Jeff Brooks is fatigued by news media that like to trot out the term “compassion fatigue” every time Americans seem less willing to give to disaster relief.

On his Donor Power Blog, the creative director at Merkle Direct, a company that provides marketing services to nonprofit groups, links to a news article that uses the term in connection with the “trickle” of aid to help victims of the earthquakes in China and the cyclone in Myanmar.

“It’s true that donor response to disasters is not always proportional to the seriousness of the disaster,” Mr. Brooks writes. “It’s often unfair and baffling. But I don’t think lower response to any given disaster can be blamed on ‘fatigue.’”

He suggests three reasons why some disasters don’t attract as much money as others: that the crisis is too obscure, complex, or intractable.

The recent catastrophes in China and Myanmar both fall into some of these categories, with their remote settings and insular political regimes managing relief. And the needs in Myanmar can look pretty intractable when a repressive government is actively seen as turning away foreign aid.

“If you go by numbers, the crisis in Darfur is easily the biggest disaster in the world today,” Mr. Brooks writes. “But funds raised for Darfur are far below what it ‘should’ be. Sadly, Darfur is obscure, complex, and intractable.”

Why do you think some disasters attract more help then others?