As America once again entered a new year with excitement, uncertainty and a re-run of presidential politics on the horizon, Americans from Florida to Philly, and Vegas to Vermont celebrated in wonder as fireworks graced the first skies of 2025. Yet, in the days and weeks that followed, the skies were ablaze in much more sinister circumstances, as America’s cultural capital Los Angeles faced the fiercest fires in American history. The fires have claimed the lives of twenty-nine people, forced over 200,000 people to evacuate, and destroyed more than 18,000 homes and structures. According to JP Morgan, the economic losses induced by the fires could reach $50 billion. These damning statistics have been widely reported in America and across the world, but as all consumers of news are aware, the framing and narrative of a story define how statistics are viewed.
The media’s coverage of the fires has left me and potentially many others scratching our heads. Reports often centred around celebrities, and the evacuation and destruction of some of Tinseltown’s most notable stars. The story of the fires has in many ways been defined by the statements and stories of Hollywood’s elite. As the fires raged on and grew, so did the destruction and the number of stars sharing their experience of having to evacuate or even lose their entire homes. From Mel Gibson to Paris Hilton, an increasing number of celebrities began to announce the loss of their homes to the vicious flames. The media ran with the glitz and glamour provided by celebrity intrigue, choosing to generate news interest with spectacle and shocking images.
Is this combination a messy distraction? Does it take away from realities of the less well-off members of society? Or does it highlight how wealth protects no one from natural disasters? I believe it is potentially a combination of them all. On the one hand, the awareness and eyes bought by celebrity create great opportunity for aid, donations, and hopefully change—which is undoubtably a good thing, right? However, in the case of the LA fires, celebrities have dominated the headlines, as well as much of the coverage, and thereby concealing the vulnerable and more financially and socially affected citizens in the area. This masking is potentially not as malevolent as it first seems, instead, it is an unfortunate consequence of a news economy that favours profits and viewership over balanced reporting. But the impact is the same: the stories of the poor who have been financially crippled, and the unimageable tales of loss for each of the families of the twenty-nine fatalities have largely been overshadowed.
This obsession with celebrities extends and most definitely thrives within social media too. Celebrities have been able speak candidly about their experiences of loss and displacement, receiving the sympathies of many followers. Others, though, groan at the consistent return to celebrities’ losses, proclaiming that they are significantly less affected than other members of society. As a baseline statement, they have a point: major Hollywood stars have the resources to move away or rebuild their homes. What they cannot rebuild are the memories lost with the house. The years of ups and downs and good and bad memories experienced in the place they call home are, in a physical sense, reduced to ash.
However, the issue of framing remains the same: the focus determines the narrative and, therefore, the reaction of the public. Some may reject the sentiments of the coverage entirely, and not even consider the people “like them” that the fires have affected simply because they have not been told about it enough, as the coverage painted the disaster as one that affects only the ultra-wealthy—when the reality is different. It is difficult, and arguably problematic to decide which stories to tell and which to evoid, because ultimately intrigue and profits drive the capitalist news system we live in. It is the same reason the fires as whole received more coverage than hurricanes in rural Tennessee and North Carolina a year before. Or the same reason the war in Ukraine receives more Western coverage than the civil war in Sudan. Eurocentrism and preconceived notions on African corruption contribute to a simple ideology that “it is us before them”—both in terms of race and in terms of what affects the upper echelons of society the most. What sells the most, is often what will be seen the most.
Like many conundrums encountered in life, the solution is balance. A completely balanced coverage where every story in every corner of the Earth is reported on is pie in the sky, but as followers of the news and journalists, this is exactly what we should strive for—to find the emotion and heart of every story in the fairest possible manner.