Pretend like you're a reporter covering an accident:

[rucky]

Where do you go to confirm the death toll?

"Real" reporters apparently pick the first choice.

[Open Mindz]

1. pretending to be a reporter

You said to pretend to be a reporter. If I were a reporter I would go to the corporation responsible, listen to their republican drivel and then spout exactly what they say. Then if a problem arises just blame the victims or a local democrat...maybe I can get him kicked out of office. But that is only if I were a real reporter.

[rucky]

3. You get the job!

I have a feeling CNN will be hiring soon.

[BuyingThyme]

5. Dear Open Mindz, Welcome to DU!!!

:hi:

[Open Mindz]

6. thank you

[malaise]

10. Rather accurate

and hysterically funny. MSM no longer needs to check facts...spin and rumours are so much more fun.

It's comical to listen to MSM wondering about how these rumours spread when they spread them across the globe without checking a damn thing.

[BuyingThyme]

2. United Airlines or the local coroner?

United Airlines or the FAA?

[cornermouse]

4. I don't think the coroner would tell.

[oldgrowth]

7. I pick number 3 ??

Anderson Cooper was making 1.5 mil. a year befor the last change at CNN. I still don't understand this whole thing ,this corp. has crappy record!!!!

[Oeditpus Rex]

8. This is why you have to 'pretend'

I was a "real reporter" for many years, and if I get information from as many sources (mine official, governor, Congresswoman, several family members) as CNN did, I go with it.

If you want to wait for the coroner, go right ahead. You'll wait perhaps 72 hours, and in the meantime your bosses will be pounding the shit out of you.

Tell me what reason CNN had to believe that the 12 miners were actually dead, after being told they were alive by several people? Tell me why a reporter would think, "Hmmm... I bet they're all lying and those guys are really dead"?

[rucky]

9. Then you know how to write around it.

alleged. unconfirmed.

not "Miracle". then there's the follow up questions: Have you seen your father? What condition is he in? What hospital? What? You don't know? How do you know he's alive? The mining company told you? I'd better look into that...

I'm up at this ungodly hour because I'm working part-time as a freelance news researcher.

PS: sounds like you would've been chewed out by the editor either way. I just got a midnight call from the boss a few hours ago (over a knife-fight story).

[Oeditpus Rex]

11. 'Writing around it' is sloppy

Saying "so-and-so said" isn't. That's called "attribution," and when it comes from "officials," you go with it.

Reporters don't write headlines. Blame "miracle" on an editor. ("Miracle" should never, ever be used in a news story anyway; there's no such thing as a "miracle.")

You assume those questions weren't asked. I assume only that if they were, they were likely met with "No" and "I don't know" responses, which aren't newsworthy.

On edit: I'm not saying CNN wasn't trying to be first. "First" is everything in TV news. But was this sloppy reporting for the sake of speed? Not in my opinion.

[rucky]

17. sloppy reporting for the sake of speed:

"If you want to wait for the coroner, go right ahead. You'll wait perhaps 72 hours, and in the meantime your bosses will be pounding the shit out of you."

C'mon - one phonecall and two follow up questions would've changed the story. To be fair, I DO blame "officials" much more than reporters, but to have 3,000+ hits from Google News of the wrong story is embarassing for journalism.

[Oeditpus Rex]

19. One phone call and two follow-ups *might've* changed

the story. And again, consider that the news of the 12 being alive came from several sources. It would take an uncommon amount of cynicism, particularly under the circumstances, to question that.

The real factor at work here is straight from "The Paper." Much as I'm loath to cite a fictional movie, the part with Glenn Close as the managing editor saying "We can be right tomorrow" is true. As a younger, idealistic reporter I took strong issue with that, but once I had some time in an editor's chair and understood how many demands and restrictions are placed on the dissemination of news, I realized it was a sad fact of the business. And in the case of 24-hour news, it's not a case of being right "tomorrow," but in 10 minutes.

