Data Mining

Glenn Reynolds on the misreported miners story:

If bloggers had made these kinds of mistakes, Big-Media folks would be pointing them out as evidence that the blogosphere can't be trusted. But where were all those editors, filters, and fact-checkers?

I take his point, but it's worth noting that bloggers did make "these kinds of mistakes." Lots of blogs repeated the false report that 12 miners survived the disaster, just like CNN and The New York Times did -- which is exactly what you should expect, since they're all part of the same media ecosystem. Do a Technorati search for "miners are alive," then scroll past the angrier, more recent posts; you'll find a ton of happy announcements. Granted, most of them are from LiveJournals -- I think this quickly corrected comment sums things up pretty well -- but LJs are blogs too; and it isn't as though there weren't any widely-trafficked sites that made the same mistake.

I'm not saying this to put down the bloggers. I'm saying it because I don't think this story fits the hoary old new media vs. the MSM storyline beloved by blog-bashers and blog-boosters alike. Photo Dude makes the more important point: "The first reports are almost always inaccurate, if not flat out wrong." That's true on the Web as well as in the rest of the press:

So many seem to think blogging is about immediacy. Taken to extreme, we have the typing contest known as "live blogging," where someone taps out each merry thought that passes through their skull while they watch some event. Imagine someone going to a movie and describing each detail over the cell phone to someone else, convert it to text, and you've got "live blogging." How enlightening.

Many bloggers feel like they've got to post about a news event within ten minutes of it happening. They end up publishing half-baked thoughts about partially erroneous first reports, to which they later have to add…"Update: never mind."

I can already get that from the media, thank you very much.

There's an important place for immediate reports, of course. But experienced news consumers know to take them with even more salt than usual. That's just as true for online diarists as it is for TV networks.

Comments

[Phil Collins]

But I wuz right!

[joe]

OK, MSN has a blog. Slate has a blog. The Northern Middlesex County Registry of Deeds has a blog. (The steps have been shovell, great job, Tony!)

Can we stop pretending blogs aren't "mainstream" yet?

[jf]

How many bloggers were doing on-the-spot reporting, as opposed to merely parroting what the MSM had already reported?

[linguist]

While it's tragic that people were given false hope and then given horrific news, I don't see the 'false' reporting being much of a story. A rescuer was overly optimistic and communicated news that spread quickly. It unfortunately turned out to be untrue.

As a firefighter (another member of the rescue attempt) said on camera yesterday, (something to the effect of) "There is no blame in this. It's not the media's fault, it's not the company's fault. There was a miscommunication. Miscommunications happen every day."

The media should verify the news before broadcasting it? OK, maybe, but who should the media trust on a breaking story if not someone who is actually in the middle of performing the rescue attempt?

Sad, but still just a mistake.

[linguist]

And now we've got people calling for a FEDERAL INVESTIGATION into how the miscommunication happened and who will take the blame.

Are you kidding me???

[Warren]

The blogs can't be trusted. Yeah OK we know, they are the shifting winds of rumors. Just because it came from a blog doesn't make it false, but it isn't news till the MSM reports it.

A blog can report just about anything it wants, no matter how wrong they get it, I couldn't give a crap. However, I hold the MSM in contempt because of the way they use the fictitious 'need to be first' as an excuse for sloppy work. The MSM will NEVER break a story ever again. The MSM is supposed to lend credibility to a story. When we see something on CNN we would like to assume that a reporter somewhere made a few phone calls and actually spoke to someone that knows what the fuck is going on.

The fourth estate is more often than not, just a bloated tick in society's ear.

[coarsetad]

Lets face it people.... the more victimized the miners families look, the bigger the award they will receive in court.
The families "outrage" is nothing more than a poorly veiled scheme to become the bigger victims than the miners that actually died.
Is F-ing sick.

[sage]

Could someone tell me why they are going to perform autopsies on the miners? Are they afraid one of them may have been stabbed to death?

[joe]

Yeah, it's all a cynical ploy. For the lawsuit. Which was the first thing they thought of when the learned their fathers, brothers, and husbands were dead.

