January 4, 2006

Sick news from West Virginia

As anyone who's tried to watch the news knows, there was a mine explosion in West Virginia and a dozen miners were trapped. Needless to say, all the cable news shows jetted their stars to the scene and treated us to endless hours of absolutely banal and ridiculous stammering and useless interviews and attempts to describe the scene.

One miner was reported to have died, but the families of these miners had been euphoric only an hour or so before after hearing reports saying that all of the remaining 12 were alive. The company neither confirmed nor denied this, and said nothing for over an hour, before dashing these families misplaced joy by announcing that all but one had been found dead.

The CEO of the mining company, Ben Hatfield, just appeared at a press conference and I've never seen such blatant show of insensitivity and immorality for some time.

After expressing his regret, and saying, "welcome to the worst day of my life", (poor baby) the CEO was asked a question about how the company was going to handle this, and rather than explain what they planned to do to help support the families and community in their grief, the guy launched into this statement which sounded like something they'd sent out with their annual report.

He stated that the company was "fiscally solvent" or something to the effect that they had lots of cash on hand, and was poised for "continued growth". He made a point of the fact that this mine was only one small part of the company (as if it were inconsequential) and they expected to continue making excellent profits in the future.

In other words, as far as the company was concerned, this was nothing, or at least they're anxious for Wall St. to think so. It was clear that many people had been thinking ONLY of what this meant for their bottom line, without a thought about the loss of life.

Then when another reporter tried to get him to at least think of the miners, he made a remark about how "tough" these workers were, that they were "used to hardship" and suggested that they'd come right back, seeing as they enjoy "the work", and their good wages and health benefits. Just stunning.

He also hastened to say that years ago, this sort of thing was a common occurance, and now they're not. Not much of a comfort, somehow.

I realize that a company is always concerned with protecting it's stock price and image, but this statement was just sickening, given that it was spoken only seconds after he had just announced that 12 of their workers had just been killed. How could he even be thinking about putting out company PR crap at a time like this?

But without skipping a beat, he went from announcing the deaths into a financial report for the company, dismissed the importance of this mine in their scheme of things, and went on to confidently state that they'd make even more profits in the future, and that the miners would come back because they were "tough" and loved their wages and health benefits.

It was as if he was saying, "Yeah, they're dead, and that's a shame. But the message I've been sent here to give is that we're in great financial shape and the miners all love the wages and health benefits we provide. They're just dumb, tough hillbillies and they're desperate. They'll come back because we're the only game in town. No need to worry. This tragedy is just a minor speed bump to the corporation, which of course is more important."

An amazing, and rather disgusting glimpse into the souless and greedy corporate mindset.

Family members of the miners are now telling of how Hatfield came to the church and announced to the families that all but one of the miners were alive and giving a rabble rousing speech about how he was going to go get the rest and bring them directly to their families at the church. He said he would return in an hour. As one woman noted, the guy had probably never been underground in his life.

After 3 hours had passed, he returned and told them that they were all dead.

Hatfield admits he knew within 20 minutes of the first reports that he had mislead the families, but didn't tell them anything for over an hour. He said he didn't know whether all were dead or only some, and didn't want to tell the families anything until he was sure.

He blames the episode on "miscommunication".

He went to the church trying to be a hero, assured them he'd go bring them all out alive, just bullshitting them, causing them all to rejoice and start singing in joy, even when he had no idea if they were alive or not.

A woman who had just fled the church with her two children after violence errupted told Anderson Cooper that when Hatfield made the announcement at the church that only one miner survived, the church errupted with people screaming "liar" and "hypocrite" at Hatfield and there was extreme anger ant that many family members tried to psysically attack Hatfield and were fighting cops who were trying to protect him.

The guy should be horsewhipped and run out of town.

Newspapers rushed to sensationalize this story already published editions with scraming headlines reading "ALIVE!" complete with pictures of the jubilant families.

These families have been horribly treated, and were subjected to many conficting reports, including that one man was saved and another possibly survived, but no news about the other ten. And they've also been told that all the miners are dead, but they can't find them, leaving the families wondering how they know that they're dead.

A sad, sad, situation, compounded by horrible communication and misinformation.

Here is a link to a page where you can see many of the false headlines from a variety of papers.

> MORE <

4 Comments:

At 1/04/2006 4:55 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Before all you "wise and learned" pundits start criticizing the print media for "getting it wrong" by publishing stories saying those miners were alive, stop and think for a minute about the timing of the events Tuesday night and Wednesday morning. Word broke that rescue crews had found the 12 very close to the printing deadlines of most newspapers in this region. The announcement that they were dead didn't come until after most newspapers had been printed and hit the streets. Television and Web sites also carried the wrong information -- they simply have the luxury of reposting a story or coming on with an update, in effect erasing their mistakes.

 
At 1/04/2006 5:07 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

No sympathy here. It didn't matter when their deadlines were, the fact remains that they ran to trumpet unconfirmed facts.

There was never any "official" statement that the 12 were alive. They were going on what the equally misinformed CEO had told the families.

