Nicholas Kristof

Two time Pulitzer Prize winner Nicholas Kristof was at SMU on Tuesday. Unfortunately, I was unable to hear the New York Times columnist speak. The Times Web site has an extensive collection of his work online, so I had to settle for that instead.

According to his Times bio online, he joined the paper in 1984 and started out covering economics and serving as a correspondent in Los Angeles. He also covered the 2000 presidential campaign. He and his wife, Sheryl WuDunn who is also a journalist at the Times, won a Pulitzer prize together, becoming the first married couple to do so. He won a second Pulitzer in 2006.

One clip I watched was "Mukhtar's Refuge." It was hard to tear my eyes away from the screen, even for a mere second. Seeing the surroundings of the refuge, seeing the anguish and injustice lined on the people's faces, left quite an impact. Sure, the story is powerful enough to have some impact simply through writing, but the words alone could not do the story justice. One woman on the clip, whose 11-year-old daughter was raped, tortured and killed, cannot hide her emotions from the camera. As she tells her story, her pained face expression tells of her sorrow, the pain she felt as she found her young daughter's body. She was not able to receive justice from her village or from the Pakistani government. Instead, she had to seek refuge elsewhere.

Another young woman, whose husband forced her into prostitution, also tells her story. She was married to a "gentle" guy whom she later found out owned a brothel. He told her to work there, and upon her refusal, began to torture her family. She assented, and was locked into a room for two years. She managed to escape, but her husband's gang retaliated by kidnapping her 5th grade brother and using him instead. He managed to escape also, and the family went to the police to report the injustice. The police, however, worked alongside with the gang and instead mocked the family.

The young woman sheds tears as she tells her heartbreaking story. The love among the family members is also evident when the brother says he would rather die than dishonor his sister. It was a heart warming, "aww" moment for me, but also sad. Her one-legged father also cries as he tells of his experience of "merciless beatings" from the police, who arrested him. Her mother firmly says that God should not grant daughters to poor people, and that if the family had money, they wouldn't have these problems.

I felt several different emotions watching this clip. Sadness, obviously, and pity, injustice, disbelief, and horror among others. I couldn't stop saying, "wow," for so many different reasons. These emotions would not be as strong had I read this story online. Although I was unable to watch all the clips on the Times Web site, a quick scan shows that his stories are all about people. People who have a certain plight, plights that other people need to know about. There are stories about the Darfur crisis, Pakistani people, AIDS patients, and so much more.

Being in such a safe, comfortable country, we as Americans don't experience genocide, epidemics, severe injustice, or extreme poverty like the people in Kristof's stories. He works make other people aware of the lives of other people, people who live in a country that isn't free, that isn't rich, and that isn't just. I think we forget about these people, being in such comfortable surroundings.

Kristof uses multimedia to his advantage in these stories. The stories use emotion as a key factor in leaving an impression upon the viewer. Watching this clip is far more powerful than if I had read the story online. Truthfully, I wouldn't have read through the whole story, probably skimmed through it. These stories need to be told, and other people need to be aware of such crises. Besides, who can tell one's own story better than that person? No matter how excellent a reporter may be, I don't think he could possibly retell someone else's story with the same emotions she felt, simply because he doesn't have the same experience. That's what Kristof does. He allows the people to tell their own stories. To let their emotions flow onto the film. This is why his method of story-telling is so effective.

I think it's important that such powerful stories be told using multimedia. Sure, some may argue it will become too sensationalized, but the method is effective. Stories should stir something in people, whether it is happiness or shock. Good or bad, if an impact is left in the reader or viewer, I believe the reporter has done a good job. Of course, I don't think multimedia alone will be good. All clips should have accompanying written stories that will go more in depth on the issue. I'm so glad that multimedia packages are becoming more popular. I believe it's the best way to tell stories, especially ones of other people. It spikes interest in otherwise indifferent people. Who knows? Because of such an impacting clip, someone may arise that could make a change. All because, like Kristof said at the end of this clip, "we are watching."