This is hard enough for adult victims to bear, but for children it is unimaginable. To call them refugees not only categorizes them unjustly and out of context, it also makes it easier for the public to view them as some sort of abstract and massive group, instead of the individuals that they are. Public sentiment is strongly with them now. But what about five or ten years from now? The devastation they endured will be with them throughout their childhood and into adulthood. How their plight is reported will likely follow them and affect how others view and treat them for a long time. The need for appropriate sensitivity in media coverage cannot be overstated.

A responsible sensitive approach does not exploit. It does not publish photos of a dead baby, to the point where the baby's individual features are discernable and identifiable. It does not zoom in on a young teenager who has gone without water-perhaps for days-and describe her drinking out of a water bottle, as "guzzling." It means interviewing young victims when they are ready, willing, and able to be interviewed. It does not impose a microphone in their faces when they are overcome by emotion and unable to speak.

Such media coverage, therefore, requires compassion and should not allow for pity. Pity is judgmental, it looks down upon people. Portraying children of the disaster with a sense of pity can cause them to feel ashamed for being victim to severe tragedy. Even empathy is inappropriate for young victims because empathy implies that others can relate and understand the nightmarish circumstances they suffered and continue to endure. Many reporters and others on scene have repeatedly observed that no matter how much footage is aired, or how many photos of human and environmental devastation are published, the situation is extremely worse. "Unbelievable" and "indescribable" are words that have been used by those who visited the impacted areas. Yet a number of veteran journalists who should know better have looked young (and old) victims in the eye and said along the lines of "I can understand how hard this is for you." No, you can't,--as no one who did not endure Katrina's wrath and the resulting ruin of the life as they knew it can possibly understand.

Such is an example of the vital importance for the media to work from a perspective of compassion for the victims of Katrina, particularly the children. Compassion says simply that this is an unfathomable horror, and people are heartbroken and shocked and want to help. Journalists (located far from the areas which have been destroyed) have debated among themselves and others if it is justified to show a particular photo or to air gruesome footage. They have extensively argued, for example, principles based upon quotes that have been interpreted from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and others about the function of the press. However well-intentioned this analysis may be, spending time during a period of great crisis to debate lofty theory cannot immediately set forth standards for reporters who are in the middle of providing coverage of a great catastrophe and its many resulting emergencies.

The wisdom of Jefferson, Franklin and others is best saved for future formulation of carefully examined standards of reporting during dire emergencies. For snap judgments of the best way to report on this immediate horror and its long aftermath, compassion is a good barometer when snap decisions must be made.

This may seem to some as being too "Pollyanna;" naive; or overly simplistic. The very respected Greta Van Susteran, however, who was on scene in Houston, where "refugees" finally found a source of food and water, and a safe place to sleep, shared her first hand observation of how being treated with dignity created an atmosphere of humanity that these victims so desperately needed-and how calm they appeared upon being treated with dignity. She was among the very few (as of September 10, 2005) of journalists and commentators that specifically addressed this important dynamic. In fact, many believe that dignity is as important to the human spirit as food and water are to the human body. Journalists cannot give Katrina's victims, either directly or through their reporting, a sense of dignity and its accompanying humanity without first having compassion for its victims.

This may seem counterintuitive. Journalists are trained to avoid becoming emotionally involved with the people or elements of a story. The avoidance of emotional involvement does not preclude working from a perspective of compassion, however.

No matter what term is used, the coverage of the myriad issues concerning the young victims of this disaster must be continually reported. There are numerous dynamics of great significance relating to Hurricane Katrina that will vie for media attention. As irrefutably vital and essential it is that these numerous issues be promptly and comprehensively addressed, it is also important that coverage of children's issues does not get muddled in the mass of controversy, questions, and investigations that are to follow.

There are myriad issues concerning the children of Hurricane Katrina that the media must address, both in the present and in the future. Among these many issues, coverage must place emphasis on:

• Reuniting separated children and parents wherever possible. In cases where parents are known to have died, or remain missing; it is important to attempt to find relatives and others that have a preexisting relationship with the child. In instances where no such people are identified as potential (and fit) guardians, it is crucial to ensure that children are placed in safe and nurturing environments.

• Comprehensive medical treatment; both the basics and far beyond. Their long term medical needs must be carefully considered once their short term needs have been met. Their exposure, in many cases, to great toxicity has unknown effects that may not manifest for many years. There must be a commitment to treat and monitor their physical health both in the present and the future.

• Psychological services: This significant aspect is more complicated than it may appear. It may be easier and cost effective to treat these children with canned advice by following general guidelines, but that is far from sufficient. Any such guidelines should not be interpreted to be appropriate for every child and must substantially take into account the extreme, specific, and unusual experiences these children have endured. They have suffered a loss of home, identity, and in some cases, parents or other family members. They have been displaced from familiar surroundings, separated from their friends, lost most or all things they had, both material and sentimental. Many witnessed assault, rape, and murder. All of them saw that the world of adults, to which they were accustomed to rely upon, was chaotic and in shambles. And they suffered all of this simultaneously. Many adult victims committed suicide. But these children survived. They will be the voice of this tragedy for at least the next two generations. That voice should be strong and determined and not weak and cracked. They deserve the best and most appropriate mental health services possible.

• Educational needs: Whether an "A" student or a "C" student, they all need to be provided with special education resources. Simply giving textbooks and teaching standard academic lessons to children who have endured horrific experiences that instructors cannot fully comprehend will be of little use. Distraction, lack of motivation, and indifference towards school and other matters are naturally to be expected. Specialists of every definition, both academic and non-academic, must be regularly available to them.

Is it appropriate to ask the media to take responsibility to ensure that these and many other services are provided? Absolutely. Every day, journalists ask the public to rely upon the information they provide. The media, as a general practice, seek the public's respect and trust to right what is wrong; clarify what is confusing; and report on that which is unconscionable. In many ways, the media define or at least influence public perception of what is important in our society. It is up to the media to demonstrate the "importance" of taking any and all reasonable measures to ensure the well-being of the children of Hurricane Katrina.

Copyright © September 10, 2005 by Joi Kohlhagen. All Rights Reserved.

Joi Kohlhagen can be e-mailed at: joi@perspectivesonyouth.org