[Jeff P.]

In this whole integrity-of-media discussion, has any scrutiny been paid to the news services? Their dispathes are regularly repeated in a large number of newspapers without any real fact-checking or critical ombudsmanship. The news services feed the sensational-coverage machine as much as the big papers, perhaps moreso because more eyes read them nationwide.

[Murray "Superboy" Babitch]

Coarsetad has a point, put somewhat indelicately:

When you agree to work in certain dangerous occupations, you knowingly assume much higher than average workplace risks.

Of course it's a tragedy that these men died. But they worked in a freaking mine, which is somewhere between police officer and snake charmer in terms of dangerous working conditions.

Also, the problem that Walker's dancing around is that the MSM pushes the bullshit pretense that they're objective, and blogs do not, hence the blog vs. MSM "hoary" divide.

That Cranbrook pussy Kinsley wrote a good column a while back with the great suggestion that all news organizations announce their biases and go about convincing consumers why their viewpoint should be followed. By continuning to profess the obviously horseshit objectivity claim, they have no credibility.

[Pro Libertate]

I have to admit to being a little offended when the "big story" that was reported by NPR and my local news radio station was the misreporting of the news about the miners, not the breaking story that all but one had died. I heard about the error about five times as much as I heard about what had actually happened. A little too much navel-gazing going on, in my opinion. It's inevitable that this sort of error will occur--well-meaning people are hoping for the best and are likely to grab on to any possible thread of good news.

[coarsetad]

Joe,
Listen to the interviews of the family members. There is alot more "Im outraged and devastated at the company for not providing me accurate information about my loved one," than "I deeply saddened by the loss of my loved one."
Im not saying its a cynical ploy, hell, for all I know it could something sub-conscious, or something the media is harping on to boost rating.
But it has defiently become the "bigger" story.

[Ed]

How much did the actors' belief in miracles contribute to the false reports, the hysteria? That's an angle no one is bothering to address.

[zero]

Gotta agree with Joe on this one.

[Jesse Walker]

Also, the problem that Walker's dancing around is that the MSM pushes the bullshit pretense that they're objective, and blogs do not, hence the blog vs. MSM "hoary" divide.

That's one of many genuine distinctions, but I can't see what it has to do with the misreported miners story. Indeed, this is one case where the mainstream press didn't pretend to be objective: With the possible exceptions of Snidely Whiplash and C. Montgomery Burns, everyone who was paying attention, reporters included, wanted the miners to be all right.

[Phil]

Of course it's a tragedy that these men died. But they worked in a freaking mine, which is somewhere between police officer and snake charmer in terms of dangerous working conditions.

Well, having a mine with an accident rate more than three times the national average probably doesn't help.

[James Feldman]

I think even Mr. Burns was rooting for the miners to be alright. After all, we all know Mr. Burns' feelings about worker safety programs; he'd be all for any evidence that they aren't needed.

[Mo]

I agree this only happened due to the goal of the media to be first with breaking news. Doesn't the instant nature of blogs make this more likely that this will happen rather than less. One example is Drudge's incorrect call of Gephart as Kerry's running mate.

[R C Dean]

There is alot more "Im outraged and devastated at the company for not providing me accurate information about my loved one," than "I deeply saddened by the loss of my loved one."

Yes, interesting that.

I think what we are seeing is, in part, a concerted attempt by the media actors who screwed up to divert blame to the company.

I wouldn't be shocked to learn that union and/or plaintiffs bar representatives weren't also part of a push to demonize the company as well, each for their own reasons. Whether, and if so the extent to which, they have engaged the families in their machinations would be interesting to know. Based on my experience with both unions and the plaintiff's bar, they are both easily capable of using the families to pound the company, even if doing so increases the pain felt by the families.

IOW, there are a lot of powerful actors out there with strong incentives to make the media screwup look like the company's fault.

[Dogzilla]

Isn't it the instinct of journalists, when told "they're alive!" by some source, to want to talk to the person who actually saw or heard the miners themselves? If they are unable to talk with the direct source, shouldn't they report "we are hearing miners have been found alive, but we have been unable to confirm it as yet"??
What's the point of having hundreds of talking heads on location if all they're going to do is act as a repeater for the rumour mill?