Yes, CNN is probably somewhat embarrassed. But unless more details come out about the reporting, I'd wager they're more embarrassed over being duped than being wrong. Both are tantamount to failure in journalism, but the former can be excused. The latter cannot.

And so to bed, agreeing to disagree.

[malaise]

12. Correct

reporters need confirmation. Why didn't CNN have others monitoring the mine or EMS. They decided to go with the miracle line and ignored the basic rules of journalism.

[Oeditpus Rex]

16. You seem to think journalists have unlimited access

as well as omniscience. :eyes:

Anyone remember when "Baby Jessica" was rescued from the well in 1987? Once she was out, she and her parents were whisked into a waiting ambulance so quickly that there was no chance for questions to be answered.

Reporters do enjoy greater access than Joe and Jane Average, but they are not, under any circumstances, permitted to impede or infringe upon rescue operations such as were going on at the mine. They can't simply walk up to anyone and start asking questions — and even if they could, one of the "basic rules of journalism" you seem to know so much about is to wait for official word. This was apparently done; if we find out it wasn't, I'll be the first to admit CNN was wrong. But right now, there isn't evidence to support that.

[malaise]

18. I actually know an awful lot about the

rules of journalism but enough about me. Bottom line is that this fast food approach to media coverage violates all the rules. Why wasn't the Sago mine CEO asked to verify or reject the story about 12 survivors? Why was the Mine company allowed to take three hours to correct that horrible error.

[Oeditpus Rex]

21. 'Why wasn't the Sago mine CEO asked

to verify or reject the story about 12 survivors?"

You assume he wasn't. As I said earlier, I assume only that if he were, he could well have initially lied about it to buy time to set the mine's story.

"Why was the Mine company allowed to take three hours to correct that horrible error."

See above. Plus, "allowed"? See my other post re media access. The guy simply may not have been available during those three hours.

I'm tired; I'm going to bed — as already stated, agreeing to disagree.

[lesab]

15. the families

The fact is that they weren't just "hearing" this information. The families were told these things and then told CNN. Why would the families lie? Obviously they weren't the ones lying.

In order to believe the company's story, then the rescuers had to report that they found 11 survivors when actually there was only one. If they weren't alive when found, why did they tell the families to await the survivors in the church? If they did indeed die from carbon monoxide poison, how come the survivor tested negative for it?

The CEO said they weren't able to save them, not that they were found dead.

The families were even calling these guys liars and told the press that the company was lying.

They are just trying to cover up another screw up I think.

[rfkrfk]

20. the media presents, rumors,claims,boasts,fake documents, as fact

>Tell me why a reporter would think, "Hmmm... I bet they're all lying and those guys are really dead"?<

this has nothing to do lying, or a judgement call
that some person seems truthful,

Someone overhears two messages on a two way radio - from two different people,
three hearsays later, 'miners found', plus 'one body found',

{you can connect the dots, yourself}
has become '12 found alive'

it has do with presenting 'hearsay - hearsay - hearsay',
as a fact

[REP]

13. Neither

For live coverage, waiting for the coroner would take too long. The entity responsible for the accident shouldn't be the primary source, but in a case like this, they may be the ones attempting the rescue, and the rescue/recovery team would be a primary source.

In this instance, the families were told first that there were 12 survivors, and this was then told to the media. It was obviously confirmed by soures who did not have access to what was really going on, but merely confirmed that yes, that is what they were told. While the reporting was not stellar, it was not really to blame - they didn't cause the explosion, nor did they tell the families that there were 12 survivors. Their reporting really changed nothing. Perhaps to make up for this, there will be some real investigation into why the bad report was not immediately corrected by the mining officials and more importantly, was the accident preventable and was the mining company negligent.

[rfkrfk]

22. How do you know that?

>In this instance, the families were told first that there were 12 survivors,<

such a statement, would appear to be 'spin' from people
trying to blame someone else

told by the same people who recently
reported 'as fact', what was really a huge untruth.

edit for, grammar and clarity

[RagingInMiami]

14. On a breaking story like this

The coroner won't receive the bodies until several hours later. Usually it is a fire or police official who confirms the death.