12 Trapped Miners in West Virginia discussion - Page 12

nychief · 10:01 AM

Grief, anger as all but one miner found dead
Initial reports indicated 12 had survived

Wednesday, January 4, 2006; Posted: 10:25 a.m. EST (15:25 GMT)
TALLMANSVILLE, West Virginia (CNN) -- For three hours overnight, families of a dozen trapped West Virginia miners thought their loved ones were coming home as church bells rang to welcome them.

But by 3 a.m. Wednesday -- as one critically ill survivor was rushed to a hospital -- families learned that their thankful jubilation was premature.

There had been a tragic "miscommunication," said mine company chief Ben Hatfield. Twelve of the 13 trapped miners had not made it. They were dead. (Watch angry relatives react -- 3:21)

Anna Casto, who lost her cousin, angrily disagreed with Hatfield's use of the term "miscommunication."

"No, he strictly told us they was alive," Casto said. "Three hours later he come back and said they wasn't."

"We want to know why, and how people can get by with this," she said.

"I just want that immediate family to get some kind of satisfaction, to get some kind of answers." (Full story)

Casto said the tragedy has shaken the faith of some in the community. "We have got some of us ... saying... that we don't even know if there is a Lord anymore," she said. "We had a miracle, and it was taken away from us."
3-hour delay

# 11:53 p.m. -- Church bells ring as reports first indicate that 12 miners have been found alive.

# 2:14 a.m. -- A man is rescued and taken to a nearby hospital in critical condition after being trapped underground for nearly 40 hours.

# 2:44 a.m. -- Miners' relatives say they had been told all but one of the miners were dead.

# 3:11 a.m. -- Hatfield, president and CEO of International Coal Group, which owns the Sago Mine, announces that despite previous reports, only one survivor was found in the mine. (Timeline)

Hatfield called it the "worst day of my life."
Critical condition

The sole survivor, Randal McCloy, 27, was in critical condition in intensive care Wednesday at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown.

"He suffered some collapse of one of his lungs," said Dr. Larry Roberts. "And we're trying to reopen that and there's good progress there."

Roberts said McCloy was sedated and attached to a breathing tube, but was moving and responding to stimuli.

"We hope that we will try to awaken him later today or tomorrow," the doctor said.
'Who do we tell?'

Hatfield said he knew within 20 minutes that an error had been made and that not all 12 were alive, but said he did not inform jubilant family members.

"We couldn't correct the information without knowing more about it," he told reporters. "Let's put this in perspective -- who do we tell not to celebrate? All I knew is, there weren't 12 people that were alive. It was somewhere between 12 and zero."

Hatfield said he understood family members' anger.

"I'm not surprised or upset with them. They certainly have some basis for their frustration, having been put through this emotional roller-coaster. I wouldn't wish that on anyone."

Hatfield said the miscommunication occurred between rescue crews and the command center, causing the earlier erroneous reports. (Watch the CEO's grim announcement -- 9:00)
Miners were alive after accident

Hatfield said it was apparent that the miners, who were found 13,000 feet into the mine, remained alive for a period of time following the explosion. They had built a "rough barricade structure," he said, and had donned their self-contained breathing apparatuses. The apparatuses held one hour of oxygen; Hatfield said he had no way of knowing how long the miners were alive.

The rescue team that found the miners was speaking to the command center over mine communication system on an open speaker audible to a number of people, Hatfield said. He noted the company made no formal announcement that the 12 were alive, but said he would not single out any rescuers, as they were trying to save the miners' lives.

"The honest answer is, we were devastated," he said. "It's sorrow beyond belief ... Welcome to the worst day of my life."
'Some wrong communications'

West Virginia Gov. Joe Manchin -- who flashed a thumbs-up on the steps of the church and said, "believe in miracles," after hearing the initial report that the 12 were alive -- called the situation "heart-wrenching." (Watch Gov. Manchin explain what may have caused the miscommunication -- 3:44)

He said he was in another room of the church with some family members when "we heard families in a euphoric state, and all the shouting and screaming and joyfulness." He asked what was happening, he said, and was told, "They found them. They're alive."

Manchin said he asked his communications people if they had confirmed that information, and they said no. But he was caught in the sea of jubilant relatives streaming out of the church, and the church bells began ringing, he said. He said he was "in a euphoric state, the same as they are."

