No complaints, just some comments and observations. I can see both sides. For starters, I agree with Ben that some help is better than none and no one said we had to go there in the first place. But obviously going there is the right thing to do. On the other hand the horrid images we are being overwhelmed with from the media make us question whether any real help is actually there. I am trying to take the media images with a grain of salt but it is still extremely frustrating.

In response to Stu, the supplies that may have been flown in in place of reporters and observers are probably negligible, and who says they didn't come in with a load of supplies anyway? We may never know. In addition, the observers are neccessary. The organizations they represent cannot (nor can we) rely on the media to give us a completely accurate account of the goings on in Haiti. We are getting only bits and pieces and putting the pieces together with a lot of assumptions to get a distorted big picture. Even if they are taking the place of a flight of supplies, the observers are absolutely neccessary so that they can report back about what is going on to get more relief on the way. And only by being there and speaking to the people already there can they know for sure what supplies are needed most. Water? Food? Medicine? Obviously, but what about other less obvious supplies. I am not even sure what those might be. Nonetheless they are a neccessary part of the equation. The reporters perhaps less so although without media coverage the reaction to the situation would have been a lot slower and perhaps in some instances nonexistent. Their impact on us is evident by the comments in this thread.