It took about two weeks for the non-stop coverage of the devastating Haiti earthquake to slow down. By then, millions of dollars had been raised through phone donations and telethons. Celebrities like Wyclef and George Clooney brought even more attention to the quake that killed at least 230,000 and left many more homeless. They even did a terrible-sounding, though good-hearted, remake of 'We Are The World' that was revealed during the Superbowl. The quake was seen as a cruel blow to a country that has already suffered too many cruel blows to recount.

The powerful earthquake in Chile, on the other hand, has all but slipped from the news after a few days. As one commentator pointed out, stories about the earthquake shifting the earth's axis and making the day longer are getting more attention than news about the actual earthquake itself.

Even though the Chilean earthquake was more powerful, only about 1,000 deaths have been reported. There have been reports, though, of people breaking in to stores to get supplies and complaints that the government was slow to respond. Only $100,000 in telephone text donations were given to Chile in the days after the quake compared to $21 million sent to Haiti in the initial days after the earthquake.

The difference between Haiti and Chile is infrastructure. There were no desperate appeals from Chileans for help on international television. Hundreds of thousands of Haitians were left without food, water or sanitation after the quake and millions are still homeless as the rainy season approaches.

Chile actually has strong building codes that probably saved hundreds of thousands of lives. Their government did not disappear after catastrophe. Police are out rescuing people from the rubble. However, don't let the lack of media coverage fool you. The situation in Chile is not good. Estimates are that billions of dollars will be needed to repair Chile's infrastructure. The seaport and Chile's wine-producing industry, one of its best known exports, have all been severely damaged.

The difference in attention to the two earthquakes brings two quick points to mind.

The first is a message from an interview that I did recently with The Rev. James A. Forbes Jr. about his new book "Whose Gospel." Forbes makes the point that American charity can sometimes be harmful, because we give during a crisis but don't look at long-term practical solutions to the problems facing countries like Haiti:

"My thinking is in the normal understanding people view charity as a primary resource. It's a supplemental resource. We get riled up after tsunami or earthquake, but when that is over we go back to our normal pattern of looking out for ourselves," Forbes said. "There are times when we all need a helping hand but charity given in midst of crisis is never a substitute for systems of care. We can pass the hat and put in a nickel or dime but for most people, the infrastructure of their society is their greatest benefactor."

The goal of the United States and other countries working in Haiti should be to get them to a point where they are able to more competently respond to their own crisis situations like Chile. They should have strong building codes given the frequency of hurricanes, floods and other natural disasters, and they need to create a real economy so they have money to support the needed infrastructure.


The second point is that we can't always allow the media to dictate what's important. With the Internet, you can find news about Chile. We don't have to wait for CNN or MSNBC to spoon feed it to us. This is probably a much bigger deal in the South American media.

We can educate ourselves about what is happening and find ways to help. For example, Chile at first said it didn't need much help but has since requested more international assistance, after the magnitude of the disaster came in to focus.

The people of Chile deserve help too.