On The Media’s Sudden Focus On Mine Safety
Suddenly, the issue of mine safety is all the rage in the news media. It isn’t unusual for issues that are seemingly neglected for months (or decades) to be suddenly pitchforked into the headlines when…an event suddenly pitchforks it into the headlines.
And that raises some issues, as Arriana Huffington writes:
So last night, suddenly, after the tragic second collapse at the Utah mine, there was a dramatic shift in the TV coverage of the story. All at once, faux folksy mining boss Bob Murray, who had been everywhere, was nowhere to be found (even sending in a junior executive to handle this morning’s press conference). In his place, at long last, were actual scientists, and experts on mine safety and the workings of the Mine Safety and Health Administration. Bush mine safety czar Richard “Recess Appointment” Stickler was also absent last night, and did not appear again until this morning’s press conference.
So many questions were finally being asked. Prompting one more: What took so long? Why did it take a tragic second collapse before the Murray and Strickler PR Show was finally replaced by actual journalism?
Why did it take until this morning for CNN to finally run a chyron saying “Safety of Rescue Operation Debated”? For 12 days, there was precious little debate about why the mine had collapsed in the first place, or about the safety of the rescue operation — which was, by law, in the hands of Stickler, another “heck of a job” Bush special, a coal industry insider who couldn’t even win the approval of a GOP-controlled Senate.
Coal miners, we are told, operate under a code similar to the Marines: no one gets left behind. So there is little doubt that the rescuers would have done everything in their power to try to save their fellow miners. But might last night’s tragic outcome have been avoided if the media watchdogs had been asking tougher questions from the start?
There’s a lot more so read her whole post.
I’m one of several people here at TMV who have a background in the news media, and here are some of my humble thoughts (the others may have some of their own):
(1) There is a follow-the-leader mentality in the news media. Just as the popularity of the blog/news website memeorandum has helped bloggers see what others are writing about so many adjust their must-write lists accordingly, much of the media has often taken its lead to what one or two key media outlets wrote about. It meant it was IMPORTANT if they wrote on such and such. In the past this the New York Times, but that is changing.
(2) Newspapers and editors make choices but as we see here in the middle of a tragedy perhaps other choices could have contributed to the common good. With only X amount of reporters and X amount of time, which stories to you do? Usually, these days, the ones with huge audience appeal. Turn on cable TV and you’re getting huge chunks of time on the mine story. Two months ago it would have been hard to sell editors a story on mine safety.
(3) There has long been an hyperactive character to the American press, perhaps more so than in other countries. When I lived in India and Spain I was always struck by how much more ABOUT THE WORLD citizens who read those newspapers could find out by reading them. It’s harder to find ISSUES and news beyond political horse-races, offbeat news stories and crime in major newspapers. So subjects are picked up, done until there isn’t a drop of a new twist to wring out of the story, then a new one comes along that everyone jumps on and beats to death.
(4) This raises the issue of how weblogs can help. Some in the mainstream media do read weblogs. But, aside from that, there is authentic value in weblog posts touching on subjects that are NOT always listed in memeorandum and not the same ones everyone else is writing about.
So, yes, the news media could have helped early by doing more news coverage on mine safety because shining a light on problems would have had anyone connected with mine safety scrambling from out from under their rocks as media attention (such as a nice long 60 Minute piece) focused on them. And we are in the silly season an election season so politicos would have had an issue to explore as well.
Ms. Huffington ends her piece with this:
So why wasn’t the focus on workplace safety the focus of the media from Day One?
It shouldn’t have taken the deaths of 3 miners for those covering the story to have gotten that message.
The answer:
It wasn’t the focus since not everyone else was doing it yet…
6 Responses to “On The Media’s Sudden Focus On Mine Safety”
Let me add a 5th point: the public simply does not care. let’s see- before this was the Mpls bridge collapse- what? When’d that happen? before that was wildfires and flooding. What’jou talkin’ ’bout Willis? Before that it was Cho going aspeshit.
People don’t care about mine safety any more than they care about global warming, as long as their Ipods and blackberries can insulate them.
Same w elections. People always complain of the asses elected, yet never say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’se elected the asses.’
Allow me to also add some points:
1. There is no longer any factual or historical context. Events happen in an eternal “now,” allowing whoever has the microphone to set the terms of the story with little or no rebuttal. To do anything else would mean anchoring the story in data no one’s had a chance to spin. In today’s stenographic ‘journalism,’ putting anything in the story other than what official spokepersons tell you is considered ‘bias.’
2. The reporters themselves have no technical background in what they’re covering; or, if they do, they still only repeat what official spokespersons say. They don’t contradict the official story. That, too, is considered ‘bias.’
3. Once there are official spokespersons, reporters don’t look for other sources. It doesn’t matter if the official person is a flack whose every word is compromised; s/he is official, and therefore credible. No one else is.
3a. The collection of official spokespersons and high-ranking flacks comprises the Permanent Rolodex. Reporters go back to their trusty Permanent Rolodex whenever they need a comment, or background, on a story. It doesn’t matter if the sources in the Permanent Rolodex are compromised, inaccurate, or outright liars. They’re still the only go-tos. No one else gets heard.
Casey- good pts 6-9.
Joe notes that the primary motivator in determining news coverage now is determined
And why is that? Sing along now…”Profit, profit, uber alles.”. The things that make for good journalism are ranked at most in second place in corporate news. Advertising is number one, bad news that makes for big audiences is number two, not insulting the really big advertisers too much is third…can anyone think of what else comes ahead of good journalism at those corporations?
This story merits more attention than missing “blonde girls” in foreign countries.
But Rudi, blond girls in distress are ‘sexy.’ Dead middle-aged men under the earth stink, literally. They don’t fit the demographics.