The headlines didn't read "CEO Says 12 Survive"

They read "ALIVE" or "12 Survive Mine Blast"

Just because they have a deadline is no excuse to run un-confirmed non-facts, especially in a situation like this.

It's poor journalism and shouldn't be defended.

And of course, though the print editions that went out are too late, all the paper's who got it wrong instantly changed their web sites.

 
At 1/05/2006 2:08 AM, Anonymous Anonymous said...

Well, Dope, I'd have never figured you as a shill for the electronic outlets, but that's the impression you're giving here. Where's your outrage over the misreporting by the television folks? By including a link to newspapers' front pages, you give the impression of holding them to a higher standard. Do you, or are you falling for the deflection game of the TV news folks, who hope that by calling attention to the fact that newspapers went to print with incorrect information the public will forget their networks broadcast the wrong information for hours.

Think that's not their plan? Look at the journalism-industry Web sites. The ones for the print media are full of explanation, discussions, blame, etc. for the wrong headlines. The ones for the electronic media are glaringly empty of such mea culpas.

Could the local papers have been more cautious with their headlines? Yes. But they were working with stories from the Associated Press -- which most media organizations believe to be a reliable supplier of news. Read the text of the articles -- if that's all you had to work with, can you honestly say you would have done much different at the time?

 
At 1/05/2006 3:09 AM, Blogger The Inside Dope said...

Anon,

Methinks your impression of me is incorrect. I'm hardly a shill for TV news. I think anyone who's read this blog for a while certainly wouldn't share that opinion.

Again, it simply astounds me just how routine it's become for people who feel one of their sacred cows is being knocked to rush to try to accuse me of being some sort of bought off shill for the other side.

It's not only dead wrong, it's disingenous and serves to avoid dealing with the issue at hand. (though you do get around to it.)

What is so hard to believe about someone who points out something they feel is wrong simply because they feels it's wrong? Why the knee-jerk assumption that they must have some sort of hidden agenda?

I suppose that's just a reaction when someone feels defensive, but it's not really an honest defense (or any defense, really, as it ignores the points being made.)

But... beyond all that...

TV or Cable news have both been on a long downward slide for years, with cable news being so vapid and sensationalistic as to be often unwatchable in my estimation.

Rather than informing and educationg people, it usualy makes people dumber just by watching it and is nothing but a circus of irrelevant and unimportant stories while issues and stories on vital issues and events importance to the country and it's government are given little or no coverage, and if they are, it's useless.

They have abdicated completely any pretense of reporting a political story. They are no longer allowed to report something bad and say it's bad, but rather have to present someone to say that something obviously bad isn't bad at all, and call that "balance".

They feel that if they don't bend over backwards to present often dishonest and completely false spin put out by the party accused, that they're not being "fair."

It's the "The Earth is flat, opinions differ" school of journalism. They've been threatened and bullied by the right so long and so hard that they're simply scared to death to state whether anything is right or wrong, even when it's clear as day that something is, indeed, wrong.

It would (and has) taken dozens of books to examine this dangerous trend, and I won't do it here.

But you should feel better knowing that I think cable news and to a lesser degree network news is so far gone as to not even be mentioned in this mine story. Pointing out how newspapers got it wrong should not be taken as somehow suggesting that TV news didn't.

Of course they got it wrong. I mean, they actively LOOK for people to go out and get things wrong... starting with Geraldo all the way up to Rita Cosby. It's their job to stick mics into victims faces and pump them for that tear jerk moment. It's disgusting. They're worse than ambulance chasers.

These aren't reporters or journalists anymore than Sally Jesse Raphael is a journalist or reporter. It's simply not news at all, but some reality based soap opera.

First of all, in the post above, I only mentioned the newspapers getting it wrong because they had actually put it out in print.

Feel it's unfair that paper's work is in black and white and out there for all to see while TV is fluid and constantly changeing? Sorry about that.
Guess that's just the nature of the beast.

Perhaps it's a reason that papers should be even more cautious than TV and shouldn't rush to compete in the tabloid division with TV "news".

The papers, local and otherwise, simply got it wrong.

As my post above showing front pages demostrates, not all got it quite as bad.

Those that simply said that all 12 were alive, and sexed it up with liberal doses of "miracle" and "prayers answered" were the worst.

But there were a responsible few who correctly prominently featured the fact that it was only "reported" that the 12 were alive. And some even stated that this fact had not been confirmed officially.

Yes, it's a fine point. And yes, local papers got buffaloed along with a lot of other media. (most of them).

But you ask me if I could honestly say I'd do much differently at the time. I'd like to think that yes, I would.

I'd publish the story, make the headline not too big, and include in the hed or a subhed, much like the Rockford paper, that it is being "reported" that they're alive.

I'd prominently state that there were unconfirmed reports from family members (or whoever the story quoted at the time) that all 12 were alive, the scene at the church, etc. and I'd conclude by stating again that this was based on an unconfirmed report.

Hard to do? Not really. Call me old-fashioned, but if something seemed less than solid, I'd sure be careful not to trumpet it as fact, despite the pressure from the media stampede, and I'd make certain that it was clearly stated that these reports were tenuous and unofficial.

 

Post a Comment

<< Home