CNN reporting 12 miners alive!

Geoff_M said:
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.
Of course not. But they wouldn't be dealing with the additional anguish and hurt that they were "lied to" for three hours. That is a slap in the face that they certainly didn't deserve or need. Now these families are hearing that both Hatfield and the governer knew something was terribly wrong ONLY 20 minutes after the rumor began circulating, but didn't bother telling them.
 
Geoff_M said:
After getting something "terribly wrong" once, I'd want to be sure to not make the same mistake a second time.

The company didn't get it wrong the first time. They never made an official statement until they said that the rumor had been incorrect and the 12 men were dead.

If they would have only said, a few hours earlier, that the news that people were celebrating was only a rumor and may be incorrect, and then came out with their statement later, then I wouldn't have a problem with what they did. But to let the families have false hope for hours is, at best, horrible judgment.
 
What part of the statement Miss Jasmine wrote in post #70 is "spin"?.
To use another financial analogy. Simply saying that the good-news rumors were "unconfirmed" while knowing the secondary report and not disclosing it would be like a CEO saying that news reports that the company would hit its EPS target for the quarter were merely "unconfirmed" after reviewing preliminary closing data that showed the target would be missed by a country mile. He'd be technically correct as it ain't official until the auditors sign off on it (and they might find an accounting error in the mean time... who knows), but in his heart he knows the likely final result.
If I were in Hatfield's shoes, I would choose to err on the side of truth, not rumor.
And I would probably opt not to rely on preliminary information a second time, and wait until the truth is actually known before raising or lowering hopes again.

99.5% of the emotional damage inflicted on the families was the result of the initial bad information and the rug then being pulled out from under them. We're debating the last 0.5%.
 
The company didn't get it wrong the first time. They never made an official statement until they said that the rumor had been incorrect and the 12 men were dead.
True, however it was pointed out that Hatfield, per the families of the miners, appeared before the families and personally delivered the "good news" in the church. I have no reason to doubt their report.
 

Geoff_M said:
True, however it was pointed out that Hatfield, per the families of the miners, appeared before the families and personally delivered the "good news" in the church. I have no reason to doubt their report.

I do. It was also "reported" that the twelve men survived, and look how that turned out! None of the families that I saw in the middle of the night could remember the particular person who told them, so I'm sure if it had been Hatfield, it would have been easy for them to remember, and unanimous. And Hatfield said that none the company did not communicate anything to the families until the bad news, and I think lying about that at this point would be an incredibly stupid thing. I don't think he'd make it out of town alive if he tried that.

I had heard earlier that it was the governor who had told the families, but that appears not to be true, either. There was just so much chaos last night that it seems like every story coming out at that time was wrong.
 
Did anyone see the news conference with Hatfield this afternoon - I think it was around 3:30 - 4 p.m. EST?

It was stated that it seems as though Command Center received a call from someone in the mine (a rescuer I think) who said that they found the 12 men alive. I also think he said this message was relayed twice.

After this I thought he said that a cell phone call was made from the Command Center to another party relaying this information.

From that point it seems the calls continued & this is how the initial information about 12 surviving individuals became "fact".

It seems the reason this "fact" wasn't immediately refuted was that they checked all vitals before determining that the 11 miners were already deceased.

This is a terrible tragedy. Nothing can be changed about it at this point. Wrong information was passed along initially by someone in the mine & it seems that this is where it all stemmed from. :guilty:
 
escape said:
Anderson Cooper was really confused when he heard from someone from the church that the reports of the 12 miners being alive were untrue. Apparently, he had interviewed a nurse a little earlier who claimed to have treated some of the miners, thereby strengthening the rumors of the miners being alive. Did anyone catch this? I didn't actually see this interview with the nurse but AC was scratching his head wondering why the nurse would say what she did if these men were not alive.


I had CNN on all last night and I don't recall him ever interviewing a nurse. Maybe he talked to someone off-camera?
 
I never saw the interview either but I was kind of in and out of it. However, I was fully awake when he was just finding out about 11 of the men not being alive. I just remember him making some comment how all this was confusing .... especially after talking to a nurse who said that she was treating some of the miners. It could be that she was only attending to the miner who survived but that's not how he put it.
 
