The Indian Ocean Tsunami of December 26th, 2004, is recorded as the most devastating tsunami in history – the result of a 9.1 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Northern Sumatra.¹ This tsunami left more than 283,000 people dead.²

The arrival of the tsunami is described by a woman named Wijitha, who experienced the tsunami for herself. She recounts: “Then my elder daughter yelled that the sea was coming, and we should run. I closed the back door. There was a huge noise, like a storm. It was like the noise that a plastic bag makes blowing in the wind. I saw balls of water coming up. They were splashing as high as the tree tops.”³

The image below shows a picture of the actual wave in Thailand, a wave of water much like the one described by Wijitha, rushing over the land.⁴

This particular tsunami attracted a lot of media attention because of its magnitude and its destruction. Because the tsunami was of unprecedented magnitude, people from around the world tuned in to media reports of the damage done by this powerful element of nature. Different scholars each have their own theories on why the media focuses on the tsunami, and how their representation of the disaster reflects the media’s goals. For example, S. Anand (2005) claims that reporters were simply “under pressure to produce ‘feel-good’ stories about hope from the disaster zone,” as people were eager to hear some good news amid all the tragedy. S. Moeller (2006), offers a more in depth analysis of the media’s motivation. Along with the fact that the magnitude of the tsunami was so huge, and the fact that images of the aftermath were easily accessible, Moeller also argues that it was the type of disaster that makes the difference in media coverage. Natural disasters, such as a tsunami, are classified as ‘simple emergencies,’ since (at least on the surface), they lack political complexities. Therefore, the media’s audience can envision a solution, or a response, without feeling helpless at the magnitude of the destruction.