CNN reporting 12 miners alive!

[Miss Jasmine]

And I would be willing to bet that the news would have been as big a blow to the emotional guts, after being told "all is well", of the families regardless of whether it was 20 minutes or three hours. You're also assuming that the CEO didn't in fact know that at least some of the miners had shown no signs of life when the secondary report was made 20 minutes later. I think it's easy for us to set here and second guess the CEO. If I had information that at least some of the miners were reported as dead, I don't think I could just go before the cameras and say with a straight face "hold on, we aren't sure of their conditions just yet" if I knew that statement wasn't fully truthful. I personally can understand the desire to hold off for a period of time until a full accounting could be made.

Very true... It's not much comfort to the families of the dead, but one's better than none. But if history is repeated even that "lucky" one will have a lot of tough times ahead. If I recall, follow-up reports on the miners that were pulled out of the Pennsylvania mine back in 2002 show that several of them suffered emotional, family, and financial problems after the spotlights turned away from them.

If there was not misinformation floating around, I would agree that nothing should have been said until everything had been confirmed. However, there was misinformation floating around and I feel that there was corporate responsibility to try and set the record straight at that time. Even if the record was that nothing was confirmed.

jonestavern, I like your revision, and that would have been better.

Believe me when I say my heart goes out to the victims' families and friends. And yes the safety of mining is important.

This crisis communications aspect is just interesting to me since it's something I may have to deal with in the future at work, and something that I have studied and have trained with my organization's PR/Media Relations firm. I think this is a good case study of what not to do. I am not letting the media off the hook at all, it did run wild with the information, but you have the Governor and the CEO saying that all was well. Did you want them to go the mine themselves to verify? I really feel in this situation it was up to the mining company to try and squelch the rumor, and believe me when I say I am no fan of the media (however, it's something one has to embrace and learn how to use).

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I agree that the inspection records of the mine are an eyebrow raiser. I also wasn't impressed when the violations were mentioned in the media and in response the company said "If the mine wasn't safe, the government would shut us down." However, there was nothing to be gained by the mine company as the events unfolded as most of us slept last night. The acceptance or aviodance of the "blame" for the communication breakdown doesn't help or hurt anyone.

The company had everything to gain last night, especially when reports on the AP state

A coal company executive says it became clear within 20 minutes that the news anxious family members had received about the survival of a dozen trapped miners was terribly wrong.

The company had a responsibility to the families first, then to the public via the media, to provide correct information. Their failure to do so, whether for 3 minutes or 3 hours, is IMO inexcusable. However, in light of the information coming out about the company, it certainly fits their SOP. I hardly expect them to accept anything, much less blame for their "failure to communicate."

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Who exactly would you like to see an apology from? I'm truly confused as to who you think is to blame for the incorrect information coming out.

*SIGH* To spell it out one more time...

1) The mining company CEO -- for failing to correct the known rumor that there were multiple survivors when they knew 20 minutes after it started that it was incorrect. Waiting for 3 hours to correct this was inexcusable.

2) The WV governor -- for is ill-advised thumbs up and "Believe in miracles!" comment upon hearing the rumor and leaving the church with the families. He later admitted during a press conference that at THAT time, he had NO confirmation that there were multiple survivors.

3) The media -- for allowing themselves to get caught up in the euphoria and ignoring Journalism 101 (check and double-check your facts and when you are sure, check them again). The rush to break the news first is an on-going problem these days.

 

[ladycollector]

3) The media -- for allowing themselves to get caught up in the euphoria and ignoring Journalism 101 (check and double-check your facts and when you are sure, check them again). The rush to break the news first is an on-going problem these days.

Exactly - It seems like more and more we're getting false information that has to be "recalled" because they didn't check their facts.

 

[mushumadness]

how awfull for everyone involved, the uk woke up to storys the miners were alive only to come home from work to the news they were infact dead. A truely terrible things, my thoughts are with you

 

[poohandwendy]

However, in light of the information coming out about the company, it certainly fits their SOP. I hardly expect them to accept anything, much less blame for their "failure to communicate."

Actually, I just saw an interview with a woman who witnessed the events unfolding last night. She stated that Mr Hatfield (the CEO of the mining company) took full responsibility for the false information in his statements to the crowd of family members and loved ones.

Not that it makes any of this any less tragic, but I thought it was relevant to this discussion.

 

[Geoff_M]

The company had everything to gain last night, especially when reports on the AP state

A coal company executive says it became clear within 20 minutes that the news anxious family members had received about the survival of a dozen trapped miners was terribly wrong.

The company had a responsibility to the families first, then to the public via the media, to provide correct information. Their failure to do so, whether for 3 minutes or 3 hours, is IMO inexcusable.

Here's the full quote (btw, the "official" was the CEO):

International Coal Group CEO Ben Hatfield said it became clear within 20 minutes that the news about the survival of the trapped miners was terribly wrong. Company officials waited to correct the information until they knew more about the rescue, Hatfield said.

"Let's put this in perspective. Who do I tell not to celebrate? I didn't know if there were 12 or one (who were alive)," Hatfield said. "Until we had people who could measure the vital signs ... we didn't want to put the families through another roller coaster."

