Perception verse reality of the Western Hemisphere's 'poorest' country

I guess it is not surprising that America's media parachuted into Haiti following its earthquake. Everyone was eager to tell the terrible stories we were inundated with following the natural disaster. 

It seemed like the right thing to do. And, let us not forget, it also wasn't bad for ratings and readership. But the coverage of what many describe as the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere got me thinking.  How do we know Haiti's story--the real story--when all we see is the aftermath of a disaster that was so horrific it still seems almost unfathomable from this journalist in training? 

I recently read this NPR article that highlights attempts from President Bill Clinton to help encourage economic growth prior to the earthquake.  The article talks a bit about Clinton's effort to help Haiti before it spirals into a negative nosedive about the country's many woes.  I get that its our job as journalists to report the truth.  But how do we--more specifically, American journalists--know what the truth of Haiti is when all we've done is respond to a natural disaster?  To be fare, the article's article does a more substantive job than most when it comes telling Haiti's story.  At least this story focused, in parts, on life before the earthquake. 

Moreover, do Haitians want our pity?  I was bantering with a classmate who has close ties to Haiti this week about this very issue. She says the Western media has long done a horrific job at telling the story of Haiti.  She says it is a place where children actually did laugh. She says it is a place that was, by and large, safe.  She says it was, well, nice.   She also says it has obvious struggles--struggles that the Western media's reminds the world of continually.  She says the type of coverage does little to help advance its democracy. I think she may be right.