>>>I understand that there's help coming in, but AFAIK, no reporters went to Haiti to cover the hurricane live like there was for Gustav in NO. Why the difference in coverage? I understand that it's normal for the US TV stations to cover more the US part, but I wonder why the Canadians TV stations did a greater coverage of the US situation than for Haiti.
>>
>>I'm guessing that it is due to the possibility of the levees breaking again and the catastrophic damages that would do (given Katrina and the new levees are only temporary ones)...
>>
>>and to report on any failure they can find with the local and federal preparations...
>
>It could be caused by situation that human life is cheaper in Haiti, and, accordingly, loss of it looks less appaling. It might sound sad but that's the fact. Besides that, few other, quite trivial reasons may also exist. USA is a global leader, whatever bad or good meaning people can use here, so other countries are interested in US-based news. Also, TV stations may have greater troubles sending coverage team to Haiti.


It is quite common for foreign news agencies to instruct their reporters to 'get over there and catch it if something goes wrong...' I can tell you that based on talking with reporters who have covered events that I was there providing assistance on...