INTERVIEW
dRAMA & sHORT aTTENTION sPANS: AN INTERVIEW WITH cHRIS rAKUNAS
BY jASON cANTRELL, sTEVE rOYEK, & cHRISTINA sCHILLACI
2014
“Did we make a difference?” healthcare executive Chris Rakunas asked himself in early February 2010 as he was preparing to leave earthquake-ravaged Haiti. “I should have felt elated at what we had accomplished,” he thought. “Instead, I kept asking myself if any of it mattered.”
Rakunas and his colleague, Dr. Stephen Schroering, both employees of a southwest Florida hospital, had just completed a week-long relief mission to distribute 21,000 pounds of donated medical supplies across the island. As they walked along the hot, dusty tarmac, Rakunas questioned whether he, they, or anyone could affect positive change when faced with such vast devastation and suffering.
“The only thing I felt I had succeeded at was taking a single drop of water out of the ocean,” he would write less than a year later in the nonfiction bestseller that chronicles his mission, Tears for the Mountain.
In a refreshingly candid interview with the Glassworks nonfiction editorial team, Rakunas comments on whether he did make a difference, speaks to the thirst for drama and woefully short attention span in society today and offers his opinion on the roles celebrities and the media can – and should – play in such challenging situations.
Rakunas and his colleague, Dr. Stephen Schroering, both employees of a southwest Florida hospital, had just completed a week-long relief mission to distribute 21,000 pounds of donated medical supplies across the island. As they walked along the hot, dusty tarmac, Rakunas questioned whether he, they, or anyone could affect positive change when faced with such vast devastation and suffering.
“The only thing I felt I had succeeded at was taking a single drop of water out of the ocean,” he would write less than a year later in the nonfiction bestseller that chronicles his mission, Tears for the Mountain.
In a refreshingly candid interview with the Glassworks nonfiction editorial team, Rakunas comments on whether he did make a difference, speaks to the thirst for drama and woefully short attention span in society today and offers his opinion on the roles celebrities and the media can – and should – play in such challenging situations.
Glassworks Magazine (GM): At the end of Tears for the Mountain, you leave your readers with the question, “Did we make a difference in Haiti?” In asking this, whom did you see as the “we”? It’s obvious you were talking about you and your team, but what larger implications does that phrase hold for the global community?
Chris Rakunas (CR): On the tarmac at the Port-au-Prince airport, the question that first popped into my mind was, “Were my actions meaningful?” When I looked around at the others in our group, the thought spread to them. As a continuation of that, I looked at all the military personnel, the people who had worked in the University of Miami hospital at the orphanage, and all of the other aid agency personnel, and asked the same question about them. Was what they were doing really enough to make a difference?
Years ago, I remember reading a story about Mother Teresa in which a journalist had asked her what she would do if she saw one hundred dying children in the streets and only had the ability to save one. Her answer was that she would save that one child and raise them to God. The journalist probably thought of it as a hypothetical situation, but to her, she did see children that she knew she would be unable to help. Her reality was that she would know her actions would save some lives and fail to save others. While it is wonderful to know that you saved one person, the downside of events like the earthquake in Haiti is that there are people that you know you will never be able to save. It is in those moments of personal despair that you ask yourself, “Did we make a difference?” When you think of all the people who were not able to be helped sufficiently, the answer is clearly no.
GM: While you say you feel you didn’t make enough of a difference, you clearly did make a difference in the lives of some individuals. For example, in Tears you described Jean Baptiste, the seriously ill young child in Pestel whose mother died in the quake. He was six months old and weighed six pounds when his grandmother brought him to you and Dr. Schroering for treatment and transport back to the orphanage.
CR: [Yes we did.] My hope is that, in twenty years, I will go to Jean Baptiste’s college graduation and know that the work we all put into saving him was worth it.
