Bill's Notes

[Industrialblog, January 5, 2006]
No excuse
A note on the media's handling of the West Virginia mining disaster.

1. There's no excuse for getting the story wrong. That's Journalism 101. You must confirm information independently. That's why many newspapers used to have TWO wire services ... AP and UPI. One would confirm the other.

2. Most of what we see is no longer news, and no longer professional journalism, but entertainment and advocacy.

3. If you think you're ready to excuse journalists based on the facts of this case, see rule 1.
Jcook:
The thing I worry about is that in the furor over the mis-reporting of the mine story, the big villains in this, the mine owners who failed to correct numerous safety violations, will get a pass as the public, egged on by various commentators, focuses on bashing the media.
1.5.2006 11:23am
Chris (mail) (www):
What's the story?
1.6.2006 10:09am
Harry (on Firefox) (mail) (www):
Those of us from coal country don't have to ask that question. Are you just trolling there, Chris?

Bill, I'm not sure how "confirm information independently" would work in this case. I've never studied jounalism, so I don't know how this is officially defined. Would it require that a reporter slip through the police cordons, sneak past the folks at the entrance to the mine, don an air pack and helmet, and scurry down into the mine to check the condition of the miners directly? The flow of information was controlled in a straight-line fashion, with official word coming from the end of the line - and the official word, for three hours, was that there were 12 men alive.

Even now, has any reporter bothered to check the pulses of the allegedly "dead" men? If not, then what independent conformation have they gotten? Is the official word of a coroner any more reliable than the official word from the officials at the rescue site?

The alternative, or course, is not to run the story at all, or any story, until and unless independent confirmation can be obtained. And how far does this stricture apply? Do statements made by, say, the President in State of the Union addresses need to be independently confirmed before they are reported?

If the situation had gone the other way and twelve men had actually come out of the mine alive while newspapers were still being cautious about the situation, I can imagine the jeers and derision that would have been directed at the media for being "ye of little faith". Actually, we don't need to imagine - the erroneous articles have also preserved a record of comments made to that effect by people who believed that a miracle had happened in spite of the doubts of the Godless media.
1.6.2006 9:52pm
Chris (mail) (www):
Harry,

I've moved to Ithaca, NY. I also don't get cable service. I'm not trolling at all.
1.7.2006 2:13pm
Harry (on Firefox) (mail) (www):
Chris, OK, now I understand what you were saying, though I'm still not sure how you missed this story. Even without cable TV, it was the top news story for several days last week on broadcast TV, the radio, newspapers, and the Internet. For my take on the story, and the story-that-is-the-story-about-the-story, check this post. There's even a link to one of the (still-archived) incorrect news stories, though you'll need a free online registration to read the full text.
1.9.2006 10:48pm