...let's do some media comparisons.
In the aftermath of the earthquake that struck Chile, there are legitimate expectations that the U.S. media ought to cover what happens there with the same intensity they did following Haiti's earthquake.
Of course, we can hope that the American media do not again fail to equate lots of people with lots of quality reporting. As anecdotal evidence, my wife told me more than once that she appreciated the depth of reporting offered by the BBC, which had fewer reporters in Port-au-Prince in the days after the Haitian earthquake.
She was spot on -- too often, shallow reporting was evident in the American coverage. I saw too many reports designed merely to throw the same spotlight on a different "scene of horrible destruction." And the doctors-turned-journalists crossing the line between being medical and journalistic professionals disturbed me; I say this as politely as I can -- be one or the other in a time of crisis.
Granted, the distance from Haiti to the U.S. (1432 from Port-au-Prince to Washington) is shorter than from Chile to the U.S. (4992 miles from Santiago to Washington), and that might play a role in how many people and resources are devoted to the Chilean earthquake.
Moreover, the death toll in Chile will come nowhere near that of Haiti.
Nevertheless, the American media will send news crews to Santiago. We can hope those people don't make the same mistakes that were evident in Haiti.