GM: You mentioned Mother Teresa, who was an important leadership figure in India and throughout the world. How do local leadership figures such as her impact a relief effort like the one in Haiti? For example, Miriam Frederick, the woman who runs the New Life Children’s Home, was referred to many times as the Mother Teresa of Haiti. She played a key role throughout your delivery mission. She gave you a place to stay, eat, and sleep; provided access to areas not accessible to other assistance organizations; and always had a kind, uplifting and encouraging word no matter the situation.
CR: There’s a great musical called The Music Man and, at the beginning of the show, there’s a guy on a train who keeps telling the other salesmen, ‘You gotta know the territory!’ Local leaders, whether they are luminous missionaries like Miriam or shadowy figures like Guy Phillipe, know the territory. They understand Haiti much better than some bureaucrat from the UN, or a hospital executive from Florida.
The basics like providing food, shelter, and a shower are really nice, but that’s not the true value of the locals. What they can do is let you know the pitfalls you’d never see on your own. One great example is how the pastors in the countryside operate partially as religious leaders, and also as a single focal point for information. When children are relinquished to orphanages in Haiti, often the paperwork is passed through the parents’ pastor to ensure it gets to the right people. Likewise, if parents want to see these children for some reason, they go to the pastor first. A little piece of knowledge such as that is something I never would have thought of, but in Haiti it’s quite important.
Chris Rakunas (CR): On the tarmac at the Port-au-Prince airport, the question that first popped into my mind was, “Were my actions meaningful?” When I looked around at the others in our group, the thought spread to them. As a continuation of that, I looked at all the military personnel, the people who had worked in the University of Miami hospital at the orphanage, and all of the other aid agency personnel, and asked the same question about them. Was what they were doing really enough to make a difference?
Years ago, I remember reading a story about Mother Teresa in which a journalist had asked her what she would do if she saw one hundred dying children in the streets and only had the ability to save one. Her answer was that she would save that one child and raise them to God. The journalist probably thought of it as a hypothetical situation, but to her, she did see children that she knew she would be unable to help. Her reality was that she would know her actions would save some lives and fail to save others. While it is wonderful to know that you saved one person, the downside of events like the earthquake in Haiti is that there are people that you know you will never be able to save. It is in those moments of personal despair that you ask yourself, “Did we make a difference?” When you think of all the people who were not able to be helped sufficiently, the answer is clearly no.
GM: While you say you feel you didn’t make enough of a difference, you clearly did make a difference in the lives of some individuals. For example, in Tears you described Jean Baptiste, the seriously ill young child in Pestel whose mother died in the quake. He was six months old and weighed six pounds when his grandmother brought him to you and Dr. Schroering for treatment and transport back to the orphanage.
CR: [Yes we did.] My hope is that, in twenty years, I will go to Jean Baptiste’s college graduation and know that the work we all put into saving him was worth it.
GM: You mentioned Mother Teresa, who was an important leadership figure in India and throughout the world. How do local leadership figures such as her impact a relief effort like the one in Haiti? For example, Miriam Frederick, the woman who runs the New Life Children’s Home, was referred to many times as the Mother Teresa of Haiti. She played a key role throughout your delivery mission. She gave you a place to stay, eat, and sleep; provided access to areas not accessible to other assistance organizations; and always had a kind, uplifting and encouraging word no matter the situation.
CR: There’s a great musical called The Music Man and, at the beginning of the show, there’s a guy on a train who keeps telling the other salesmen, ‘You gotta know the territory!’ Local leaders, whether they are luminous missionaries like Miriam or shadowy figures like Guy Phillipe, know the territory. They understand Haiti much better than some bureaucrat from the UN, or a hospital executive from Florida.
The basics like providing food, shelter, and a shower are really nice, but that’s not the true value of the locals. What they can do is let you know the pitfalls you’d never see on your own. One great example is how the pastors in the countryside operate partially as religious leaders, and also as a single focal point for information. When children are relinquished to orphanages in Haiti, often the paperwork is passed through the parents’ pastor to ensure it gets to the right people. Likewise, if parents want to see these children for some reason, they go to the pastor first. A little piece of knowledge such as that is something I never would have thought of, but in Haiti it’s quite important.
GM: In Haiti, you and your colleague, orthopedic surgeon Stephen Schroering, encountered many groups with varied agendas. Who do you think played a constructive role there and what positive changes were brought about by those groups? For example, in Tears you wrote about organizations such as the University of Miami doctors who never left the compound and the Hollywood film crew that seemed oblivious to the pain and suffering around them.
CR: If I had to give a report card on groups, I would probably be more apt to give an ‘A’ to groups that had been involved with Haitian affairs prior to the earthquake. There are a number of people who have dedicated their lives to helping Haiti get back on its feet. The reason they would receive the highest grade is that they will be in Haiti long after everyone else has left, and they will still be helping there. It is hard to underemphasize what someone like Miriam Frederick does when they dedicate their lives to helping others. True dedication to anything seems almost counter to our current American way of doing things, which involves hopping from issue to issue without ever resolving anything. In the past eighteen months, Americans have been outraged by the atrocities committed by Joseph Kony, Trayvon Martin’s killing and the subsequent verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, the terrorist attack against the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and the issue of gun control after mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut. We do not, however, have the staying power as a people to stick with an issue long enough to effect change. But those groups in Haiti who have been there will continue to be there and make changes.
When I hear from Dr. Schroering, he always updates me on things he and Miriam are doing. Some of them are basics like building cisterns for clean drinking water or rebuilding parts of the New Life orphanage that were destroyed. Every positive step like that, no matter how small, helps tremendously.
GM: Positive steps like the ones you mentioned are a big help, but often it seems like such aid is short-lived. For example, when the quake first struck, there was an outpouring of donations. Many Americans donated through text messages to the Red Cross and you and Dr. Schroering delivered nearly ten tons of medical supplies. After that, however, the issue faded from public consciousness. Why do you think the public loses interest in one disaster when a new one appears?
CR: There are two main causes to this: a love of drama and a short attention span. I’m not sure why, but American culture has greatly changed over the last twenty years to love drama. We love it. Give me a television show featuring a mismatched group of people stuck in a house and I will watch fifty-seven episodes in a row. Every police or hospital drama is chock-full of heart wrenching situations that are dreadful, when in reality, most police officers and doctors do a hell of a lot of desk work that is really boring. For some reason, we love drama in our entertainment, and the next level from fictional drama is factual drama. Dying children, suffering, and pitiful refugee situations seem to tap into that same need that has already been sated by television drama. Americans are drawn to bad situations that don’t really involve them, causing us to feel more isolated from one another, so we seek out something else that makes us feel.
The second piece, the lack of ability to stick with anything, is much more troubling to me. Historically, Americans have loved figures who got things done. If you look at twentieth century movies, we like heroes like John Wayne who stuck it out to the bitter end. The movie Rocky is so successful because the protagonist simply refuses to fail. On the nonfiction side, we revere the stories about World War II because it was a war where average citizens collectively made the decision to stick through something to the end no matter what the cost. Our twenty-first century society lacks that ability to stick with issues until the end. Right now, we value personality much more than the ability to finish the job. It’s not sexy. It’s not flashy. There’s no celebrity in hard work and perseverance, but that’s what it takes to navigate a major disaster.
GM: Since there is no fame to be found in hard work, it can be difficult to garner support for a good cause. As an example, you mention at the beginning of Tears that there were wealthy benefactors who helped pay for the cargo planes to deliver relief supplies to Haiti. What difficulties did you face in convincing those benefactors to donate the funds needed for a cargo plane? How do you think those same requests would be answered today, nearly three years after the earthquake?
CR: I wish I could say that I was involved with the benefactors who donated, but Dr. Schroering actually handled most of those things. This may sound crazy, but I don’t think Dr. Schroering actually has to ask too many people for help, either. Once they hear what he’s doing, they just feel moved to help. Work like this appeals to the basic good in people, and I like to believe that most of us would answer the calling in the right way, which is helping however you can.
Many [. . .] donations came from people who were just volunteering them without solicitation. In a moment of crisis, people tend to reflect on themselves and see how lucky they are and what they have to offer. For example, I’ve had people at book signings just put a few extra dollars in my hand and ask that it makes its way to Miriam. I was never passing the hat, but people just wanted to give.
CR: If I had to give a report card on groups, I would probably be more apt to give an ‘A’ to groups that had been involved with Haitian affairs prior to the earthquake. There are a number of people who have dedicated their lives to helping Haiti get back on its feet. The reason they would receive the highest grade is that they will be in Haiti long after everyone else has left, and they will still be helping there. It is hard to underemphasize what someone like Miriam Frederick does when they dedicate their lives to helping others. True dedication to anything seems almost counter to our current American way of doing things, which involves hopping from issue to issue without ever resolving anything. In the past eighteen months, Americans have been outraged by the atrocities committed by Joseph Kony, Trayvon Martin’s killing and the subsequent verdict in George Zimmerman’s trial, the terrorist attack against the US embassy in Benghazi, Libya, and the issue of gun control after mass shootings like the one in Newtown, Connecticut. We do not, however, have the staying power as a people to stick with an issue long enough to effect change. But those groups in Haiti who have been there will continue to be there and make changes.
When I hear from Dr. Schroering, he always updates me on things he and Miriam are doing. Some of them are basics like building cisterns for clean drinking water or rebuilding parts of the New Life orphanage that were destroyed. Every positive step like that, no matter how small, helps tremendously.
GM: Positive steps like the ones you mentioned are a big help, but often it seems like such aid is short-lived. For example, when the quake first struck, there was an outpouring of donations. Many Americans donated through text messages to the Red Cross and you and Dr. Schroering delivered nearly ten tons of medical supplies. After that, however, the issue faded from public consciousness. Why do you think the public loses interest in one disaster when a new one appears?
CR: There are two main causes to this: a love of drama and a short attention span. I’m not sure why, but American culture has greatly changed over the last twenty years to love drama. We love it. Give me a television show featuring a mismatched group of people stuck in a house and I will watch fifty-seven episodes in a row. Every police or hospital drama is chock-full of heart wrenching situations that are dreadful, when in reality, most police officers and doctors do a hell of a lot of desk work that is really boring. For some reason, we love drama in our entertainment, and the next level from fictional drama is factual drama. Dying children, suffering, and pitiful refugee situations seem to tap into that same need that has already been sated by television drama. Americans are drawn to bad situations that don’t really involve them, causing us to feel more isolated from one another, so we seek out something else that makes us feel.
The second piece, the lack of ability to stick with anything, is much more troubling to me. Historically, Americans have loved figures who got things done. If you look at twentieth century movies, we like heroes like John Wayne who stuck it out to the bitter end. The movie Rocky is so successful because the protagonist simply refuses to fail. On the nonfiction side, we revere the stories about World War II because it was a war where average citizens collectively made the decision to stick through something to the end no matter what the cost. Our twenty-first century society lacks that ability to stick with issues until the end. Right now, we value personality much more than the ability to finish the job. It’s not sexy. It’s not flashy. There’s no celebrity in hard work and perseverance, but that’s what it takes to navigate a major disaster.
GM: Since there is no fame to be found in hard work, it can be difficult to garner support for a good cause. As an example, you mention at the beginning of Tears that there were wealthy benefactors who helped pay for the cargo planes to deliver relief supplies to Haiti. What difficulties did you face in convincing those benefactors to donate the funds needed for a cargo plane? How do you think those same requests would be answered today, nearly three years after the earthquake?
CR: I wish I could say that I was involved with the benefactors who donated, but Dr. Schroering actually handled most of those things. This may sound crazy, but I don’t think Dr. Schroering actually has to ask too many people for help, either. Once they hear what he’s doing, they just feel moved to help. Work like this appeals to the basic good in people, and I like to believe that most of us would answer the calling in the right way, which is helping however you can.
Many [. . .] donations came from people who were just volunteering them without solicitation. In a moment of crisis, people tend to reflect on themselves and see how lucky they are and what they have to offer. For example, I’ve had people at book signings just put a few extra dollars in my hand and ask that it makes its way to Miriam. I was never passing the hat, but people just wanted to give.
GM: While you were never “passing the hat,” as you said, there have been a lot of efforts to raise awareness about the issue in Haiti. For example, several months after the quake, President Clinton helped increase awareness when he said it will take decades of work to bring Haiti back from the brink. In addition, the visibility created by your bestseller Tears and a tour of the island by Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie demonstrates that the media, creative writers and entertainers appear to be more powerful than the local government. How can Haitian officials become more empowered and begin taking a more active role in the ongoing recovery?
CR: Haitian politics is a very different topic compared to American politics. As tumultuous and complicated as our political landscape is right now, it pales in comparison to Haiti. There are other structural components to the Haitian political landscape that need to be resolved first to help aid in their ability to self-direct the recovery process.
GM: The responsibility of addressing disasters and global issues does not lie with politicians alone, but also with other public figures. Why do celebrities seem to hold more power than media professionals when it comes to spreading awareness? Actors, musicians, and celebrities use their popularity to raise funds and spur people to action. How does this increase public compassion in the wake of disasters?
CR: Until actor Sean Penn, I really would have had a negative answer to this question. Multiple celebrities have brought awareness to topics and had very, very poor or unrealistic solutions to those problems. Sometimes, their solution is just simply bringing awareness, which I think is an awful thing to do. (Think of it this way, if you were hit by a bus, would you want me to bring awareness of your plight, or actually do something about it?) It may be that some celebrities do not understand the depth of issues or the implications of taking a side in them and, therefore, decide not to weigh in any further.
Sean Penn is really the first person I know who has done something much deeper than go to a place and arrange for photo opportunities. He has really taken things to the next level by going to Haiti and – gasp! – working. His group does a lot of work in Haiti, but more important is the fact the he himself has done work there. I have a hard time resolving the internal struggle that the man who played slacker Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High is now swinging a hammer in a massive rebuilding project, but my hope is that his level of involvement becomes the new standard for celebrities putting their weight behind causes.
If Justin Bieber were a real man, he’d tell all his fans to meet him in Port-au-Prince for a massive work party. He could direct them to move rubble and clean the streets up in a day. I’d love to see that be the new generation of celebrities.
GM: You’ve achieved a level of celebrity status yourself after you returned home from your relief mission and wrote Tears based on your experiences. After the book was published, you left the healthcare profession, continued writing, and started teaching. What can you tell us about this transition from a medical professional working in the relief efforts to a writer who is helping to keep this disaster in the public awareness?
CR: I will share with you two things I learned. First is that writing is a wonderful hobby. Almost two million books are published every year. Maybe ten are made into movies. Let’s be generous and say that two hundred are really successful. That means that the other 1.99 million authors are toiling in obscurity, and obscurity rarely pays your electric bill. I think most writers have a secret hope that they’ll get to sit behind their keyboard and bang out novels and short stories for the rest of their lives, and for the two hundred whose works are successful, that’s the case. For the other 1.99 million of us, we have the same worries everyone else does about making a decent living. I enjoyed writing Tears and the two other novels I’ve had published, but I’m not making an offer to buy the house next to Stephen King on Cabbage Key, Florida just quite yet.
The second part about talking about Haiti is the emotional toll it takes. When I’m at book signings, people tend to ask the same few questions, which are typically either ‘What was it like?’ or ‘How did it feel?’ In the few seconds before I can belt out my smart aleck answer (‘It takes about 186 pages to do it justice’), I always stop and think about Haiti. The thought of Jean Baptiste, of the smell of charcoal, of the heat and the fear is taxing. There was a part of me that thought I would have some sort of release when the book was published, but it actually has made me relive my time in Haiti over and over. That sort of emotional toll wasn’t something I had even considered.
There’s a stark contrast between Tears and my first two novels, The 8th Doll and Eye of Siam. The reason for the difference is that I wanted to focus on something that was completely for fun, and other than entertainment, offered no societal value. Writing something fun and light was a release from the emotions of Tears.
GM: Publicizing the needs of the Haitian people is an important way to make a difference. As a writer, what kind of obligation do you feel to on write a follow-up account on the status of Haiti in order to keep this issue in the forefront? What would be a proper period of time for this project, if it is appropriate at all?
CR: I have been asked that question on more than one occasion, and there’s something about it that always makes me twitch. Part of what I enjoyed about Tears was that I never had the intention of writing a book about my time in Haiti. I went there, I worked, and when I came home, all I wanted to do was get back to my regular life. Most of the people I despised in Haiti were not bandits but the US media who were there just for the story. I think that, if I went back in five or ten years with the idea of a book in mind, I would be afraid that I was turning into one of those media jackals and not focused on actually helping there.
If a real journalist ever wanted to follow up on things and write the sequel to Tears, I would be more than happy to let them, but it just doesn’t feel right for me.
GM: Although the disaster is no longer on the general public’s radar, the plight of the Haitian people continues. It is important to keep the relief efforts strong and to keep the focus on these issues. For example, you delivered medical supplies throughout the island as writers and media professionals spread the word about the disaster. What responsibility do communicators such as journalists, broadcasters, bloggers and nonfiction authors have in forcing these issues back into the public’s awareness?
CR: That’s a great question. I think the media is at a real crossroads right now in balancing the need to sell their copy and do the right thing in the world. Information moves so quickly that everyone seems to be thinking about the speed at which it gets delivered and not on the accuracy or effect that the information has. As with the public’s inability to stay focused that I mentioned above, I think the media is trying to hop from issue to issue so that they stay relevant.
There probably is a niche for a media source that does ‘Remember This?’ stories. Sadly, they could be things that are just a few months old, but we do tend to forget, and I think there is a place for all of the communicators to remind us of what is important.
CR: Haitian politics is a very different topic compared to American politics. As tumultuous and complicated as our political landscape is right now, it pales in comparison to Haiti. There are other structural components to the Haitian political landscape that need to be resolved first to help aid in their ability to self-direct the recovery process.
GM: The responsibility of addressing disasters and global issues does not lie with politicians alone, but also with other public figures. Why do celebrities seem to hold more power than media professionals when it comes to spreading awareness? Actors, musicians, and celebrities use their popularity to raise funds and spur people to action. How does this increase public compassion in the wake of disasters?
CR: Until actor Sean Penn, I really would have had a negative answer to this question. Multiple celebrities have brought awareness to topics and had very, very poor or unrealistic solutions to those problems. Sometimes, their solution is just simply bringing awareness, which I think is an awful thing to do. (Think of it this way, if you were hit by a bus, would you want me to bring awareness of your plight, or actually do something about it?) It may be that some celebrities do not understand the depth of issues or the implications of taking a side in them and, therefore, decide not to weigh in any further.
Sean Penn is really the first person I know who has done something much deeper than go to a place and arrange for photo opportunities. He has really taken things to the next level by going to Haiti and – gasp! – working. His group does a lot of work in Haiti, but more important is the fact the he himself has done work there. I have a hard time resolving the internal struggle that the man who played slacker Jeff Spicoli in Fast Times at Ridgemont High is now swinging a hammer in a massive rebuilding project, but my hope is that his level of involvement becomes the new standard for celebrities putting their weight behind causes.
If Justin Bieber were a real man, he’d tell all his fans to meet him in Port-au-Prince for a massive work party. He could direct them to move rubble and clean the streets up in a day. I’d love to see that be the new generation of celebrities.
GM: You’ve achieved a level of celebrity status yourself after you returned home from your relief mission and wrote Tears based on your experiences. After the book was published, you left the healthcare profession, continued writing, and started teaching. What can you tell us about this transition from a medical professional working in the relief efforts to a writer who is helping to keep this disaster in the public awareness?
CR: I will share with you two things I learned. First is that writing is a wonderful hobby. Almost two million books are published every year. Maybe ten are made into movies. Let’s be generous and say that two hundred are really successful. That means that the other 1.99 million authors are toiling in obscurity, and obscurity rarely pays your electric bill. I think most writers have a secret hope that they’ll get to sit behind their keyboard and bang out novels and short stories for the rest of their lives, and for the two hundred whose works are successful, that’s the case. For the other 1.99 million of us, we have the same worries everyone else does about making a decent living. I enjoyed writing Tears and the two other novels I’ve had published, but I’m not making an offer to buy the house next to Stephen King on Cabbage Key, Florida just quite yet.
The second part about talking about Haiti is the emotional toll it takes. When I’m at book signings, people tend to ask the same few questions, which are typically either ‘What was it like?’ or ‘How did it feel?’ In the few seconds before I can belt out my smart aleck answer (‘It takes about 186 pages to do it justice’), I always stop and think about Haiti. The thought of Jean Baptiste, of the smell of charcoal, of the heat and the fear is taxing. There was a part of me that thought I would have some sort of release when the book was published, but it actually has made me relive my time in Haiti over and over. That sort of emotional toll wasn’t something I had even considered.
There’s a stark contrast between Tears and my first two novels, The 8th Doll and Eye of Siam. The reason for the difference is that I wanted to focus on something that was completely for fun, and other than entertainment, offered no societal value. Writing something fun and light was a release from the emotions of Tears.
GM: Publicizing the needs of the Haitian people is an important way to make a difference. As a writer, what kind of obligation do you feel to on write a follow-up account on the status of Haiti in order to keep this issue in the forefront? What would be a proper period of time for this project, if it is appropriate at all?
CR: I have been asked that question on more than one occasion, and there’s something about it that always makes me twitch. Part of what I enjoyed about Tears was that I never had the intention of writing a book about my time in Haiti. I went there, I worked, and when I came home, all I wanted to do was get back to my regular life. Most of the people I despised in Haiti were not bandits but the US media who were there just for the story. I think that, if I went back in five or ten years with the idea of a book in mind, I would be afraid that I was turning into one of those media jackals and not focused on actually helping there.
If a real journalist ever wanted to follow up on things and write the sequel to Tears, I would be more than happy to let them, but it just doesn’t feel right for me.
GM: Although the disaster is no longer on the general public’s radar, the plight of the Haitian people continues. It is important to keep the relief efforts strong and to keep the focus on these issues. For example, you delivered medical supplies throughout the island as writers and media professionals spread the word about the disaster. What responsibility do communicators such as journalists, broadcasters, bloggers and nonfiction authors have in forcing these issues back into the public’s awareness?
CR: That’s a great question. I think the media is at a real crossroads right now in balancing the need to sell their copy and do the right thing in the world. Information moves so quickly that everyone seems to be thinking about the speed at which it gets delivered and not on the accuracy or effect that the information has. As with the public’s inability to stay focused that I mentioned above, I think the media is trying to hop from issue to issue so that they stay relevant.
There probably is a niche for a media source that does ‘Remember This?’ stories. Sadly, they could be things that are just a few months old, but we do tend to forget, and I think there is a place for all of the communicators to remind us of what is important.
