Miscommunication vs Irresponsible Reporting

"The man who reads nothing at all is better educated than the man who reads nothing but newspapers." -- Thomas Jefferson

Yesterday, I posted a little bit about the story of the 12 miners first reported alive but later discovered to be dead due to a "miscommunication". My position was that the journalists covering the story were irresponsible in not verifying the veracity of their reports.

Blogger buddy ER, whom I respect immensely, and is in the newspaper business, had this to say:

"...don't confuse the idiots on cable "news" shows with journalism. TV "news" has sucked since Murrow died. There's a REASON for news editors, and TV producers are NOT editors in the journalistic sense.

You will not find me defending anything any TV "news" organization does."

With that in mind, I now inform you that at this very minute, I am holding in my youthful looking, pudgy little 54 year old hands, a copy of the "Hagerstown Morning Herald" which is the local newspaper for these parts. The headlines blare, in approximately 36 point type, "12 W.Va Miners found alive". Unless I miss my guess, this is a newspaper.

Interestingly enough, when preparing to write this post, I went to the Herald Mail website (The Morning Herald is the morning version of the Herald Mail) and I found the story, with a slight alteration. Now the same newspaper reads, "Tragic reversal -- 12 dead in W.Va. mine explosion"

No where in the revised story is there a hint of "oops, our bad." miscommunication? Hardly. Arrogance? You bet.

Actually, the subsequent information that came filtering through in regard to the story indicates that the miscommunication was a result of a code that was devised to keep the main base apprised on the progress of the rescue efforts. Apparently, the rescuers imparted the information to base camp that there were 12 men dead, but the base understood the exact opposite. Nothing but a simple misunderstanding. Perhaps they should have made sure all concerned understood the code sufficiently. Whatever.

So, the rescue team, the CEO of the mine company, the spokesman, the family members, even the Governor of the great state of West Virginia get a pass on this one.

But the journalists still don't.

Why am I being so hard on the media, you might ask?

Because the press has an obligation to the public to get the information accurate. They cannot afford to rely on rumors, misinformation, unreliable sources, or supposition. It is their responsibility to make sure the information they are dispersing to the public is verified. To do less is to end up in the embarrassing situation that they find themselves in today.

They know their job, and part of that job is making sure they are reporting the news accurately.

How difficult would it have been to hold off on the reporting of this story until they had made absolutely certain that there could not possibly be any mistakes? When the ambulance was loaded and sent off to the hospital with the survivor, couldn't have some enterprising reporter simply asked one of the men who carried the survivor out of the mine if there were any others?

Lone Ranger, another blogger buddy who is also a journalist, has, in his blog, admitted to being embarrassed for his profession because of this story. I have always respected him, but now I respect him all the more for having the guts to admit that his profession made a colossal blunder. "It takes a big man to admit mistakes", my mother always said.

On the other hand, remember Dan Rather and Mary Mapes and the story that was based on forged documents? Believe it or not, they still insist the information in those forged documents is accurate. That is the epitome of arrogance. I guess Dan Rather is not a big man.

Then there was the stories that were reported during the Hurricane Katrina disaster that were mostly based on rumors, not facts. Not verified. One rumor that got reported was that there was cannibalism going on there. That was, on the surface, under the surface, and deep below the surface, ludicrous.

There are other examples but I don't want to make this post much longer than it already is, so I'll leave the reader to do his own research.

One other observation here. Has anyone else noticed that the press calls this little embarrassment the result of "miscommunication", but they call the faulty pre war intelligence (which I still insist is unproven) "lies" ?

What is the difference? Well, for one thing, we know for a undisputed fact that 12 miners are dead, and they were originally reported as alive. We do not know for an undisputed fact that there was no WMD in Iraq.

It would seem to me that the miscommunication would more likely be characterized a lie than the pre war intel. After all, the story of the mine explosion is 100% verifiable, yet the press decided not to verify it in their eagerness to "get the story out". Whether WMD exists is, so far, unverifiable.

Wait. Maybe if FOX news and Newsmax reports it, it is a lie, but if the NYT does, it is miscommunication. Yeah, that's it. I think I have it figured out now.