Excerpt from our journal article Natural disaster strategic communication:
Drone, data and backpack journalism trends (by Catherine R. Strong and Norman Zafra) Download the article here.
Drone technology and the reporting of disasters
The increasing popularity and use of drone cameras, also called remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAS) and unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), in conflict, environmental and disaster reporting has been a subject of interest in the journalism profession. This was evident in the establishment of the Professional Society of Drone Journalists (PSDJ) in 2011, an international organisation dedicated to the ethics, development, and practice of drone journalism around the world (PSDJ, 2011). Prior to the use of this remotely piloted technology, a news organisation would take aerial recordings of news events such as fires, protests, crisis and traffic, using a media helicopter, which is often rented and incurs higher production cost. Drones offer several advantages. They are smaller, safer and cost-efficient in comparison with helicopters and other aircraft that journalists use to provide the same aerial view (Goldberg, Corcoran & Picard, 2013). Furthermore, journalists who use drones with cameras and sensors provide a unique eye-inthe-sky perspective to news events that they are covering (Corcoran, 2014). Thus, it is not surprising that this technology is also used not only in journalism and mass communication but also in other fields and commercial endeavours. It also raises practical, ethical, technical, policy, and newsgathering concerns (Tremayne & Clark, 2013; Goldberg, et al., 2013; Culver, 2014). Some countries have no restrictions on the use of the remote piloted devices, but most western countries have placed the rules in the hands of the national aircraft regulatory bodies (Strong, 2015). There has also been criticism that journalists are using drone technology almost as a toy, simply to advertise they are using a drone, whereas it is not warranted for their story in newsworthy terms (Strong, 2016). Nonetheless this new technology has been used extensively in recent natural disasters (Holton, Lawson, & Love, 2015). The first natural disaster to attract wide use of drone cameras from the media was the Philippines’ Typhoon Haiyan in 2013, the subject of the case study in this paper. Since then, the Nepal Earthquake in 2015 has been dubbed the most-drone-covered natural disaster to date, closely followed by the Cyclone Pam in Vanuatu the same year (Strong, 2016).
Drone journalism advantages
The use of video cameras mounted on small remotely piloted aerial devices is based on the ‘drone’ devices used by the military in the Middle East. The civilian use has been quickly picked up by journalists, especially in natural disaster crisis situations. They are particularly useful in allowing journalists to film risky situations while keeping themselves physically safe on stable ground. Compared with the traditional video camera restricted to a landbased tripod or hand-held by the photographer, the aerial camera gives a better view to the media audience, and is considerably less risky for the journalists. Some emergency response personnel in the Philippines found drone footage captured by international journalists useful in communicating the impact of the disaster as well as in assessing the extent of damage in their locality (personal communication, July 30, 2016). An international NGO, on the other hand, was able to use drone recordings to plan housing interventions after the disaster (personal communication, July 30, 2016). In some instances, drones capture such unique overview of the devastation that it helps encourage aid to the country. As a recent example, in the Nepal earthquake and Vanuatu cyclone, even the aid organisations brought their own drones to take footage and send out to global media, to ensure audiences got a feeling for the massive destruction (personal communication with UNESCO, June 4, 2015).
Drone journalism disadvantages
A current problem for operators is the everchanging legal constraints – which vary from country to country, in addition to being constantly updated (Strong, 2016). Some countries, such as the USA, specifically restrict journalists using drone photography; while others such as New Zealand and Australia have relatively open usage. Some developing countries have no rules at all. This causes problems in natural disasters when foreign media show up with drone video cameras and are unaware of local regulations. The Philippines, however, is open to flying drones except in populated areas, airports, military training camps and over the Malacañang Palace, the official residence and workplace of the President (CAAP, 2014). Drone journalism also affects those who are crisis managers for the affected region. From the technical point of view, many drone battery charges are only for half an hour, and they need constant recharging. At this early stage of drone journalism in natural disaster coverage, many crisis communicators will not easily distinguish between an experienced drone journalist and a hobbyist who may be using it for the first time, thereby also producing less than professional products, as demonstrated in many instances where journalists use a drone almost like a toy without the video adding to the newsworthiness of the final production (Strong, 2016).
How to cite:
Strong, C. R. & Zafra, N. (2016). Natural disaster strategic communication: Drone, data and backpack journalism trends. PRism 13(1): https://www.prismjournal.org/uploads/1/2/5/6/125661607/v13-no1-a5.pdf
thoughts about documentary, media and journalism 