Leave it to John Gibson (of Fox News -- you know the "fair and balanced" news channel) to put an interesting twist -- or spin -- on this story. As far as who is to blame for the media fiasco, he's decided that it rests solely with you and me! :confused3

John Gibson on who's to blame
 
Tigger_Magic said:
Leave it to John Gibson (of Fox News -- you know the "fair and balanced" news channel) to put an interesting twist -- or spin -- on this story. As far as who is to blame for the media fiasco, he's decided that it rests solely with you and me! :confused3

John Gibson on who's to blame
:earseek:

Not me, I want my news accurate and correct. You can keep the live feeds. For goodness sakes you can't tell me it's YOU AND ME who wants the live feeds when to some TV news stations a live feed is simply standing in front of a building where SOMETHING occurred HOURS if not DAYS earlier, and there is abosulutely NOTHING going on during that live feed.
 
I was at first a little taken aback by Gibson's claims, but then I realized it was merely the same self-serving pap being dished by most in the media. Geraldo Rivera was on O'Reilly last night and his astute observation (the brilliant "journalist" that he is) was that the media did nothing wrong because "everyone in the media got the story wrong." Gee, I didn't realize the old "everyone else did it" excuse now applies in journalism! I wonder how many journalism professors were shaking their heads in horror last night.

However, this is not that unexpected from the news channels. But it is fatuitous for them to try to shuffle and jive their way out of assuming responsibility for their actions. If they were not so infatuated with day-by-day ratings, they wouldn't care so much who's first on the air with a story. Instead they would care more about accuracy.
 
Sandy22 said:
I had CNN on all last night and I don't recall him ever interviewing a nurse. Maybe he talked to someone off-camera?

He was interviewing her on the phone, and was asking about what they would do once they came in, what was currently going on in the ER, that sort of thing, before the first ambulance left. I don't know if he talked to her later, I went to bed about 1am.
 
Leave it to John Gibson...
Interesting take on the Gibson piece. I searched and didn't find the word "blame" or "fault" anywhere in the piece. Gibson is stating an obvious fact: Live on-the-spot reporting is a form of newsgathering that is inherently prone to reporting errors. That's an undeniable fact. Be it Gulf War II, Katrina, this, or any other major breaking story.

Also, frankly, as the day wore on yesterday and we learned more, I'm willing to cut the media more slack now than I first did yesterday. At first I thought the families' celebration was the result of grapevine information run amok and the media just joined in with zero sourcing. Later we learned the info came from a private briefing by officials. If I were a network reporter on the scene and had heard from more than one first-hand source that the mine officials had privately met with the families and told them that the miners were alive, I think I would find that information credible enough to use.... as long as it was qualified as "reported". No doubt there were attempts to contact the officials to confirm the information, but as we know now the officials weren't talking as the picture appeared to be taking a radical shift and they were trying to seperate fact from fiction. Should many of them have qualified the information that didn't, sure... we can "ding" them for that.
 
Geoff, your post makes me wonder if you actually read Gibson's article. If you want to parse Gibson's piece looking for individual words, then obviously you're not going to find them. Gibson is a bit more clever than that. I drew my hyperlink title from these snippets from his piece (any emphasis is MINE)...
You want your news in raw feeds, fast as they come, uninterrupted by pesky news people actually checking things out. I know this because I do a live feed show. You want the live feeds so much you actually prefer three or four feeds on the screen at once.

I know this is a fact because I see the information everyday that tells us what people are watching.
This program lives on live feeds. We've been No. 1 in our time slot for a long time.
So much for the argument that they don't live and die by their ratings.
But things have changed. Our ability to bring things to you live and direct has increased a thousand fold. Your appetite for live pictures has increased so much we are positive it is the most important factor in what you want.
Live is suspense. It is real. It is the definition of news. But it can fool you. So be careful.
What I take from the last quote is this: bottom line it's not our (the media's) responsibility to make sure our live feeds are accurate as long as we supply your (the viewer's) demand for information live and most importantly fast.

If Fox News weren't so hyped up on their "fair and balanced" slogan, all this self-serving clap-trap would be almost humorous. I said it before and it bears repeating: I will gladly give up live and fast for accuracy on any story, any time.

JMO, but Gibson's fatuous attempt to place the blame for this at the feet of the viewers is disingenuous and naive.
 
