Coverage of accident wasn’t sensational
I applaud and appreciate the editorial of Jillian Seguin of 10-19-09.
It was an unfortunate accident in which a life was lost and my condolences for those who have experienced such a tragic loss. As one who recently lost a family member in similar fashion, I can relate.
I am happy the author is with us today to share her experience. Her viewpoint of vehicle operation is something all drivers should consider. Use of the medium to remind others is commendable.
I further compliment Seguin on another excellent editorial, "Alpena Doesn't Need Drama" and within, "the power of the pen." That article is posted in our newsroom as reminder of the power we hold.
In her most recent article, Seguin expressed concern of how the media can "distort, spin, or sensationalize a story to sell their audience," implying this operation took that approach.
Normally, I would not respond to such a statement, however the public should know the 5 "W's of who, what, where, when, why and sometimes how are what makes a full story. In this case, a press release issued from the agency identified one "why" being ruled out. From the release,"Alcohol is not believed to be related to this incident." Our story correctly attributed that statement as being from the releasing agency.
Sensationalism? Perhaps by some, but sorry, it's not allowed here. We'll present the facts as best we know and then it's for the public to decide.
I can appreciate Seguin being sensitive to this issue and the phrase being used. However if such information is available, it should be presented to end speculation. That's not sensationalism. That's standard and responsible reporting - a practice and phrase similarly presented many times in other media outlets, including the Alpena News.
Bruce Johnson
News Director
WATZ News
Facebook
MySpace
Digg
Stumble
Mixx
Fark
del.icio.us
LiveSpaces
|
surefoot
|
|
|---|---|
|
11-05-09 11:26 AM
|
I made my first comments to show how the media adds more to a report then it should. There was no reason to implicate that alcohol may have been involved. An intelligent reader knows blood testing will be a part of the invitation. This is how the media manipulates it audience. Now if Fox News was reporting on it, their report would go like this. Two engineers drove their locomotives off a bridge; an invitation is under way to see if they had links to Al-Qaeda, is this proof that we should bomb Iran.
|
|
amos57usa
|
|
|
11-03-09 7:28 AM
|
I could probably get an answer to my question if I had one and cared but I dont have one and I dont care. Those of us who have studied species homo sapien already know the answer for all behaviors. Others guess and play make believe.
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-01-09 6:38 PM
|
Anyone who has fought the RR in a wrongful death suit will know what a travesty the laws concerning the RR is. If you think oil companies are powerful, you haven't confronted the RR yet! I hope you don't!
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-01-09 6:34 PM
|
...who was protected from my questions by law. The only people that can question them is the RR police! Yes, that's right...RR police! They police themselves. If I smell alcohol on an engineers breath, I cannot detain or arrest him. All I can legally do is forward the info...to the RR police. Congress allows the RR to police themselves. This law is NATION WIDE! No wonder you guys can't get real answers to your questions! This law is unconstitutional. Anyone can see that!
|
|
ExcellTrinity
|
|
|
11-01-09 6:29 PM
|
When I was a police officer, I rescued a man suffering from a severe case of diabetic shock from a set of RR tracks. His car was resting squarely on them. I put him over my shoulder against his will just in time to escape the train that cut his Cadillac in two. The mans diabetes was so severe, he drove all the way to Arkansas from South Carolina...and didn't know it. However, I was prohibited from questioning the engineer...
|
|
amos57usa
|
|
|
11-01-09 6:52 AM
|
surefoot..I still don't know why the reporter wrote that for the same reason I didn't know 2 days ago :)
|
|
surefoot
|
|
|
10-30-09 11:04 AM
|
Amos-- The accident had happen that day, why not just report that an investigation was underway, and that detail on the accident would be reported as the facts came in. Not a vague comment that the engineers may have been drunks without any collaborating evidence.
|
|
amos57usa
|
|
|
10-30-09 7:53 AM
|
surefoot.. I dont know why the reporter didn't ask about train safety but if you give me his/her name and e-mail I can ask and get back with u :) If a family was insulted by lack of test results then they have a defensivness problem and should seek therapy.
|
|
surefoot
|
|
|
10-28-09 5:51 PM
|
I do not mind statements that rule out alcohol use, it is the opposite that is uncalled for. I was in the city of Portland Or. A number of years ago and heard a news report, saying that two locomotives had driven off a bridge that was open to allow boat traffic up the river, both engineers had died. The reporter said they did not know if drugs or alcohol were involved and were waiting for a test results. It was later found that warning lights had failed and the operators had no warning that the bridge was open. Later it was found the engineers had no alcohol or drugs in their blood. Why did not the reporter not question safety operation of the train company to start with? At the time I heard it I thought "what an insult to the families".
|