Security Fears Mount in Absence of Evidence

For such a marginal school of politics, anarchy certainly seems to have insinuated itself globally. It is always breaking out, isn't it? After every man-made and natural disaster, the Times rushes in to warn about the dire consequences of a lack of law and order. Stories emanating from Haiti in the Anglophone press swiftly took up these important questions. Were there police? Had prisoners escaped from jail? Was there violence? There wasn't violence? Can we find some violence?

As "security fears mount in lawless post-earthquake Haiti," for instance, the intrepid reporters are unable to locate any problems with "security." They do manage two man-on-the-street, pull-quote interviews with men who have not been beset by crime, although the fellows do fear that is possible that there is a chance that they just might be at some point. The only so-called looting they manage to identify consists of starving people crawling through the rubble of groceries, seeking food. They throw in the obligatory references to the gangs of Cité Soleil--what Haiti story would be complete without this bit of local color--but refer to their activities in a past tense that speaks louder than an explicit admission: they could find no evidence of criminal violence in the aftermath of the quake. The closest that our reporters can find to civic unrest is a crowd of starving people gathering around the gates of an airport where they know supplies are being warehoused. Ah, but not distributed, and so out come the riot police!

The real story, plainly, is that ordinary people from all classes and walks of life are helping each other in whatever meager ways they can. Now the question arises: why write a thinly reported story about violence and criminality that do not presently exist? What is the larger tale being told? Who benefits?