Geoff, your post makes me wonder if you actually read Gibson's article.
Read every word of it... Gibson is making simple logical statement that is factual: If you wish to view live unfiltered news feeds where the reporter presents information as it surfaces, then it is advisable to remember that at times "bad" information will be included because the the medium doesn't allow for the kind of full "testing" and that comes with the passing of time. While Gibson may be pushing the envelope of this fact with the "pesky" comment, the crux of what he said is true. If you want to avoid as much "bad info" as possible as a story develops, it's best to turn off the news channels and wait for the next issue of Newsweek or Time.

So much for the argument that they don't live and die by their ratings.
Who made that argument?

If Fox News weren't so hyped up on their "fair and balanced" slogan, all this self-serving clap-trap would be almost humorous.
I also don't understand the "piling on" of Fox. Fox is hardly alone in defending their reporting of the story. The AP also feels they did the right thing: "(The) AP was reporting accurately the information that we were provided by credible sources -- family members and the governor. Clearly, as time passed and there was no firsthand evidence the miners were alive, the best information would have come from mine company officials, but they chose not to talk." Also here's how newspaper editors around the country explained their actions:
Editors Explain Why They Announced 'Miracle Rescue'

Martin Baron, editor of the Boston Globe, says, "It seemed we handled it just fine all along the way."


By Joe Strupp

Published: January 04, 2006 11:22 PM ET

NEW YORK The fallout from incorrect reports of the West Virginia mining tragedy continued for newspapers nationwide Wednesday morning with some editors taking some blame for initially reporting the wrong story, and others saying they did everything possible to get the correct information out as they knew it.

As numerous front pages wrongly reported that 12 of the trapped miners in the incident had been found alive, editors scrambled to determine how their papers had fared in the coverage, which began around midnight as reports first surfaced that the miners had been saved. But about three hours later, the story dramatically changed when the truth was learned that the miners had been found dead.

The timing of the first reports, just as many papers on the East Coast were hitting their first deadlines, resulted in many editions carrying the incorrect, positive news. Since the correct version of events was not released until about 3 a.m., many papers were not able to run a correct version until their final editions went out, although most changed it on their Web sites.

Sherry Chisenhall, editor of the Wichita (Kan.) Eagle wrote on her paper's Web site, "If you saw today's printed edition of The Eagle, you saw a front page headline and story that are flat wrong. ...I'll explain why we (and newspapers across the country) went to press last night with the information we had at the time. But it won't excuse the blunt truth that we violated a basic tenet of journalism today in our printed edition: Report what you know and how you know it."

Alan English, executive editor of the Shreveport (La.) Times, posted on the paper's Web site today, "I wish I could call back all of the editions with the mistaken headline, a grim reminder of just how short-lived some joy can be. The timing of the news and the events are unfortunate, and we are sorry for any excessive pain our print editions might add."

The Boston Globe, with a circulation of about 414,000, managed to get the correct story into 145,000 copies of its final edition, according to editor Martin Baron. He had initially said only 50,000 correct copies were distributed. Baron added that the paper actually dumped 30,000 copies with the wrong story and replaced them with 30,000 extra copies offering the corrected version.

Baron told E&P the coverage was as good as could be expected, given the timing of events and the fact that the original reports were coming from rescue workers, government officials, and families of the miners. "It seemed we handled it just fine all along the way," said Baron. "It's not like people were working with no information. There were officials commenting on this. As it turned out, wrong information was given out."

He added that if the paper had held off on the story and it turned out to be true, it would have drawn criticism for waiting too long. "At some point, you've got to print a paper," he said. "I don't know what else you can do."

Mike Days, editor of The Philadelphia Daily News, agreed that newspapers in most cases went with the best information they had. But he said editors must take blame when their stories are wrong, no matter what the reason. "The paper is responsible for everything in the paper and if there is an inaccuracy, in this case a huge one, you have to take responsibility," Days said. "We are in the business of reporting truth, and we can't just ignore it."

Newsroom staffers roused Days from bed at about 3 a.m. after word spread that the miners had died. At that point, the Daily News had already printed about 120,000 copies with an incorrect Associated Press story, with another 30,000 to go. Days said the decision was made to continue printing because a system shutdown for maintenance barred editors from changing the paper's content. He planned to run an editor's note in Thursday's paper explaining, as well as a likely story on how the misinformation was spread.

