Toronto Star media critic Antonia Zerbisias has written a bit of a strange column on whether the media will continue to shine a white-hot light on the tsunami disaster forever and evermore.

I think it's a safe bet to say no, it won't.

Here's some excerpts from her column:

In retrospect, it is poignant to see the Dec. 26 edition of the Star boasting a front-page pointer to an inside page story headed "150 killed as tsunami hits Sri Lanka." It's easy to imagine that those deaths, even multiplied 100-fold, would have passed largely unmarked by the media had they not happened on beaches frequented by blonde tourists. ...

I reject that statement. The media attention to the story and the public's interest were maintained long after the two groups knew the vast majority of victims weren't blond tourists.

In some ways, especially in Toronto, it would be bad business to do so: About one-quarter of the city has South Asian roots.

Perhaps because most of the dead were locals, traditional media inhibitions against the depiction of corpses were shed. Had the waves hit San Diego or Vancouver, we'd not be seeing bodies in the muck or fists thrusting out of open coffins. Western culture would never subject its dead to such indignities, even, as one BBC journalist said, "to convey the scale of the disaster."

For better or worse, audiences are more comfortable with graphic images of death when it comes from a geographically far place.

But let's wait and see what happens when a major natural disaster hits a Western city. But as a corollary, I remember some graphic photos from 9/11.

Noting how the networks have been remiss in covering the deaths of an estimated 100,000 Iraqi civilians, Mike Whitney writes in the online Counterpunch: "Today's privately-owned media may bury one story, and yet, manipulate another to boost ratings. They are just as likely to exploit the suffering of Asians, while ignoring the pain of Iraqis. Neither brings us closer to the truth. It's simply impossible to derive a coherent worldview from the purveyors of soapsuds and dog food. They're more devoted to creating a compatible atmosphere for consumerism than conveying an objective account of events." ...

First of all, which networks is Zerbisias saying Whitney is referring to? U.S., Britain, Canada? All of the above? None of the above? (Disclosure: My day job is with CTV News Online, but that is CTV's only connection to this blog or the opinions expressed in it. My opinions are solely my own. I am not speaking for CTV in any way, shape or form). Again, I have a longstanding complaint with Zerbisias interchangeably using U.S. and Canadian network news when it suits her.

There's a bit of a difference between Iraq and the tsunami deaths: The tsunami deaths happened in one fell swoop. People have been steadily dying in Iraq since the war and occupation started.

News is about visceral impact. Civilian casualties in Iraq are more abstract: You have to imagine 100,000 people dying (and that number is an estimate, not a hard count; Iraqbodycount.net has the maximum number of civilians killed at 17,285). In Asia, you can see the toll.

For another perspective on this, read Tony Karon's Dec. 8 column in Time.

He notes the coverage given to one U.S. Marine shooting an apparently helpless, unarmed insurgent in Fallujah. Again, that's something the media could show -- and did. Actually, that's something Whitney conveniently ignores in his diatribe.

Now, if you want to argue the U.S. media has overly shielded its audience from the horrors of Iraq, I would agree. That's one thing that gave Fahrenheit 9/11 its power.

As an aside, I wonder how Zerbisias and Whitney feel about the insurgents' increasingly sophisticated use of media (multiple camera angles on fuel truck suicide bombers! A final pre-blast interview with the driver!)? Should the media be showing those images?

What is driving this story — while embarrassing Western governments into upping their aid — has been the reaction of ordinary Westerners, the outpouring of generosity that has filled the coffers of the world's charities to overflowing.

So it's the media that's driven by the fact blond tourists were involved but ordinary Westerners are being driven by empathy and genuine impulses to help their brown-skinned brethern from 10,000 miles away? Okey-dokey!

So, while there is the whiff of disaster porn on the airwaves, mesmerizing audiences, boosting ratings and choking Internet connections, the voyeurism and exploitation have been trumped by human spirit and connectivity.

Surprise, surprise: Good and evil lurk in the hearts of everyone. Sheesh.

But, when the tide of journalists now in Asia inevitably recedes, and the normal news cycle churns again, will media interest dry up?

Well, yes. What if there's a disaster in South America tomorrow that kills 300,000? You only have so much airtime, newshole and resources.

Or can we hope that lives and deaths in hellish and dark places, now unrecorded by Western cameras, rise to the top of media attention so that the milk of human kindness never again dries up?

My opinion? No. Changing human behaviour doesn't work that way, although I think this incident may help nudge us in a more positive direction that will only become truly apparent in 20 or 30 years.

From my perspective, while most human beings are willing to pitch in and donate to help someone down on their luck through no fault of their own, they aren't willing to adopt that person and make improving their life a permanent priority.

Compassion fatigue will unfortunately set in for a given crisis. Do you hear anyone outside Iran talking about the Dec. 26, 2003 earthquake in Bam these days? How about Haiti or Grenada? They were battered during hurricane season a scant three months ago. Ninety per cent of the buildings in Grenada were damaged. Not a topic of conversation on Toronto subways these days, I can tell you.

Another thing is large parts of the world are, unfortunately, miserable places -- some of which is the Western world's doing. How do you decide which one to focus upon at any one time? What gives a situation its news value, particularly when the target audience is thousands of miles and an entirely different culture removed?

Instead of dumping by rote on the MSM and trotting out cliches like blond tourists and disaster porn, media critics would help by sketching out some alternative ways to cover these types of global disasters -- if what is being done now is really so inadequate and despicable.