Mining the Truth

Another mining disaster over the weekend jogged a couple of memories from last January's Sago mining disaster. Occasionally the book I am writing on the newspaper industry intersects with real-time topics. The media mine disaster earlier this year is a prime example.

Was I the only one a bit bemused by those editors nationwide who fell all over themselves to explain those erroneous headlines in January proclaiming 12 miners had survived a West Virginia mine explosion? In truth, only one person, Randal McCloy Jr., survived and eventually recovered many months later to share grim details of the final moments of his fellow miners.

We live in odd times for newspaper publishing and perhaps nothing demonstrates this like the crocodile tears shed on behalf of readers by apologetic editors. Editor & Publisher magazine quoted Wichita, Kan., Eagle Editor Sherry Chisenhall, who wrote an angst-filled note Jan. 4: "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."

Emailed query from that era: "Does she really verify all of her AP stories before the press runs? Is it time for a reality check, Mark?"

Uhm, yeah.

The revelation that 12 of 13 miners had, in fact, died and that mine owner International Coal Group had suffered a horrible "miscommunication" came just before 2 a.m. CST Wednesday Jan. 4. That is a nightmare of bad timing for East Coast and Midwest newspapers in terms of press production. As Boston Globe editor Martin Baron told E&P: "At some point, you've got to print a paper."

The Chisenhalls of the world confuse terms like "truth" and "facts." Truth is, at best, a vantage point arrived at over time. Facts are, well, facts: "Knowledge or information based on real occurrences: an account based on fact; a blur of fact and fancy; something demonstrated to exist or known to have existed."

At the time of many newspapers' deadlines, it could be - and was - factually reported that many townsfolk were celebrating reports that their loved ones were safe. And there were sources ranging from a governor to a member of Congress to medical personnel to the Red Cross verifying the reports. That everyone, including the rescue team command center, was caught up in a perfect storm of confusion and that the ultimate truth was far different was revealed several hours later, as additional reporting added new facts.

The reality of deadlines provides a safe haven for newspapers - it always has. Remember: "At some point, you've got to print a paper." I even agree both wire reporters and newspaper editors who printed the "miracle" story could have better emphasized the word "unconfirmed" and focused more on attribution. That said, if newspaper editors are going to openly weep for letting their customers down, they ought to tell the entire story; fall on the entire sword.

If some newspaper folks felt like they got caught flat, much of it was their own doing. Allow me to explain.

For the past 40 years, newspaper owners have increasingly gravitated toward a one-size-fits-all, low-cost-at-all-costs concept. Luckily for readers and my sanity, the last two companies which employed me embraced different outlooks. Elsewhere, daily readership has declined -- down from 81 percent of all adults in 1964 to 52 percent of adults in 2005, according to the Newspaper Association of America. But this has not deterred some owners who wish to continue to enjoy 20-35 percent return on investment. To maintain that healthy percentage amidst declining profits and increasing competitors – first radio and TV and, then, the Internet and cable networks – accommodations have been made. Those "accommodations" - read: "operational cuts" - combined with a lack of vision played a role in the mining headline episode.

Consider:

• Newspapers once staffed overnight desks for late news. Few today still do. Why? They are too expensive and there's not much for them to do. Why not? Well...

• Newspapers used to publish several editions throughout the day - from a.m. to p.m. If deadlines forced you to go with one version of a breaking story, you could always update it on the next run. Not any more. Now, most newspapers are printed during a single run. Still...

• Many newspapers would once interrupt their single press run to customize the paper for geographic and/or advertising reasons. Thus, if a story needed to be updated, it could be when the press was stopped between zones. But a lot of zoning, too, has fallen victim to the budget axe. In the worst-case scenario, production could be encouraged to stop a run for a change, but...

• We've all heard the cliché: "Stop the press!" Even in newspapers' heyday, it was mostly the stuff of movies. Still, if it was rarely used then, the concept is completely foreign today. How many apologists declined to stop their presses, junk the erroneously headlined copies and reprint corrected versions because of the cost involved? (Think $525 per 1,000 copies to reprint the average newspaper's front sections). Instead, many of these companies "pushed" readers to their web sites, where there is nearly zero cost to update or correct information.

Perhaps it could have dawned on those of such limited vision that if their customers wanted their news delivered via the Internet, they'd quit newspaper delivery altogether. Oh, wait: Many are! Even without the less-than-subtle push...

Many of these hand-wringing editors are probably too young to recall overnight desks, multiple editions and the like. Maybe they think the current state of the industry is the way it always was. Why every erroneous-headline-afflicted newspaper east of the Mississippi River didn't at least re-run their newsstand editions, I'll never comprehend.

I imagine that somewhere, someone stopped a press, trashed a bunch of copies and delivered the right newspaper to a "wowed" reader. I have to imagine this because I have read of no specific stories. I know some newspapers managed to save partial runs and to them I say: Bully! To those who didn't try or didn't even know to try, I wonder what they are thinking or, even, if they ARE thinking. Where is the passion for your audience? Your customers? Your chosen field?

Lest I remind you of a previous blog:

"Today's media audiences expect whatever media they are accessing at the moment to be intuitive; to be in tune with their wants and needs; to anticipate their wants and needs; to redefine their wants and needs and to exceed their expectations. Which naturally leads us to today's tip: Big props if you can bring the "Wow!" factor. Then redefine the "Wow" factor. Then bring it again."

Cranking out an apology when you still have the ability to "wow" readers is NOT representative of an editor concerned with working in an intuitively inclined medium. It is cheap and lazy and, even misleading especially if you have not fully disclosed all the reasons that led to a specific headline landing on a specific porch.

I have a sense that newspaper readers are getting bored with apologies and hand-wringing, anyway. New mediums are "wowing" them. Too many newspapers seem intent on apologizing their way through the 21st Century. Sorry for this scandal. Sorry for that mistake. Sorry for this plagiarist. Sorry for that malfunction. Oops, we lied about how many copies we circulate. Darn, we got it wrong again.

Accountability can be impressive. Water can be refreshing. Too much of either creates a drowning effect. Hence, editors should apologize when necessary and explain when needed but spare the wah-wah-wahs lest they face even more scrutiny and calls for full disclosure from the likes of yours truly.

"On the Media" discussed many of these issues as well:
On The Media

More later,


Mark