"We need to run a note that we erred and we regret it," Days said. "We need to get into the whole issue of communication in West Virginia. I don't remember a case like this where [the wrong story] was out there for three hours."

Also awakened in the middle of the night was Leonard Downie Jr., executive editor of The Washington Post, who learned the unfortunate news that the paper's final edition, with word of miners found alive, was wrong. He said about 100,000 copies of the Wednesday edition carried the bogus report. Most readers, however, received an earlier version that reported the search was still on.

Downie defended his reporters' coverage, saying sourcing at the scene indicated the miners had lived. "The mistake was not ours," he asserted.

Several newspapers, such as The Sun of Baltimore and The New York Times, published front-page stories that attributed the bogus report to family members. "We had a qualified story on the front page with skepticism in it," said Sun editor Tim Franklin. "This is what we knew when we went to press." But Franklin admitted the paper needed to explain to readers why the story was wrong when they received it, noting that an article would be run in Thursday's paper to address the issue.

Toby Usnik, a spokesperson for The New York Times Company, responded to questions about the paper's handling of the story with the following statement: "By the time our presses stopped running at 2:47 a.m., our coverage of the mining disaster relied on attributed sources, including a named official from the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, and victims' family members. We updated our coverage online at approximately 3:25 a.m. once contrary reports were confirmed. At that time, all printed copies of today's Times were circulating.

"We will continue to report on the disaster and its aftermath in order to explain how the actual situation varied from the accounts made by these sources."

At The Miami Herald, the nearby Orange Bowl game was the lead story, with a triple-overtime finish. But that did not stop the paper from running a small teaser on Page One declaring "Miners Alive" in the later editions, which went to at least 60% of home subscribers, according to Executive Editor Tom Fiedler. He said that referred to an AP story that ran on Page 3.

"I don't feel that we need to apologize, but we should explain," said Fiedler. He noted that the paper's first edition, which went to fewer readers, had a correct story reporting that one miner had been found alive and the search was continuing. "That is one of the unfortunate realities of being in a business where you put words on paper, then put them on a truck to be delivered hours later," he said.

Since the Herald's last deadline for changes is about 3:30 a.m., none of the editions had the correct story, Fiedler said. But, he added, the Web site posted the accurate version at about 4 a.m. "Readers recognize that these things happen when they are asleep," the editor added. "I think people understand that we got caught in the time shift."

Fiedler, who said he first found out about the errors when he woke up at about 5 a.m. and checked the news.

An explanatory AP story on Wednesday stated that Gov. Joe Manchin "spoke to The Associated Press from his cell phone shortly after relatives said they had received word the miners were safe. 'The rescue people have been talking to us. They told us they have 12 alive,' Manchin said. He said later he went to the mine site to try to confirm the news when rescuers said there had been miscommunication and not all had survived."

In Cleveland, most readers received newspapers reporting that miners had not been found at all, dead or alive, according to Managing Editor Tom O'Hara. He said the paper's first edition, which went to about 215,000 readers, reported that the search was still on. The later edition, reaching some 140,000 readers, included a Cox Newspapers story that reported the miners had been found alive--under a jubilant banner headline.

"We updated it for the later edition based on what was coming over the wires," O'Hara explained, noting that the AP's first report of the miners being found reached them at 12:15 a.m. with an URGENT notation. He said that wire service's first correction story did not come through until nearly 3 a.m. "All of the wire services were running the same thing and our people had no reason not to believe it was true," he added.

O'Hara said he also found out about the mistaken reporting when he woke up Wednesday morning, adding that the copy he received at home had not reported the wrong news. He said the paper's reader representative, Ted Diadiun, had been getting calls from readers and planned to write a special column for Thursday's paper explaining how the wrong story came about.

At The Oregonian in Portland, Executive Editor Peter Bhatia gave the order by phone to "stop the presses" after being awakened after midnight PST with word that his paper was running a bogus AP story. About 2,500 copies of the paper's 250,000 press run had been shipped before the correct story could be inserted and the presses restarted, he said. Most deliveries were about an hour late.

The Pittsburgh Post-Gazette is among many papers planning a Thursday post-mortem. About half of its copies went out with the "miracle" rescue.