It was about 20 minutes later, he said, when he also became aware of "some wrong communications." The delay in informing relatives, he said, came because officials were trying to get accurate information instead of adding to the confusion. He said he understood the family's pain, as his own uncle died in a 1968 mine accident.

"To put blame on anybody -- it's the wrong time, the wrong place," Manchin said. "Everybody has worked so hard. The rescue teams have worked around the clock. They've come from all over the country."

**Iowanian** · 01-04-2006, 04:14 PM

Any of you guzzlers stop to think for a minute, that during those 3 hours, the Mine officials and rescue workers didn't KNOW what they had yet?

They were a mile deep into a tunnel, fighting cave in and poison gases. Its quite possible that they had good reason to believe they'd found the location of the miners, but NOT necessarily know their condition?

In the mean time, while those men are still digging and searching....the circus starts in the Baptist Bigtop.

**Donger** · 01-04-2006, 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

Yeah, quite a bit.

That's because you're a callous prick.

memyselfI · 01-04-2006, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jAZ

I understand your point and don't disagree with it in a broad sense, but the media could have and in this case should have reported "rumors are swirilling that 12 people are alive".

The live TV media could have and should have reported it as such. But they also face a smaller burder of accuracy in a sense as they are able to report what they are learning as they learn it. But they are responsible for reporting what they learned accurately. They need to qualify their reports appropriately.

The print media has an even higher burden, IMO because their printing schedule doesn't allow for getting it right once it goes to print. In that case, it is even more important to report the story accurately. And an accurate report would be (again) "unconfirmed reports suggest 12 found alive" or some such.

That doesn't make for a good news-paper selling headline though, so they punch it up a little in exchange for actual accuracy.

I am only holding the media accountable to the same standard that they are alway accountable for, IMO. Nothing additional.

I'm certainly not holding them responsible for the source information being false.

To give you a familiar parallel that might make some sense for you... IMO it's like the Dan Rather, Bush, Draft story.

I hold CBS and Dan Rather accountable for a failure in editorial judgement. They rushed a story and should have held themselve to a higher journalistic standard. Similarly I am not saying that Rather is responsible for any mis-information. His failure was in editorial control.

JMO.

IIRC from my old journalism classes, the minimal standard of confirmation of a story was two independent sources giving the same information. In this instance, you have the Gov.'s office and their contacts with the mine and the family members who received phone calls from the mine officials. Each would count as a different source. By journalistic standards, especially those evolving due to the nature of live TV, they seemed to meet the criteria for reporting a confirmed story.

Ideally, they would have had immediate confirmation or denial from the mine officials regarding the story. Instead, they were allowed to believe, along with the families, that medical attendants were headed into the mine to retrieve the survivors and reunite them with their families. They were allowed to believe this for three hours...at least in front of the camera. Behind the scenes there was probably corrections going on OTR but they were not going to report THIS news until they were indeed sure of it given the misinformation already coming from the mine officials.

The print press I think could shoulder a different standard here as you rightly point out. They have the luxury of waiting for details that live TV news media do not. As such, and in retrospect, they chose the 'feel good' story immediately upon hearing it vs. actually waiting for the miners, dead or alive, to surface. I suppose you could fault them for their haste in getting a story to print before deadline. But you can't fault them for believing false sources when everyone but the rescuers and mine officials knew the truth for three hours after the story of the miners surviving initially broke.

I don't think Rathergate is a similiar parallel at all. Dan Rather and his staff had infinite moments to investigate, reinvestigate, confirm, reconfirm, and source and resource. They, apparently, chose to use minimal sourcing and did not follow basic accepted standards of journalism in their reporting. Example, not finding two different handwriting experts to confirm their findings. The problem with the Rathergate is the incompetence in the reporting detracts from the possible true facts within the actual story. No coincidence, I'm sure.

**jAZ** · 01-04-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KC Dan

God, I agree with jAZ....

I feel dirty, like I just rooted for the Bronco's.......

This is not as uncommon as people in the DC like the think. I've been saying this in every media discussion for 4 years now.

**jAZ** · 01-04-2006, 04:57 PM

Quote: