|
|
January 5, 2006
"Today, we fell short." vs. "I'm not seeing any obvious missteps."I don't blame the news media for initially false information about the West Virginia mining disaster. I blame confusion, exhaustion, human emotion and poor decision-making by company officials. Then there are the explanations from editors. Some focus on accuracy. Others on truth.Right: Sherry Chisenhall, Wichita Eagle editor. “Today, we fell short.” 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. Wrong: Amanda Bennett, Philadelphia Inquirer editor. “I’m not seeing any obvious missteps.” After the correct information emerged, Editor & Publisher’s website printed a comprehensive overview of the first big media screw-up of the new year, calling the mistake “disgraceful.” Right: Mike Days, Philadelphia Daily News, editor. “We are in the business of reporting truth.” 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.” Wrong: Marty Baron, Boston Globe, editor. “”It seemed we handled it just fine all along the way.” 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.” Right: USA Today, Note to readers. “This documentation proved inadequate.” USA TODAY also incorrectly reported that the survivors had been taken to a hospital by ambulances. In fact, just one ambulance left the mining site. The newspaper’s coverage also included USA TODAY interviews with the miners’ family members, who said they had been told that their relatives were alive. Wrong: Mike Silverman, AP, managing editor. “AP was reporting accurately the information that we were provided.” The Associated Press cited family members in its initial dispatch, at 11:52 p.m., saying the miners were alive. Five versions later, at 12:25 a.m., the story added the quote from Manchin _ “They told us they have 12 alive” _ and dropped attribution for the miners’ rescue to the third paragraph. I think these are two distinctive philosophies. What do you think? (This started in comments) It’s true that the “press” part of what happened in West Virginia is of minor importance compared to the rest, and there isn’t much here that’s malpractice. It’s true, as well, that if the “announcement” of 12 men alive had been made two, three hours later, no wrong headlines would have been seen, and we wouldn’t be talking about the screw-ups. But here we have an event where the explanations that journalists give to themselves (what satisifes them as “the reason it happened”) communicate powerfully and intimately to the users of news because the event also “happened” to them. They will remember it for a long time, and talk about it. So will history, whatever that is. First the audience got taken to miracle land. Then the audience learned it was all a mistake, and the men were dead. So when journalists explain how the news got made, how it broke down, what the procedures at 2 am are, they are, in this case, interpreting a very jarring experience to the people who are supposed to smoothly trust in their news experience the next time around. I think it’s important, and the better part of wisdom, to speak in a moral voice about being wrong under conditions like that— not a “shit happens” or a “gimme a break” or a “I don’t see any violation of our procedures…” voice. Even if true, I wouldn’t do anything different next time doesn’t communicate very well about this time. Moral doesn’t mean moralizing or sky-is-falling. A moral voice need not blow the events out of proportion, either, or give a false mea culpa. It not only explains how the story was gotten wrong, but also accepts that a wrong got done— even if there was no violation of procedure. “The paper is responsible for everything in the paper” (Mike Days) speaks in a moral voice, in the sense that I mean it. In explaining what happened, some editors primarily addressed themselves to the end user’s experience of a vanished miracle, while others talked of professional standards, rituals and routines. Without meaning to insult anyone, they were treating the journalist’s experience as primary. But under conditions of factual intimacy (“we lived for a while the wrong information you gave us”) that discourse is not up to the task. “AP was reporting accurately the information that we were provided by credible sources” says: we didn’t do anything wrong. “The paper is responsible for everything in the paper” accepts what happened with end users. Accuracy, which was achieved, is the more technical term, truth, which did not happen, is a moral category. Although there’s no big scandal in it, this one happens to lie very near the center of the trust transaction in journalism, and so it’s foolish for editors to be among its minimizers. After Matter: Notes, reactions & links… Editor & Publisher continues to report developments on this story. See Spokesman in Miner Tragedy Says He Never Confirmed Miracle Rescue. (Jan. 6) Interesting. Regret the Error has two good round-ups. One gives links to all the correction and explanation stories newspapers ran; the other re-caps the whole episode. Good places to start. Serious Questions on Sourcing in Mine ‘Rescue’ Story Remain. Joe Strupp and Greg Mitchell in Editor & Publisher (Jan. 5): What was most surprising in the many follow-up stories today was how few fresh details were added about sourcing — including any mention of a single new source not already identified. Despite repeated attempts by E&P to reach reporters at the scene, none have yet responded. Here we will provide the first step-by-step chronology from a strictly journalistic perspective. So what do we know, or think we know? Revealing. Also very good is Joe Strupp, Local W.Va. Paper Says Skepticism Helped it Avoid Mining Story Goof. (Jan. 4) The reporter for the local daily didn’t run to the church to get misinformed. I did a live Q & A with readers at washingtonpost.com (Jan. 6). Here it is, The Press: Year in Review. My favorite moment was probably: Q. I work as a senior IT professional. I make good bank. If I retyped vendor marketing materials and sold my company on an expensive system that ended up failing, I’d get canned. Immediately. I might even get sued for damages, so they would recoup the money paid me. I’d have a black mark next to my name and really lose my career. Tim Graham of Newsbusters takes issue with some of what I said. Graham says the Bush team has no particular beef with the White House press. The White House has no involvement in the ongoing culture war seeking to discredit Big Journalism as the liberal media, he thinks. In his next post, Tim will explain to us that journalists are some of Bush’s best friends, and W. can’t live without his Paul Krugman. Look Out “Outlook”. Vaughn Ververs at Public Eye, the CBS press blog, spotted the argument in a statement today from Susan Glasser, 36, the new Sunday Outlook editor at the Washington Post (just announced.) It’s a promising appointment. Glasser started at The Post in ‘98. She was a deputy national editor and political reporter here, then went to Moscow as a correspondent in 2001. Perhaps the most interesting thing about her: She comes to Outlook after covering terrorism for the Post. In the story announcing her new job she says: Outlook is one of the great pieces of real estate in the Sunday Washington Post, with a real storied tradition of helping shape the Washington conversation. What I would hope to do is build on that and think of lots of exciting and interesting ways to update it for an Internet era when opinions and controversy have become the currency but reasoned commentary and analysis are sometimes missing from that new digital equation. Ververs asked me, Jeff Jarvis of Buzzmachine, Lost Remote’s Steve Safran, and Brian Stetler of TV Newser: what did you think of Glasser’s statement? Responses here. I like this from Jarvis about the lost miners and the media: “It’s not the news that’s live; it’s the process of figuring out what to believe that’s live.” If you’re not reading The Blogging Journalist (“Munir Umrani’s Weblog on Blogging by Journalists, Citizen Journalists and Pundits in an Era of Changing Media”) perhaps you should be. Steve Outing at Poynter: “Here’s what I think newspaper front-page editors should have done last night: Published an info box accompanying the story pointing people to the paper’s website for updates on the story, and acknowledging that as of the time the paper-edition story was printed, the situation was fluid.” How the LA Times held the presses, and corrected the newspaper. Joan Vennochi, columnist, Boston Globe: Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, blasted off a Wednesday online column that began by describing the incorrect news reports as “one of the most disturbing and disgraceful media performances of this type in recent years.” Later in the day, however, Mitchell deleted the word “disgraceful” — again, one of the luxuries of online journalism versus traditional print. Blogger Chuck Holton was there: Be careful, though, trying to pin the blame for this fiasco on the media. There is a difference between spreading a rumor and reporting that a rumor is spreading. Don’t think so? Try to imagine a scenario where live cameras pointing at the church could have avoided showing the jubilation that erupted there when the despicable rumor began that the twelve were alive. To their credit, the live news people, like CNN, simply reported that they were being told that there were survivors, and continued to report when the Governor gave the rumor an implied - if inadvertent - endorsement with his comment that “miracles do happen.” Murray Waas at Huffington Post: Anderson Cooper and Geraldo Rivera and Bill O’Reilly we know not to trust, however. They, too, have emotions, but there is a promiscuity, and dare say, even a vulgarity, to their emotions. Their tears and anger are displayed so frequently and shared with so many that in the end they become meaningless. Their television shows will move somewhere else, and the families of the Sago miners will be alone—or finally left alone—to grieve. Ex-Portland Communique blogger One True B!X at his new site: “In terms newsies will understand: Why did you run — and run hard — with a story based on information from a single anonymous source?” It’s true, as regards the original source of the information that 12 were alive. No one ever had a name. Hey, check out this Thinker to Watch in 2006. Says Forbes Magazine. Let’s hope their aim is true.
Posted by Jay Rosen at January 5, 2006 12:16 AM
Comments
I don't know. Is it really time to start pointing fingers already? There are twelve grieving families out there. It's important to look at how the story came to be reported in the way that it did, but I don't necessarily think that's where the media's focus should rest at the moment. (not speaking for WaPo, which sort of straddled the fence) Jay, I tried to post this response to your question on the previous thread regarding the variance between Gal Beckerman's piece at CJR Daily and my own thoughts. But it was closed to comment, so I will answer here. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 1:22 AM | Permalink There's a lot of pressure to get that story, get that scoop, get the best quote and a unique angle. And get it like five minutes ago. This has echoes of November 2000 more than of 9/11 -- though the problems of the 24-hour news cycle pervade all these premature headline ejaculations. One thing I noticed on 9/11 was that television journalists were hesitant to exposit on what might or might not be true, and that seemed to be an aftereffect of 2000. That will probably be the case the next time -- but not the time after that. The difference seems to be between those who recognize that there is a problem when news outlets go to press without thoroughly vetted information and those who believe that sometimes you go to press with the sourcing you have, not the sourcing you want. And that that's a perfectly acceptable part of the game.
Posted by: Richard B. Simon at January 5, 2006 1:47 AM | Permalink I don't know. Is it really time to start pointing fingers already? There are twelve grieving families out there. Kinda sounds like many bloggers who have wondered about the press' jump to blame President Bush for...oh...just about anything! :-) But seriously, I don't think this is a question of "blame." I think the situation yesterday DOES raise red flags of concerns, simply because this was NOT the first time the press has chosen to report with lots of emotion and not a lot of verification. We saw it in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, as well - and if it seems like some of us are "jumping" on the press unfairly, it is because there is - at this point - HISTORY, here. It's tough to gather and disseminate news when you're also trying to be dynamic and on the spot, and the cameras never shut down, that's true. But if that is the model of journalism that is being embraced, then it is up to the fourth estate to figure out how to make the model work, or abandon it. As we've seen twice now, reporting unconfirmed information - no matter how innocently it is done - is not really journalism, and these errors are not covering the press with glory, particularly not when (breaking news aside) so many in the press seem to believe that the standard of journalism is, "we make the charge, now you prove us wrong." The narrative must be gotten right, the first time, or it is very unfair to the story subjects - once the memes and stories are out there, it is difficult to correct things. Posted by: The Anchoress at January 5, 2006 1:47 AM | Permalink erik: I'm not the media. "I don't insist that my reporters agree with my take on things." Glad to hear it, Steve. I agree with your reporter. Anchoress: thanks for stopping by. No, no, I didn't mean you specifically, Jay. I'm just concerned that the media's focus will shift too far towards the "what went wrong/who's to blame" side of the story (as it pertains to the information release), potentially at the expense of the real issues raised in the aftermath like the condition of the mine and the questionable circumstances surrounding the incident. That would be adding tragedy to tragedy. I do agree that there's some deserved soul-searching going on in newsrooms across the country, for the record. I would have preferred some further sourcing before going with the initial story, but I also wasn't on the ground there. It's a bad situation all around. I also agree that pointing out that you got a story wrong (you the press, not you the Rosen :P) and trying to explain how is a better plan than claiming you were only reporting what you were told. The former tries to bridge understanding, the latter connotates that journalistic "we-know-better" wall that so irritates the non-MSM. (again, not speaking for WaPo) Steve Lovelady: Delving farther, we find that Dao, obviously writing on deadline, is quite careful to attribute the "12 miners found alive" not just to family members but also to "Joe Thornton, the deputy secretary for the West Virginia Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety." Next we learn that shortly before midnight, Thornton not only declares that the miners are alive, but he embroiders on the story, telling Dao that the 12 survivors are being examined at the mine and will shortly be taken to the hospital ! Aha, I think we've found the problem. To paraphrase Jason, the hapless Mr. Thornton exhibited "an abject failure of military professionalism." Steve, Hmmm...how can I put this gently? Mr. Thornton, as a sharp observer might gather from his title "Assistant secretary," the absence of any indication of military rank, and your own prefix "Mr.," is a civilian. In other words, Mr. Lovelady, he ain't military. But you make a game attempt to slime the profession, just the same. Next time, don't spill so much slime on yourself, in the attempt, mmkay? Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 5, 2006 2:52 AM | Permalink I have to feel a lot more sympathy toward the east coast papers, and almost no sympathy toward the cable news networks. The east coast papers were on deadline, and "everyone" was reporting that the miners had been found alive. As Jay noted in the previous thread, the "story" was at the church, but the information was elsewhere. So CNN plants Anderson Cooper at the church -- that's understandable....but where were the rest of the CNN reporters who should have been at the mines asking the "usual" questions like "when will the miners be able to see their families" and "what hospital will they be taken to?" I don't understand how, if the larger news organizations were doing their jobs in those three hours, that the virtual news blackout from the company during that period did not send off some alarm bells. When the East Coast papers went to press, the story has a small, and not apparently significant hole in it -- no confirmation from the company. But that was the kind of hole that grows as time passes, and after an hour it should have been noticeable, and after two hours it should have been unavoidable. But somehow, Anderson Cooper managed to avoid that hole for another hour. One can literally see the producer sitting in a trailer, saying "nothing from the company yet? Okay, Atlanta says we have 3 minutes before the next break, so have Cooper interview Cousin Buford, then we'll go to commercial..." Re: comparisons to the Katrina coverage --- why is the focus on the reporting of the mayor's estimate of the death toll? This comparison appears to be driven by the bias warriors who are trying to "shoehorn" the failures at Sago into their larger narrative. But there was a lot of "reporting" that was much, much worse --- stories that focussed on the "lawlessness" of the people left at the superdome which turned out to be grossly exaggerated, the story about shot being fired at a rescue helicopter which turned out to be completely untrue but was endlessly repeated..... And these false reports were far more damaging to an accurate perception of what happened in New Orleans---and were endlessly exploited by right wing commenters in what can only be described as "race-baiting". Sure, the mayor got the death toll wrong....but in getting it wrong, he also increased the sense of urgency about a problem that was spiralling out of control because of the inadequate response and unfulfilled promises of FEMA. Nobody knew how many were dead --- but it was possible to "check out" the story of the rescue helicopter that was attacked, and determine it was false -- but that was never done (or if it was, it was not widely disseminated to the Bill O'Reilly's and Brit Hume's of the airwaves.) There was a lot to complain about with regard to the Katrina coverage --- and those who are "cherry picking" from that coverage to score "bias warrior" points here should not be taken seriously when it comes to understanding what happened at Sago. I lose repect for the judgements of people who conclude "bias" as the answer to every criticism in the same way that I discount the opinions of people who see bias as the cause of every mistake. I think these threads have reached equilibrium now. Posted by: kristen at January 5, 2006 8:14 AM | Permalink The miners were supposed to be alive. But for moments, many of them, then hours, the live shots were of people and things which should have been doing stuff if the miners were alive. And the people and things were standing around, or waiting in line--ambulance lights flashing--and then we got to repeating the same shots. ami, typically, goes after the right wing, in the NOLA story. The problem with NOLA's famous unstories is threefold. One, nobody verified the stories. Two, they got endless repeats in the media. (Two sub A) They may have delayed the rescue and relief efforts thanksverymuchguys. Three, the media's retraction is muted and very much driven by blogs. Without the latter, this would be down the memory hole and even more people than now would be remembering the false stories as true. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 8:23 AM | Permalink Steve...."If they come to a different conclusion than mine, as long as they can convince me that they have reported things out, I publish it." Mr. Lovelady, could you expand on this for me, please, (because I'm curious)? Not coming from a "press" background, I have no idea what a typical model is for the relationship between reporter and editor. Are you saying that an editor typically looks at stories from the standpoint of the conclusion they present? Or a better question, what role do conclusions play in a story and what process is in place to distinquish them from opinion on topics that you have no knowledge, for example? (I'm genuinely interested in your thought process here... the "model," so to speak, so please don't prejudge me that I'm heading anywhere particularly.) Posted by: kristen at January 5, 2006 8:24 AM | Permalink I think this is an example of bias (storytelling) in a non-political sense. Therefore I hope we can talk about it without getting into legal analysis or teen-age antics. I think that the press caught wind of something it wanted to hear(the miners are alive, a good thing). It was near press time so that they had to report something. Something had happened, but what happened was in reaction to incorrect information. Instead of offering that the reports were unsubstantiated, they led with the miners are alive. What the press saw was accurate, but the story line (conclusion) was incorrect. The offering of conclusions is where the press (MSM and bloggers) get things wrong, not the facts or the reactions of people. Kudos to those outlets offering explanations of what happened. That is responsible journalism. As a news consumer that is what I expect. I am asking about the "process" here not the result. I do not want to get into the problem of pointing fingers because **it happens and not everyone reacts in a way that is perfect. After all, if the company had thought about the press ramifications they would have announced the deaths earlier. If the newspapers were able the change their headlines more quickly, then less bad headlines would have gone out. If, if, if, if, if. The key here is to analyze the process and figure out how to make it better, not crucify those trying to the best they can. Tim. The point is that if this the best they can do, as you charitably imply, we have a problem. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 8:51 AM | Permalink ami, typically, goes after the right wing, in the NOLA story. The problem with NOLA's famous unstories is threefold. One, nobody verified the stories. Two, they got endless repeats in the media. (Two sub A) They may have delayed the rescue and relief efforts thanksverymuchguys. Richard, I "went after the right wing" because the people who are citing problems with the Katrina coverage talk about only one thing -- the overestimation of the death toll by Mayor Nagin, and the fact that Nagin's estimates were widely reported. You insist that Nagin's estimates should not have been reported until "verified".... how do you "verify" an estimate? Wait until all the bodies are recovered? (and BTW, there are lots of "missing" people whose bodies have not been recovered to this day.) No one criticises the media for estimating death tolls of the Tsunami, or earthquakes, or similar disasters -- even when they turn out to be way off. And I don't see anyone on the right criticizing the vastly exaggerated estimates of the number of bodies found in mass graves in Iraq (let alone the consistent mischaracterization of who was found in those graves...the largest mass grave that has been found is full of Iraqi soldiers who mutinously participated in the 1991 uprising against Saddam. Even here in America, we authorize summary execution for mutiny on the battlefield.) The point being that the right consistently tries to create the impression of media bias by emphasizing only those mistakes that appear to work in favor of the "liberal" agenda -- while ignoring the errors that support the "conservative" agenda, and "neutral" errors. The mistakes made at Sago are only remotely connected to those made with the coverage of Katrina --- its like saying that Wombats are like Kangaroos; sure, they are both marsupials, but were talking two very different animals here. Trying to tie the Katrina mistakes into the Sago mistakes doesn't make a lot of sense, and it makes even less sense to constantly harp on Nagin's death estimates to make any kind of point about what happened at Sago. If, if, if, if, if. The key here is to analyze the process and figure out how to make it better, not crucify those trying to the best they can. Tim, I don't think its a problem with the "process" of news-gathering. Its a problem of deciding what constitutes "news". Why was Aaron Brown replaced by Anderson Cooper? Why was Cooper dispatched to Sago....instead of to DC to cover the Abramoff indictments? Those are the real questions, because as long as the cable channels see Sago as the place where "the big story" is, and the rest of the media allows the cable channels to set the "news agenda", "fixing the process" is rather pointless. Does this have to be another bias discussion? Editors across the country are explaining themselves today, including Marty Baron of the Boston Globe, Len Downie of the Washington Post, David Shribman of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. But at the New York Times it's spokesman Toby Usnik. Katharine Seelye's article had no quotes from any editor at her newspaper. Another aspect of all of this that come to my mind is the hill that the media stand on vs news blogger. The hill is that "we check our facts and they are just opinion" Posted by: Robert Paterson at January 5, 2006 9:39 AM | Permalink Richard That IS my point. The problem is not with the actors it is with the script. When I mention bias I am not talking about the bias of any particular person or organization. I am talking about the bias the process of reporting the news brings. Each technology brings it own bias of speed of delivery, accuracy of information and the cost of obtaining and delivering of information. This triangle is prevelant in ALL corporate projects, not just news gathering and reporting. The problem in this case seems to be timing of the event. Many newspaper organizations were put in no-win situation and looked really bad. Ami. I already answered how to report Nagin's statement. "The numbers left in the areas under the worst threat after evacation is not known." Etc. The right focuses on a number of things about NOLA, including the media's uncritical assumption that the worst stories about blacks were so likely to be true that they didn't have to be checked. Nagin's blunder is simply the easiest to get into one sentence, but is not considered as egregious as some of the other stuff. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 10:01 AM | Permalink Newsgathering in competitive, confusing, fluid and tense situations is an imperfect process. We perceive that imperfection as minor or major, based on how things turn out, and we evaluate the performance of the "men in the arena" (sorry, couldn't resist the irony) based on whatever press-think we tend to apply to the conduct of news media. Which means we're going to disagree on things, and I've got zero problem with that. What I would caution against are the inevitable bold, simple, macho solutions. We're full of 'em -- in fact, whenever there's a screw up, you can pretty much count on top news executives to come out a few days later with some rock-ribbed proclamation about how we're going to return to the old verities, followed by a promise to "our" readers/viewers that you'll never again see this mistake again at MY newspaper/news channel/website/radiostation/blog. And inevitably, the solution has something to do with how we're going to rein-in our decision-making so that bad information never moves anywhere via us. The solution, it seems, is always greater control. But these solutions never really fix the problem. Maybe you don't get the same error in the same way, but life is chaotic -- it gives you new errors in similar ways. The problem is that our control over these situations, as newsgatherers and evaluators, is limited. So when we bluster about how we're going to prevent this or that from ever happening again, we might be well-intentioned, but we're promising control we really don't have. This is particularly touchy for daily newspapers. TV beats us on immediacy and emotion. The Web beats us on depth and context. The Blogosphere beats us for interactivity and the need to talk about what has happened. This leaves us selling two things: 1. We're the easiest medium to read (unless your carrier tossed your morning edition in a puddle); 2. We have editors who take great pains to bring you the accurate, complete story. We can continue promising the illusion of control over modern global mass-broadcast-networked media, or we can acknowledge its unprecedented features and start building new verities, applying the spirit of the old verities in more effective and useful ways. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 10:13 AM | Permalink Dan: If I had one, you could run my newspaper anytime. Posted by: Jay Rosen at January 5, 2006 10:23 AM | Permalink And as to official sources, your evaluation about those sources is likely to be based on two things: 1. Your feelings about the official; 2. Your attitude toward authority. Official sources do not tell the truth. They manage information. Doing so is often responsible, maybe even commendable. It can also be manipulative, dishonest and motivated by factors other than any reasonable ideal of public interest. Hiding behind official sourcing is a trick that media lawyers love, but it isn't the same thing as trying to get at the truth. We like to think the truth is clean, but the truth is messy. It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Which is why, 20 years from now, when historians write about what really happened in 2005, they still won't agree. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 10:23 AM | Permalink Daniel. Good words. The LAT ran an article on federal dogs--issues of wolves and endangered species--replete with howlers, dated APRIL FIRST, which was a hoax. Not a deliberately planted false story aimed at burning the LAT but a piece of stuff somebody put out on the web for fun and which was discovered by the LAT. In your opinion, is the unavoidable number of examples that editors miss a few higher than, lower than, or about the same as is necessary to retain the confidence in the papers? You have to remember the reader's question: If they get this many things wrong that I catch, how many more do they screw up that I don't catch? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 10:26 AM | Permalink
Great tough question. My soundbite answer is "Compared to what?" Compared to what we'll know next week? Twenty years from now? No. Compared to other media in real time? Yes. Because I don't think the issue is ultimately the editors, but the task, and I don't think most other media do that task better. But they often have better tools. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 10:50 AM | Permalink ami:
False. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 5, 2006 11:07 AM | Permalink Dan, It is the illusion of control that gets newspapers in trouble. As you have pointed out newpapers have certain advantages and disadvantages as a news delivery system. In my mind the mining story is a great example of those advantages and disadvantages. The "problem" cannot be fixed (or controlled), it can only be better managed. I can't help but point out that Jay Rosen would put Dan Conover in charge of his newspaper and Steve Lovelady would put Dave McLemore in charge of his. I'm sure that says something about the thinking of these two media critics. That might be an interesting PressThink Q&A. Perhaps questions posed to all four, or two at a time? Questions from each other to each other? It's good to see media outlets wrestling with the initially false reports and opening the process a bit for view. It may not be a pretty picture but it's a necessary one. As I've said earlier, I fall into the camp that this is a terrible mistake that happened because of perfectly understandable reasons. I don't see this as a most grievous sin of journalism nor do I see it as some here as evidence of the media's lack of credibility. A bad thing happened and it will likely happen again, given the realities of 21st Century journalism. We are a painfully imperfect structure, journalism. That said, I see signs that the rush to judgment is starting to alter a bit. The Boston Globe reports that Greg Mitchell, editor of Editor & Publisher, deleted the world 'disgraceful' from its on-line editions one day after tearing journalism a new one over incorrect reporting, which he labeled "one of the most disturbing and disgraceful media performances of this type in recent years." Mitchell told the Globe his first take was, perhaps, a bit hasty, acknowledging that, 'until the journalists on the scene recount their personal timetable and confirming sources, it is risky to draw conclusions about the quality of the journalism.' There will, as some editors have said, be a push for reporters to push a little harder and seek out more detail, more fact. And that's a good thing for all of us. Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 5, 2006 11:23 AM | Permalink Dan said: We like to think the truth is clean, but the truth is messy. It's like trying to nail Jell-O to a wall. Which is why, 20 years from now, when historians write about what really happened in 2005, they still won't agree. I agree with much of what Dan posted except the above assertion. In a few months this would have largely faded from the public's collective memory. 20-years from now, when historians talk about 2006, this would at best be a footnote. This is a non-issue, as painful as the consequences may have been to the families. I may not be well-enough informed to say this, but the immediate families of the miners were, in all likelihood, not getting their news from the TV circus or the newspaper accounts. If they were, then the media may have inadvertently contributed towards some of their pain. For many others, the story is like watching a reality show (or a movie even) with a lot of emotional ups and downs and an ending with a twist. For these media consumers, the value proposition may have even exceeded that which could have been possible from a pure truth based narrative. Could it have been handled by the Press better? of-course, but that answer is true, in various degrees, of 99% of press coverage. Are the shortcomings intentional, or caused by some bias? clearly not. So let us move on to more substantive issues and stop barking up the wrong tree (says he, hopefully!:)). For the various Editors and Publishers and other mediapersons out in force flogging this, one has a suspicion that this is an easy one to own up, appear to indulge in self-examination, and show remorse and contrition, all of which is nice to see, but one wishes that the issue involved was more substantive. Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 12:32 PM | Permalink vi: when i spoke about 2005, i meant the big stories -- iraq, GWOT, "web 2.0", etc. i think we'll be arguing over those things just like we're still arguing over vietnam. i agree that the 12alive/12dead story will be a footnote, except in texts for emergency communications management. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 12:41 PM | Permalink Village. Nice to know you think it wasn't a matter of bias or deliberation. The question is why people should believe what they read in the papers and, in that context, the reason for the mistake is utterly irrelevant. Hmm. Contrarian thought here. If the media made fewer boneheaded mistakes, the agenda-pushing, bias-fueled stuff would stand out in greater relief. Couldn't say, when caught, oops, we do this all the time, nothing personal. Hmmm mmm. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 12:42 PM | Permalink In the last paragraph of my post above, the opening should read, "As for the ...." instead of "For the ...." Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 12:42 PM | Permalink Just to be clear: Richard, are you suggesting that having sloppy non-political coverage somehow serves as a way of hiding the media's secret liberal agenda? And that our puppetmasters are somehow doing this deliberately? Because I just want to be clear about what those "Hmmmms" meant, and whether you're just kidding (sorta). Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 12:47 PM | Permalink Dan, Now that you point out how you meant it, it is clear that I misunderstood; Sorry. Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 12:51 PM | Permalink Village. Nice to know you think it wasn't a matter of bias or deliberation. Irrelevant. Thanks for reinforcing my own thought. I always knew I was irrelevant. Otherwise, I would have designed the universe a bit differently; a lot less anthropic selection dependent! Posted by: villageidiot at January 5, 2006 1:09 PM | Permalink Occasionally Richard will observe on the news media chronic inability to get ever the simplest things right, and the total cluelessness of reporters and editors. But even that is part of devotion to a single proposition--the "agenda-pushing, bias-fueled stuff"--which is by now almost pathological. There isn't any subject but that subject. No discussion that isn't that discussion. When are participants going to figure that out? He's here for one obsessive reason. To drill "the agenda-pushing, bias-fueled stuff" into your mind because he thinks the offenders are present and he can finally get them to face it. I hate it. I have no idea how to make it stop. But I wish it would stop. Meanwhile, the rest of you should wise up. This error was a good-faith error: Official sources were saying the miners were alive, on the record, and families were confirming they'd been told they were alive. What would constitute "checking" or confirming" an official report followed by a clearly visible secondary impact of the alleged good news? Would a reporter be required to talk to the survivors to confirm they are alive? This one doesn't fit into any convenient mold of sloppiness or egregiousness or recklessness, at least not the first reports. After an hour of silence, yeah, I'd get itchy, but for all I know so were the reporters on the scene. They could have been yammering away asking for more, but then at what point does the little voice inside that says "this is all wrong" convert into sending a publishable report that, indeed, this is all wrong, especially if the same official source responsible for the error is now silent? Two hours? Not bad. The timing of this magnified its effects. Situations change all day long, and so do stories -- for a lot of east coast newspapers, the story solidified and was reported at the same time the papers went to press. Had it happened at midday instead of late at night, two things might have happened: 1. the correct information might simply have been reported in several hundred morning newspapers; 2. a sidebar on the pain caused by false official information earlier in the cycle would have been produced. (We didn't report the wrong news, but that, again, was simply because we had the accurate news from the AP at the right time for our publication schedule.) I'm the last guy to defend journalism as it is too often practiced today, but this incident doesn't lend itself to any pattern. At least part of the cause is architectural -- timing caused by the processes involved in producing print newspapers. That has always been a concern. And some of the criticism -- listen to yourselves, folks, you're criticizing "mainstream media" for embracing what everyone thought was good news? Yikes. I'm quite sure there are better examples around which any amount of sanctimony and indignation can be mustered. Bill Watson Posted by: Bill Watson at January 5, 2006 1:16 PM | Permalink Daniel. I don't know that the mistakes are on purpose. As everybody says around here, they just happen. The result is that the actual, purposeful trash has a bodyguard and a ready-made excuse. Let's presume a perfect world in journalism where boneheaded errors never happen. That means the only misrepresentations that happen are deliberate. So, when the Plame thing shakes out, the journos couldn't say, we made a mistake in thinking--innocently--that she was a covert agent. Because mistakes don't happen. I don't think anybody needs to decree mistakes. There are plenty without management taking an interest. I am contemplating one possible result of a massive reduction in the number of boneheaded mistakes. You could, if you want to continue this line of thought, insist the media never, ever misrepresent on purpose. Nobody ever inserts stuff into a soldier's column to make it look the opposite of what he said. Stuff like that doesn't happen. Or you could go along with this and think about what would happen if the oops--we had a procedural error--excuse is obsolete because there are no more procedural errors. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 1:17 PM | Permalink You just can't make this stuff up! While the NYTimes accepts no responsibility for bad reporting, today's editorial found someone to blame for the miner's deaths-----George Bush! I knew if there was any way to tie this tragedy to GWB, the Times would find a way to do it. Additionally, they find a way to tie Sago with the "race and poverty" master narrative of Katrina, even though this angle has mostly been discredited. The New York Times has become a cartoon. Too hilarious! Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 5, 2006 1:23 PM | Permalink Kristen: Don't take me, or the writers who work for me, as "a typical model for the relationship between reporter and editor." Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 1:25 PM | Permalink What is most interesting to me is that all of the "mea culpas" and assorted commentary on what happened with this story is coming from the print media. I just checked the CNN, MSNBC, and FOXNews websites, and none of them seem to acknowledge that there was any problem with their reporting. Yet these were the people who were supposedly the one to come to for "up-to-the-minute" information --- and when information was not forthcoming from the mine company, they should have been the first to take notice.... The print media is explaining the screw up in terms of "what we did, and why we did it, and where we may have gone wrong". The cable networks are explaining it solely in terms of what the company knew, when it knew it, and when it finally released the information. The print media is to be commended for its efforts to explain and understand "what went wrong" --- the cable channels -- not so much. Or, really, not at all. Oops! Forgot to add the link so everyone can join the hilarity. http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/05/opinion/05thu1.html?pagewanted=print Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 5, 2006 1:31 PM | Permalink This must be one of my blind spots. (We all have them -- even Richard. Even Jason.) Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 1:38 PM | Permalink Steve: The issue is why the press was reporting they're alive. There was no official announcement to that effect. Those who made the unofficial statements weren't questioned about how they knew. Those who saw nothing happening when something should have been happening (ambulances, etc.) did not twig. It's not even a matter of reporting an erroneous official report without verification or caveat. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 1:56 PM | Permalink Jumping off what Dan said... I don't read my newspaper for breaking news on this kind of story. Newspapers aren't the best source for this kind of national, tumultuous story. I don't imagine there are two many newspaper readers left who don't use either radio, tv, or the net to suppliment their newspaper reading. Those other media cover this type of story much much better than the newspaper. Dan has a good handle on what newspapers do well - a modicum of thoughtful analysis, a fairly timely product, backed up by a column of accuracy. Newspapers can afford to fail to give us indepth, contextualized coverage of a specific issue. And they can afford to be a little late on scoops like these. What they can't afford is to be wrong with any regularity. The way I see it, a lot of editors still have the wrong priorities. (I get that being scooped in the newspaper world is still an issue but I think it's got more relevency with the slow burning stories.) Posted by: Mavis Beacon at January 5, 2006 2:08 PM | Permalink pardon the atrocious spelling Posted by: Mavis Beacon at January 5, 2006 2:11 PM | Permalink So, tell me -- how is this even a press issue ?? it depends upon what you mean by "press issue" to me, its not a "here's another chance to bash the MSM" press issue. rather its a "chance to reflect upon the impact of technological advances on journalism" press issue, and (IHMO, most importantly) a "chance to reflect on how the ethos of the 24 hour news-o-tainment channels is being adopted by the rest of the journalistic establishment" press issue. Good lord, Lovelady, get a clue. The press is fighting for it's life. Their approval rating is at the 28% mark. If it turns out that the NYTimes has broken laws and harmed national security, press approval will plunge into the teens. The press has been shown, time after time, to advance false (fake but accurate) information in the quest for ratings? agenda? power? dumb, but well meaning?--- fill in the blank. The list of phoney press-generated scandals is long. Of course, the dimwits go with "we didn't do anything wrong" and point the finger and play the blame game in order to divert attention. But the press has played that game too long and too hard. At some point the piper must be paid. Some are getting a clue, and some are Lovelady. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 5, 2006 2:15 PM | Permalink The media reported no official statement, referred to none, passed along rumors as truth. --Aubrey. Not true, Richard. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 2:34 PM | Permalink Steve, Do you believe everything you hear as long as it comes from someone with a job title longer than your bibliography? Or do you consider where he's been and whether or not he might be talking out of his *ss? I don't think it's a reporter's role to be a rubber stamp. If the morgue is in the hospital, the assistant secretary actually may have been correct. Posted by: Jason Van Steenwyk at January 5, 2006 2:44 PM | Permalink On a lighter note (the human interest side of the Pressthink community!): The way Abigail goes at Steve, it sounds as if the two have a history. Is it just on these forums (it sounds too colorful for that), or does it extend beyond the cyberspace?:-) Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 2:48 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady asks: "How is this a Press Issue? Village Idiot offered a useful insight when he reflected that the function of the Sago story was not to provide information--"the immediate families of the miners were, in all likelihood, not getting their news from the TV circus or the newspaper accounts"--but to provide drama--"a reality show (or a movie even) with a lot of emotional ups and downs and an ending with a twist." It is undeniable that a huge component of the mix of story types that comprise the entire journalistic enterprise is the "story"--used in both its journalistic and its narrative sense--whose power is not to inform us but to move our emotions. Damsel In Distress stories of Beautiful Missing White Women are so popular because of their emotive impact not as a social issue. Think of the frequent trope used to validate a story--that it has the same major plot line as a movie. Would the runaway bride have been such a big story if it were no labelable as the Runaway Bride? Would Farris Hassan's Baghdad adventure have been as newsworthy if it could not be tagged Farris' Day Off? The primetime news magazines of the broadcast TV networks use the rubric of journalism to recycle non-fiction plots from soap operas and true crime confidentials. This is how we understand why the cable news channels were staked out in West Virginia. They were not deployed as neutral observers ready to report whatever eventuality occured. They had a rooting interest in the money headline, the happy ending. It is inconceivable that they would have made the contrary mistake--erroneously trumpeting mass fatalities only to be told three hours later that the crew of miners had survived. Technically, in journalism rules, their mistake consisted not of repeating the reports of survival, but in dropping the "reportedly." This seemingly small mistake is explained by the overarching pressure for a feelgood miracle headline. The last time I remember the dropping of the "reportedly" so nakedly used to shoehorn the unknown events of a story into a preconceived heroic narrative was in the matter of Jessica Lynch, where the pressure yo produce an Appalachian Amazon was so intense that the facts did really get in the way. Posted by: Andrew Tyndall at January 5, 2006 2:53 PM | Permalink So true, vi---Lovelady done me wrong. Posted by: Abigail Beecher at January 5, 2006 3:04 PM | Permalink Ami. I didn't see any referral to the official statement until later. The question is not, I repeat, the insider stuff and how the reasons can be explained are not the issues. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 3:32 PM | Permalink Is there a difference between the Judy Miller defense that her official sources got it wrong on WMD and those defending their miracle stories based on official "quotes" from the wire services of AP and NYT?
"Because you see what you wanna see. And you hear what you wanna hear. Dig?" -- The Rock Man, Harry Nilsson's The Point, 1971. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 3:46 PM | Permalink Daniel. And are you saying they don't talk about it as part of the job? And do you think none have commented that that's the difference between them and bloggers? Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 3:55 PM | Permalink Well, what I thought was interesting enough for a post is what's, er, um, in the post. Some editors think "explaining" to readers means to explain why the reporting was accurate, if unfortunate. (As in: The governor said twelve were alive and we reported in accurately.) Others try to wrestle with why the reporting was untrue, if accurate. (As in: High standards for documentation weren't met.) Not that anyone has to discuss the post or anything. Bad analogy; Judy Miller willfully ignored controverting evidence and cherry-picked what she told her readers. Please check this lengthy paper by David Albright But I am sure you already knew this. Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 4:01 PM | Permalink Well, Jay, if we're not discussing this in a large steel drum, then we have outside issues to consider. Which implies an improvement may come? Which, and this is what I think is most important, is most likely to keep the reader satisfied with the paper or station in question? It doesn't really matter what journalists think of each other's excuses. It really doesn't. Posted by: Richard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 4:12 PM | Permalink Gee, vi, I still think it's a great analogy. You could, of course, try to argue that there was no controverting evidence at the mine. That the media wasn't cherrypicking the story. You could try to explain the differences between the "not my fault, officials got it wrong" echo. But I am sure you already knew this. Richard: I'm just trying to figure out where you keep hearing all this self-congratulating going on. And bigshots don't count. They're in the media celebrity game, not the journalism trade. Remember the five phases of a military operation: 1. Enthusiasm; 2. Disillusionment; 3. The Search for the Guilty; 4. The Punishment of the Innocent; and 5. Praise and Honors for the Non-Participants. It applies to civilian institutions as well. Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 4:26 PM | Permalink Tragedies at Sago mine rock W.Va., world The New York Times reported Wednesday that Joe Thornton, deputy secretary of the state Department of Military Affairs and Public Safety, told reporters shortly after midnight that the rescued miners were being examined at the mine and would soon be taken to hospitals. If this is true, West Virginians surely want to know how such a terrible mistake was made. If it's not true, then people will have less trust in the national media that parachute in during disasters. All this insistence on holding the story until you have further independent confirmation (even if you're two minutes from deadline) would be bracing -- were it not coming from the same voices who in another context repeatedly whine that reporters don't take what officaldom says at face value, and instead try to dig deeper than the "official" explanation from a Rumsfeld or a Cheney or a Rice. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 4:43 PM | Permalink Yep. Ironic, isn't it? All these bloggers calling for the MSM to exercise greater control because of a screw-up no amount of journalistic control could have prevented. I haven't heard any bloggers saying "You know, we need to check stuff out more before we post it." Posted by: Daniel Conover at January 5, 2006 4:48 PM | Permalink Steve Lovelady: The other is, if it's midnight, and the presses roll at 12:01 am, you go with what you got, however unsatisfactory or fragmentary it may be. Funny, where is the miracle at the mine story that said, "this is unsatisfactory and fragmentary, but it's what we had when the presses rolled." That part of the story came after the "ALIVE!" headlines, didn't it? Wouldn't want to confuse meta-reporting with strong headlines. Abigail, Abigail, what did I do ? Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 4:52 PM | Permalink Okay, Dan. You got me. Journalists don't congratulate themselves. It only sounds like self-congratulation. My mistake. Anyway, as long as anybody in journalism thinks stuff should be checked out, the mine story is a failure because it was not checked out. Steve. The difference is that in the blogosphere it works. Posted by: RIchard Aubrey at January 5, 2006 4:53 PM | Permalink You're dealing with press hate here, Steve and Dan. (Hatred of, that is) Expecting it to be logical--or proving it isn't--are both dubious comment acts. I liked Andrew Tyndall's observation: "The primetime news magazines of the broadcast TV networks use the rubric of journalism to recycle non-fiction plots from soap operas and true crime confidentials." I would add that "news" from that perspective is an attractive programming option because the production costs are born by reality, as it were. You don't have to pay a Jessica Lange or Jeff Bridges their going rates. You just film the grieving families and they get zippo. Big cost differential. Steve. The difference is that in the blogosphere it works .... At some blogs [like this one, for the most part] it works, Richard. Posted by: Steve Lovelady at January 5, 2006 5:12 PM | Permalink Bah. Posted by: The One True b!X at January 5, 2006 5:23 PM | Permalink That part of the story came after the "ALIVE!" headlines, didn't it? Wouldn't want to confuse. Nope. The family celebration and ecstatic cries of 'they're alive,' came first. Live and on the air, as it were. There's plenty of time lines out there, Sisyphus. It' clear followed the families, not vice versa.
Here's the part so many here have glossed over - hell, ignored. The reporting continued. Some stayed up; others were reached hours later by editors and began making phone calls. That's a point that the non-journalist critics don't comprehend: the news is on-going. This is especially true of breaking events, like mine disasters, hurricanes and elections. You keep reporting, adding fresh detail and correcting errors. At the mines, three hours after the celebration, CNN got the news live - again - when a woman walked up and told Anderson Cooper the 12 were dead. Now, key question: should he have shooed her away, not reported that bit of info and waited until he could get official confirmation? Right, Richard? Posted by: Dave McLemore at January 5, 2006 5:24 PM | Permalink Sisyphus said: You could, of course, try to argue that there was no controverting evidence at the mine. That the media wasn't cherrypicking the story. And from page 17 first paragraph of the linked document: The Truth Starts to Emerge You probably have already read this and satisfied yourself that this does not meet your cherry-picking threshold. It does for me. I am posting it here so other readers can also read and come to their own conclusions. Posted by: village idiot at January 5, 2006 5:27 PM | Permalink vi, for some reason you think you have to prove to me that Miller was a dupe? How does proving that |
Print