Criticising the experts in tragedy’s wake
Conversations in the wake of tragedy can be quite similar. There was an outpouring of grief for those affected, unity among communities, and often criticisms for those tasked with rescuing or recovering those involved.
Last week, after the Whakaari/ White Island eruption, there were calls for emergency services to rush back to the island in a bid to rescue those left behind.
There were 47 people believed to be on the island at the time of the eruption, most were rescued, but eight remained. Police confirmed from the outset any missions back to the island wouldn’t be rescues, but recoveries – indicating those remaining were dead.
In collaboration with vulcanologists, police and the New Zealand Defence Force created a plan for personnel to retrieve the bodies, taking into account the apparent risks for their staff. But this was a point of criticism for some.
Helicopter pilots involved in the initial rescue claimed they only needed 20 minutes to get in and out and bring the bodies home; family members of those confirmed dead penned letters to Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern asking for a ‘‘pardon’’ to personally retrieve their loved ones; and media personalities mirrored these ideals on air, sharing them with the masses.
MediaWorks journalist Duncan Garner was among those calling for a more rapid recovery operation – ‘‘our police are not experts in everything’’, he said. Paddy Gower also said in a segment on The Project he had been told all eight victims ‘‘could be retrieved in 15 minutes by the pilots who know where they are’’. Neither journalist wished to comment further on the topic.
It now appears recovering the bodies from the island wasn’t as easy as flying in, walking to where they were believed to be, and returning successfully. It was a job that proved difficult for some of the most capable people in the country.
One member of the elite NZDF squad recounted to Stuff the gruelling conditions they faced – ‘‘it was unbelievable, not a condition we train for or ever expect to operate in, it’s just so much hotter than you could expect’’, said Matt*, who was part of the recovery mission.
The entire mission took four hours, with the eight-person team requiring a break after just an hour and a half. NZDF colonel Rian McKinstry said they all went ‘‘past the limits of endurance’’ to bring those victims home.
During the mission, which took place four days after the eruption, there was also a 6 per cent chance of the volcano erupting in any three-hour period. But the team were successful – six bodies were recovered, two remained.
After details of the difficult operation emerged, Garner and Gower, along with others who criticised the delayed efforts, were called out on social media.
But why do we react like this after a tragedy?
EMPATHETIC, BUT IGNORING RISK
Most of them stemmed from empathetic views for those killed and their families, clinical psychologist Ian de Terte said, and in this case, empathy outweighed the risk associated with a rapid return.
‘‘Those critical comments will most likely ... be coming from a place of empathy and care, rather than criticism and anger.’’
Dr Sarb Johal, a consultant clinical psychologist said those who encouraged a quicker response from emergency services favoured victims’ whanau, rather than the safety of the recovery team.
‘‘If you’re thinking about the affected families and trying to ease their sense of grief and loss, then perhaps you are more likely to discount the possible risk of harm to those in the services tasked to recover bodies.’’
Those more concerned about the safety of the recovery personnel would have favoured a cautious approach, he said.
De Terte, a senior lecturer at Massey University and former police detective, said the police approach to such scenarios had different motivations to their critics.
Based on his 16 years in the force, he explained how police were quite ‘‘emotionless’’ in these situations, dealing only in facts, the best course of action, and the desired outcome.
A BALANCE OF EMOTIONS AND EXPERTISE
The initial mission, though a success, was plagued by criticism from the moment it launched – Garner said it was only happening because of community pressure. While this type of media commentary was allowed – ‘‘we’re a free country’’, media commentator Gavin Ellis said – it needed to be balanced by facts and expert knowledge.
Speculation and criticism of those in power was common in media in New Zealand and around the world – Ellis said the ‘‘dogged’’ work of journalists in the aftermath of the 2011 Christchurch earthquake helped keep insurance companies in check – but the facts from experts needed to be presented as well.
‘‘[It’s] about balancing the desire of the families and friends of the victims to be heard ... with the expert view of the consequences of meeting those requests,’’ the commentator said.
This type of criticism was familiar. In the wake of the Pike River disaster that claimed the lives of 29 men, similar calls echoed in the days, weeks, and months following.
But the unsafe environment was why the recovery missions were delayed – fluctuating noxious methane and carbon monoxide fumes were a concern just three days after the explosion.
In the years since, safety concerns started to ease and the first re-entry operation was conducted in May, 2019.
The Pike River Recovery Agency also planned to go beyond the 170-metre seal in the tunnel yesterday after tests showed stability in the underground atmosphere.
Ellis believed the greatest criticism following these kinds of tragedies rightly came from friends and families of the victims.
That was the case with the Pike River disaster when the families banded together to organise a communication strategy, which he said was conducted ‘‘extraordinarily well’’.
Not all tragedies and disasters were the same, but Ellis believed there would be times in emotionally-charged environments when the grievances of those affected will be heard louder than the potential risks, but that shouldn’t be allowed to ‘‘overtake the rest of the narrative’’.