I'm surprised the Explainer didn't mention Hurricane Katrina. For quite some time, the networks were reporting fatalities of 25,000, even though that number seems to have been made up out of nowhere. The true number, around 1800, is horrible enough, without having to be sensationalized into something ten times bigger.

An excellent point. I'm not sure if the Explainer chose my version of the question to answer, but that's why I asked it: the first reports of deaths in Myanmar were something like 300 to 500. The next day it ballooned up to 10,000. I just didn't know the mechanism by which the numbers jumped astronomically. Now it's a little clearer: journalists just don't know. So, agencies in search of greater amount of aid and attention overestimate (rightly so) for improved response. The problem is that this will hurt victims of disaster in the long run.

My recommendation: disasters like this should be treated as "significant" news stories. They have a certain place of prominence on the front of each paper or website with a chart listing estimated losses from week to week or month to month. Any big change in numbers should be followed by a story of what the numbers increased- to get to what type of aid is needed and how aid sent is currently being used. And the charts stay in a place of prominence until the dying stops, slows, or aid does its job. Or, after the numbers become qualified by further input. People can then pressure government or work in non-profit groups to tailor a response to the situation. They can be informed givers, volunteers, and carers. I think alot of people felt burned by some of the reporting on Katrina mortality here in New Orleans.

And if a government prevents aid, the focus of the world's energies can be pressuring that government and neighboring governments- being outraged. Instead of spending our time wondering about Angelina's pregnancy.