By "terribly wrong" I think it clearly indicates that the secondary reports were that at least some of the bodies were lifeless when first examined. If you knew that, how could you go out in public and simply caution people that the initial reports hadn't been "confirmed" and that the miners' conditions "weren't yet known"? I couldn't do it, I don't have that good of a poker face. Likewise, how could you go out and say "Hold on, it looks like we were terribly wrong.... Some of them appear to be dead, but we aren't sure who or how many."???

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Here's the full quote (btw, the "official" was the CEO):By "terribly wrong" I think it's clearly indicates that the secondary reports were that at least some of the bodies were lifeless when first examined. If you knew that how could you go out in public and simply caution people that the initial reports hadn't been "confirmed" and that the miners' conditions "weren't yet known". Likewise, how could you go out and say "Hold on, it looks like were were wrong.... Some of them appear to be dead, but we aren't sure who or how many."???

As uncomfortable as it may have been, something should have been said at that point. The CEO had an obligation to those family members. He could have at least went to them and said, "this is what we know right now," and told them the cold facts. The media didn't even have to be a consideration at that point, though the spokersperson could have been making a statement simultaneously. The miners were that CEO's employees, they were his obligation, their families were his obligations at the time as well. He made a very bad judgment call. Believe me, it would have been better for him to go to the families with the information he had right then rather than to let them go on for HOURS thinking that all was well. How would you feel if you were in those family members' shoes? Seriously. I would want to know even without ALL the information. It's one thing for these families to have been told misinformation, it's another for them to now know that 20 minutes after that, the story was changing, but they weren't important enough to inform until three hours later.

Again, I am taking the whole media/public thing out of this. Think about this from the FAMILIES' perspectives. Crisis communication is not just about the media.

 

[poohandwendy]

I agree Geoff. I think they were better off waiting until they were sure of what the situation was, especially after knowning that the intial reports weren't confirmed and not accurate. If he had been vague by saying 'The intial reports haven't been confirmed/we are not sure how many people are alive' he would have just been pressed with more people demanding answers, answers that he did not have yet.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Here's the full quote (btw, the "official" was the CEO):By "terribly wrong" I think it clearly indicates that the secondary reports were that at least some of the bodies were lifeless when first examined. If you knew that, how could you go out in public and simply caution people that the initial reports hadn't been "confirmed" and that the miners' conditions "weren't yet known"? I couldn't do it, I don't have that good of a poker face. Likewise, how could you go out and say "Hold on, it looks like we were terribly wrong.... Some of them appear to be dead, but we aren't sure who or how many."???

When one accepts the position of CEO of a company, you accept that you are going to have to deal with uncomfortable situations. There is no way I could or would excuse Ben Hatfield's inaction for 3 hours last night, knowing now that he was well aware that the information about survivors was incorrect.

As I said before, were I in Hatfield's shoes, I would have found someone to draft a statement similar to Miss Jasmine's. I would read it the best I could and emphasize that the rumors about survivors are just that -- unconfirmed rumors.

I am certain that Mr. Hatfield would not wait 3 hours, much less 3 minutes, if rumors started circulating through the news and the Internet that his company was preparing to file for bankruptcy. Considering his fiduciary responsibility to company stockholders, he'd be in front of the cameras in a heartbeat to squash that rumor.

But when it's a rumor about the life or death of 12 employees -- well, then Mr. Hatfield seems to feel quite comfortable in taking all the time he needs to refute rumors about them. His actions last night speak volumes.

 

[poohandwendy]

Well, I don't know Mr Hatfield as well as you may. As a matter of fact, I don't know him at all. I am just guessing that he feels awful about this horrible tragedy and the mistakes made because it is rare to come across someone so evil that they do not care at all about the feelings of people who are awaiting information about the life or death of their loved ones.

 

[Geoff_M]

The miners were that CEO's employees, they were his obligation, their families were his obligations at the time as well. He made a very bad judgment call. Believe me, it would have been better for him to go to the families with the information he had right then rather than to let them go on for HOURS thinking that all was well.

There are times when initial assessments of vital signs are wrong. A pulse may be present but not detectible to the human touch. Breathing may be present, but extremely shallow. I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for a fuller assessment instead of risking "whip-sawing" people anymore than you already have up to that point. Call it a "bad judgement" after the fact, but given what's know at this point, I think I'd be tempted to do what the CEO did in this regard. Perhaps that'd make me a bad corporate PR spokesman, but that's what I feel. After getting something "terribly wrong" once, I'd want to be sure to not make the same mistake a second time.

How would you feel if you were in those family members' shoes?

I think I would have felt the same regardless if I had been told 20 minutes or three hours after the celebration started.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Well, I don't know Mr Hatfield as well as you may. As a matter of fact, I don't know him at all. I am just guessing that he feels awful about this horrible tragedy and the mistakes made because it is rare to come across someone so evil that they do not care at all about the feelings of people who are awaiting information about the life or death of their loved ones.

