As recorded powerfully by the news media, Katrina brought this country face-to-face with the spectacle of previously unimaginable sights and, in
the minds of more than a few people, an unthinkable label to describe victimized fellow Americans: “refugee,” a word that’s accurate but
horrifying, adding impact to the context.
Use of “refugee” in comments flowing from government officials, authorities and in news accounts ignited strident protests from black Americans and
others who were already frustrated by slow federal relief efforts and questioning whether the lack of urgency reflected lack of concern for people
of color.
They argued that describing the storm’s victims as “refugees” demeaned their status as Americans by stamping them with a label they viewed as a
description used only in reference to foreigners fleeing to escape deadly political conditions.
Americans are not “refugees” in their own country, especially when they are forced to flee a natural catastrophe, readers told me and ombudsmen at other
news outlets.
Expressions of shock and anger from offended readers, listeners and viewers presented the media with a mixed set of problems, including the need to
decide whose side they would take in the matter – the dictionary’s or the people’s.
Any number of definitions approve “refugee” as a legitimate term to describe the status of Katrina’s displaced victims.
However, the word can evoke a stereotype built over the decades by descriptions of people fleeing tumult in foreign lands, from the Caribbean
to Africa, Europe and Asia.
I’d bet that popular perception of a “refugee” would match that stereotype.
Would “refugee” come to mind immediately as a label for the Irish who fled the potato famine, the victims of the Mississippi River flood of 1927 or
“Okies” who fled the Dust Bowl in the 1930s?
Perhaps the word runs afoul of an American superiority complex. Whatever the case, a number of people have made it clear that they reject the label.
Not all news outlets avoid use of “refugee” in references to Katrina’s victims, but the Star-Telegram and many others give preference to
“evacuees,” a word that can be criticized as too clinical, but it’s accurate and respects sensibilities.
The protests of the use of “refugee” have confused some journalists who don’t understand why an accurate word may be viewed as an insult. Such
confusion throws light on a challenge that journalists face constantly – the need to cover people they may not understand.
Those who are confused do not share the protestors’ life experience as minorities who attack in varying degrees any form of insinuation that they
are less than anyone else – one of the oldest prejudices they’ve fought and one of the deepest and most lingering wounds they long to see healed.
The fight to preserve dignity is found as well among people from any group or sub-group. It’s a pervasive conflict among humankind. Journalists who
either forget or do not understand that probably need some exercises in reality – such as the uproar over the use of “refugee.”
Blind spots in perspective block appreciation of protestors’ motivation. Most staff and managers in news operations have known for a long time that
those blind spots are there and that they can weaken the quality of coverage.
That’s why the typical U.S. newsroom appreciates how essential it is to build a staff that’s as diverse as possible, particularly in its ethnicity.
That’s not a matter of satisfying political correctness.
The aim is the elimination of blind spots in our perspective. As with any individual, the better we as an organization can see and think together, the
better the odds that we’ll bring more intelligent work into the mainstream in a way that matters to most people.
For journalists, that translates into richer credibility – an essential piece of whatever it’s going to take to pull our credibility out of the
pits.
There’s nothing new in what I’m saying, which is why I’m confused about why there would be any confusion over why “refugee” strikes people as an insult.
We know we need to be capable of caring about and respecting public reaction to the labeling that we dole out unless there is compelling reason to ignore
public outcry.
We know we need to be among the first to understand the perceptions and anger related to the use of “refugee.”
When we know that a term is inflaming a key segment of the population and we have a perfectly acceptable alternative, as we do with “evacuee,” why not
use the alternative?
There’s nothing to lose, but credibility to gain along with renewed appreciation of the awesome currents at work in our society.
In covering Katrina, we’re reminded that we can be powerless against some forces of nature. In getting that coverage to people, we need to remember
that dictionaries can be powerless against human passion.