Randy Brandt, editor of the Journal Times in Racine, Wis., wrote on the paper's site: "We go with what we know....In this case, I personally called the headline of The Journal Times shortly before our press start at midnight. I based this call on the statement of the governor of West Virginia that it was 'a miracle,' and an Associated Press report from their reporter on the scene. Should I have hedged? In hindsight, probably yes. But contrary to popular belief, news people are as inclined to hope for the best as anybody else, so we hoped for the best, based on the best information available at the time. As the grandson of a coal miner, I prayed along with everybody else."

Scott Libin, a faculty member at the Poynter Institute, wrote today on its Web site, "This case reminds us of a lesson we learned, at least in part, from Hurricane Katrina: Even when plausibly reliably sources such as officials pass along information, journalists should press for key details....If we believe that when your mama says she loves you, you should check it out, surely what the mayor or police chief or governor says deserves at least some healthy skepticism and verification. I understand how emotion and adrenaline and deadlines affect performance. That does not excuse us from trying to do better."

Link
 
Geoff_M said:
Read every word of it... Gibson is making simple logical statement that is factual: If you wish to view live unfiltered news feeds where the reporter presents information as it surfaces, then it is advisable to remember that at times "bad" information will be included because the the medium doesn't allow for the kind of full "testing" and that comes with the passing of time. While Gibson may be pushing the envelope of this fact with the "pesky" comment, the crux of what he said is true. If you want to avoid as much "bad info" as possible as a story develops, it's best to turn off the news channels and wait for the next issue of Newsweek or Time.
If you're going to excuse this, then you have to excuse ALL instances of bad or botched reporting. Are you willing to go that far or is this an instance of just selective excusing? If you're doing a live feed you get a free pass to be wrong, but if you're doing a canned report or investigation, no pass for you (a la Dan Rather and Memogate)? To me such a standard seems quite hypocritical.
I also don't understand the "piling on" of Fox. Fox is hardly alone in defending their reporting of the story. The AP also feels they did the right thing: "(The) AP was reporting accurately the information that we were provided by credible sources -- family members and the governor. Clearly, as time passed and there was no firsthand evidence the miners were alive, the best information would have come from mine company officials, but they chose not to talk." Also here's how newspaper editors around the country explained their actions:
This part of the thread was started by my posting John Gibson's ill-thought comments on this fiasco. I'm not "piling on" Fox -- I condemn all the media, print and broadcast, for their role in this reporting disaster and I especially am appalled at anyone who would seek to blame someone else for what they (the media) wrought. They are like the person who dropped a match into the gunpowder blaming the gunpowder manufacturer for creating the explosion. If it were not so tragic, it'd be ludicrous.

I would expect the Boston Globe's editor, Martin Baron, to make a statement like he made. "It seemed we handled it just fine all along the way," said Baron. "It's not like people were working with no information. There were officials commenting on this. As it turned out, wrong information was given out." He added that if the paper had held off on the story and it turned out to be true, it would have drawn criticism for waiting too long. "At some point, you've got to print a paper," he said. "I don't know what else you can do."

Really, Martin -- you are the editor of a large metropolitan newspaper with a huge circulation and you just don't know what else you can do. Well, for starters, I'd suggest enrolling in a nearby college course on Journalism 101 and learn the basics. :rolleyes:

Fortunately, Mike Days of the Philadelphia Daily News, offered one bright ray of hope for the print media at least. He said, "The paper is responsible for everything in the paper and if there is an inaccuracy, in this case a huge one, you have to take responsibility. We are in the business of reporting truth, and we can't just ignore it."

These people lay claim to the title of journalist and supposedly journalism is a business based on facts, not rumors. If the medium cannot rise to the standards expected of other areas of broadcast journalism, then maybe they should just "can" the whole concept of the live feed. Either that, or label it for what is has become: tabloid journalism on the level with the Weekly World News and the National Enquirer.

It is not the responsibility of the viewer or reader to have to determine the credibility of the information presented. That is the journalist's responsibility and I am unwilling to allow them to toss that responsibility aside so glibly.
 

New Posts


Disney Vacation Planning. Free. Done for You.
Our Authorized Disney Vacation Planners are here to provide personalized, expert advice, answer every question, and uncover the best discounts. Let Dreams Unlimited Travel take care of all the details, so you can sit back, relax, and enjoy a stress-free vacation.
Start Your Disney Vacation
Disney EarMarked Producer






DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest DIS Tiktok DIS Twitter

Add as a preferred source on Google

Back
Top Bottom