I finished reading Out of Africa this evening while the light dimmed and the sun bowed its head to the inevitability of night.

Let’s come to the table and talk – Seriously folks, I want a discussion here.
In this age of instant information we have been able to watch the families of the West Virginia miners sit vigil, experience the jubilation of a hope fulfilled and descend into grief and anger after the initial report of the miner’s survival was found to be incorrect.
I watched the story unfold on the 24-hour news networks. For around two hours the networks relayed the unconfirmed reports that the miners were alive. One source from the Red Cross said that she first heard the initial report when she was contacted by a media outlet. After hearing this report, she made her way to the mine site.
It is now being reported that no official source relayed the report of survival to the families, but that they received the information from a mine employee via a cell phone.
My questions to journalists and non-journalists are the following:
1)Do journalists bear any responsibility for the information failure that occurred during the mine tragedy?
2)If so, did the pressure to bring the most recent, if not accurate, information to the public, thus keeping pace with their competitors in the news market contribute to the continued relaying of false information?
3)What safeguards could journalists have put in place to guard against the spread of inaccurate information?
4)Many of the on-site reporters spoke of the “euphoria” that swept through the crowd. Do journalists have a responsibility to not be swept up in the enthusiasm? That is, should journalists distance themselves emotionally in order to report cautiously and clearly?
5)Does a reporter’s emotional involvement in a story contribute or lead to shoddy reporting?
6)Journalists were not allowed close to the church or close to the mine site. Should they have had greater access to the site of the story? Would this have made a difference in how the story was reported?
Enough questions? I won’t ask anyone to answer them without answering myself.

1)Yes, I believe the press bears some culpability for the spread of misinformation. In one instance last night, I watched the news networks go from reporting the likely identity of the first miner that was found, to reporting as though it had been confirmed the identity of the miner. It was my impression that as one network reported the likely, but unconfirmed identity of the first miner that the other networks simply “borrowed” the reporting from other media outlets. Eventually, it was reported as coming from the AP even though the niece of the miner was still saying that the identity had not yet been confirmed. It is my impression that this spread of information from network to network happened multiple times last night, despite the lack of official confirmation from the mine company or the governor of the reports of survivors. As one network reported information, other networks seemed to pick it up as well.

2)There is a tremendous race by the news outlets to be the first with information. This is seen quite clearly in the broadcast side of things. Unfortunately, the race to be first in the market with a story sometimes leads to the reporting of inaccurate information. (Such as when Fox News and other outlets called the state of Florida before all the polls were closed in the 2000 election). I believe the race to be first also leads to the great amount of speculation and interpretation that occurs on the news networks in order to maintain continuous coverage on the major stories, often from reporters who are unqualified to comment intelligently on the subject because of a lack of expertise in the matter. The problem with journalists speculating on air or in print is that we tell the public that we report accurate information. Because of our position as information hunter-gatherers the public trusts us to have confirmed our reports with more knowledgeable sources. When we make off- the-cuff comments, stemming from our own opinions we violate that public trust.

3)One of the first things I heard as a reporter was this adage, “If your mother says she loves you, check it out.” There is tremendous value in confirming information from multiple sources possessing expert information. I have heard it proposed this morning that the best way to report this would have been to attribute the report to the families in order to remove the news outlet from the “hook” of inaccurate reporting. To attribute reports to sources is not primarily a way to hedge the news outlet’s bets. Reports should be attributed in order to provide the public with the most accurate information and to demonstrate the sourcing of the story in order to show that the journalists was not making it up out of whole cloth. Had journalists displayed caution and restraint in reporting the story, saying that reports were being heard from family members, though not from official sources as they tried to confirm the story from official sources it would have been better than reporting primarily heavily on the emotion or jubilation of the community. Secondly: Do your own reporting, do your own reporting, do your own reporting. Period. Don’t take your reporting from other journalists or outlets, try and confirm the story yourself. Thirdly, place a higher value on accuracy and truth than on being first with the story. It is good to report quickly, but it is most important that the information be correct.

4)I believe that objectivity is a myth. I believe that when a journalist cuts him or herself off emotionally from a story an important element is lost. A personal connection, an empathy is lost when journalists place themselves completely apart and separate from the rabble of the emotions of the story. News does not happen in a vacuum, journalists become a piece, a sliver of the story despite their best intentions at objectivity. Journalists must acknowledge their own biases, experiences and limitations in approaching a story. Although I think that complete objectivity is unattainable, accuracy and truthfulness is completely within the journalist’s grasp. We must report the facts, not our opinions and speculations. As journalists, we stand in for the public, we are the self-appointed eyes and ears of the nation. We have an obligation and a duty to report what we witness, not what we believe or hope or desire. We are human beings and fallible, prone to emotion and hope. But in the public trust of journalism, emotion must be tempered with wisdom and discretion.

5)Sometimes, yes. Emotion can lead to bad reporting. I feel comfortable saying that every journalist on that scene wanted a happy ending. Wanted to be able to report a success. I’m not sure that I would have reported the story any differently than they did last night. It is a sad example of reporting the story that was wanted, rather than finding the story that existed.

6)My understanding of the access allowed to the journalists is incomplete, but it seems as though they were some distance from where the events were occurring. There are many reasons to keep journalists out of a specific area – to control the spread of information, to protect the safety of both journalists and rescue workers (the thought being that valuable resources could be used to keep bumbling reporters from hurting themselves or getting in the way.) But, journalists are professionals, with a specific and important job to do. If it were possible that a small press corps could have been placed closer to the scene, I believe it might have helped the real story – that reports had not been confirmed, that reports were false – get to the public faster.

The question of whether the news media “blew the story” has just been posed by Fox News, nearly 12 hours after their correspondent broke the incorrect information. It has taken 12 hours for the news media to even acknowledge that it may have some responsibility for the misinformation.
Journalism proclaims itself the watchdog of democracy, journalists find themselves in a position of authority. But that authority is lost, the public trust is breached when we report false and inaccurate information. I heard an interview from a scholar of journalism who said that journalists may see themselves as a type of priest in a sacred order. I am no priest. I don’t believe that journalism is an inherently precious or sacred thing. If anything gives a noble air to journalism, if anything hallows the newsroom it is the communities we serve. It is the trust placed in daily newspapers. The promise that journalists will provide accurate information that will help our communities.
I would like to close with a few words of the journalist’s creed penned by Walter Williams.
…I believe that the public journal is a public trust; that all connected with it are, to the full measure of their responsibility, trustees for the public; that acceptance of a lesser service than the public service is a betrayal of this trust.
I believe that clear thinking and clear statement, accuracy and fairness are fundamental to good journalism.
Journalism has no internal board of standards, no governing body to hand down ethics and instructions. All we have is the trust that may be placed in our word. Any journalist, any news outlet, is only as good as their name. And the title of journalist is one that presupposes a commitment to truth and accuracy.

P.S. Just now, in a story on Fox News that was discussing media culpability, a judge acting as a commentator said that we may see the first instances of an emotional distress suit against media outlets as a result of this story. The journalists reply was “We didn’t start the rumor.”
To report inaccurately is offensive, but to not take full responsibility for it is inexcusable. By not owning up to factual errors, journalists further violate the public trust.