I don't know Mr. Hatfield from Adam. I don't presume to guess how he "feels." My opinions are based solely on his actions or more specifically his inaction last night. I have not at any time in this thread suggested or said he is "evil" or that he doesn't care at all about the feelings of the families.

However, knowing full well that information that is clearly wrong is being circulated to families and the media and choosing to WAIT to correct it for 3 hours tells me a lot about Mr. Hatfield. Like I said, I seriously doubt he'd allow unfounded, incorrect rumors about the company to go unchallenged/unanswered for that long.

Maybe he does care and maybe he is truly sorry for this fiasco. To date, however, his actions and the actions of his company just don't indicate that. Words are nice, but actions speak a lot louder.

 

[poohandwendy]

There are times when initial assessments of vital signs are wrong. A pulse may be present but not detectible to the human touch. Breathing may be present, but extremely shallow. I don't think it's unreasonable to wait for a fuller assessment instead of risking "whip-sawing" people anymore than you already have up to that point. Call it a "bad judgement" after the fact, but given what's know at this point, I think I'd be tempted to do what the CEO did in this regard. Perhaps that'd make me a bad corporate PR spokesman, but that's what I feel. After getting something "terribly wrong" once, I'd want to be sure to not make the same mistake a second time.

I think I would have felt the same regardless if I had been told 20 minutes or three hours after the celebration started.

Well said Geoff, I agree with everything you said. I think this was more about making absolutely sure because they did not want to make this even more of a roller coaster ride for the family members. And I think people are forgetting how complicated this search and rescue really was. It's not like pulling people out of a building 10 feet away.

 

[poohandwendy]

I don't presume to guess how he "feels."

Sorry, from your post, I thought you must know him personally because you seemed certain to 'know' how he would handle other situations and that he "seems to feel quite comfortable in taking all the time he needs to refute rumors about them. " I just figured you must have some sort of personal experience with him or the company.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I give posters on this thread more credit for intelligence than you apparently do, P&W. The search and rescue efforts have nothing to do with the company's responsibility to (1) manage the families' expectations and (2) provide accurate information, including making sure incorrect reports about survivors are at least properly managed. The company has admitted they knew the rumors about survivors were "terribly wrong" shortly after it started. What did they think they would gain by remaining silent when they knew that information was completely wrong? What possible justification is there for allowing the families, much less the public, to believe false information?

Suppose Hatfield and his company allowed false financial information, such as inflated earnings reports, to be distributed to the media, resulting in their stock prices making some big gains. I wonder if you would be so forgiving of the company's silence in correcting that information. Somehow I doubt it -- people would be clamoring for Hatfield's scalp.

Maybe it's just me, but I think 12 men's lives are worth the effort it would have taken for Mr. Hatfield to issue a simple statement of correction. If the public gets incensed over financial shenanigans, should they not be even more so over this?

 

[Geoff_M]

As I said before, were I in Hatfield's shoes, I would have found someone to draft a statement similar to Miss Jasmine's. I would read it the best I could and emphasize that the rumors about survivors are just that -- unconfirmed rumors.

And of course if he did just that, and people learned afterwards that he had received word that the 12 miners were likely dead before he "spun" the second report, no one would be raking the guy over the coals for that either. Am I supposed to believe that?

However, knowing full well that information that is clearly wrong is being circulated to families and the media and choosing to WAIT to correct it for 3 hours tells me a lot about Mr. Hatfield.

And I'm also sure that the families would have instead shaken Hatfield's hand and said "we understand, mistakes happen, thanks for keeping us in the loop" if they had been told only 30 minutes after the celebration started that their loved one's wouldn't be marching into the church to join them as previously planned.

 

[Sk8Leigh]

I agree Geoff. I think they were better off waiting until they were sure of what the situation was, especially after knowning that the intial reports weren't confirmed and not accurate. If he had been vague by saying 'The intial reports haven't been confirmed/we are not sure how many people are alive' he would have just been pressed with more people demanding answers, answers that he did not have yet.

Then you just say, "I don't know, but we'll let you know what we find out as soon as possible." The truth.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Sorry, from your post, I thought you must know him personally because you seemed certain to 'know' how he would handle other situations and that he "seems to feel quite comfortable in taking all the time he needs to refute rumors about them. " I just figured you must have some sort of personal experience with him or the company.

Yes, people often read too much into posts. Never assume.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

And of course if he did just that, and people learned afterwards that he had received word that the 12 miners were likely dead before he "spun" the second report, no one would be raking the guy over the coals for that either. Am I supposed to believe that?

What part of the statement Miss Jasmine wrote in post #70 is "spin"? I suppose I'm in some minority, but it was crystal clear to me that it was a statement that the status of the miners was not yet determined. It left open the possibility for them to be found alive or dead. The important fact is that it would not leave the families believing a rumor that Hatfield and his company KNEW was "terribly wrong."

And I'm also sure that the families would have instead shaken Hatfield's hand and said "we understand, mistakes happen, thanks for keeping us in the loop" if they had been told only 30 minutes after the celebration started that their loved one's wouldn't be marching into the church to join them as previously planned.

If you choose not to understand, that's your choice to make. If I were in Hatfield's shoes, I would choose to err on the side of truth, not rumor.