[bendover]

The "big" media outlets constantly harp on their supposed professionalism and their layers of editors that are there to protect the news consumer from the wild west, shoot from the hip, unchecked, unverified blogosphere. IMHO big media's only purpose is to garner as many eyes possible in order to sell as much soap as they can (not that there's anything wrong with that) I just wish they'd drop the pretense that somehow they're above all the rest. My general questions/observations:

10,000 dead in NO? Thay certainly had plenty of time to research that assertion before going to press.
What was Anderson Cooper doing in WV? His Gunga-Dan impression? Trying to squeeze another tenth of a rating point?
The only person, AFAIK,to get the story right was a local WV reporter who actually stayed in the conference room that was used for official announcements in order to question company execs.

I don't necessarily blame the big media for going with the intitial report of 12 survivors, I just don't buy their "we're the professionals" crap.

[James]

The timing of the false report had a lot to do with it. If you look at which papers got burned and which ones didn't, you see that far more West Coast papers got the story right: they had a couple more hours to nail the story down before they had to get their first editions on the street. The East Coast papers were very close to deadline when word started to be passed that 12 miners were being rushed to the hospital. The editors were left with a choice of saying nothing about it or finding their papers out of touch before they hit the newsstands.

Granted, a few papers worked the words "unconfirmed report" into the lead paragraph, which covers them, to a certain extent. The ones that are most humiliated are those who have racy, tabloid-like styles: "MINE MIRACLE MESMERIZES MANY!!!!!"

On this note, did anyone catch the story that someone placed a mock on the wire services for about an hour to the effect that "Narnia" was pulling out of the trade talks? The article cites spokeswoman "Susan Aslan" claiming that the US and EU are pressuring them over clothing tariffs. Forbes.com is among those that got burned.

[James]

RC Dean: Yah, it's all a big conspiracy. I wouldn't be surprised if the plaintiff's bar actually caused the accident, just so they would have something to sue over. The accident rate three times that of the national average? Clearly, the union was encouring workers to hurt themselves.

Wheels within wheels within wheels...

[Ed]

Or... some enterprising journalist could point out that 12 fewer people died at the Three Mile Island "disaster" than at the site of this far more deadly energy source.

[joe]

RC's post makes it clear that a lot of people don't understand what actually happened here.

One of the rescuers made a statement over the radio that led people who overheard him to believe that the 12 miners were alive. It's still not clear if the rescuer sent back a false statement, or if his message was misunderstood. They then began to spread this rumor among family members and townspeople. The media then heard these rumors and repeated them. "The media actors who screwed up" weren't the ones who gave the families and friends the incorrect news; the families and friends gave it to the reporters.

The complaints about the company - other than those about it running an unsafe mine - are about its slowness in correcting the misinformation. To which they have a good response: they wanted to wait until they had complete information, not tell people "We might have been wrong, your husband might actually be dead. We'll let you know."

'There is alot more "Im outraged and devastated at the company for not providing me accurate information about my loved one," than "I deeply saddened by the loss of my loved one."' I don't know how recently any of you experienced the death of a loved one, but it's funny what the mind grasps at to avoid thinking about the big issue. Those damn nurses don't keep his room neat! - that sort of thing.

So, in summation, outrage by the families of miners who died in an accident towards the much-cited company who ran that mine is clearly a calculated ploy, egged on by "union and/or plaintiffs bar representatives," not to mention college professors, communists, environmentalists, and Howard Dean. What a sick mind you have, RC.

[thoreau]

Can't we just put this all behind us and get back to what really matters?

You know, that missing girl in Aruba.

[R C Dean]

James, try not to be a total ass. I was clearly and obviously referring to the current attempt to demonize the mining company for the media's incompetence, and not talking at all about the accident itself.

The media then heard these rumors and repeated them. "The media actors who screwed up" weren't the ones who gave the families and friends the incorrect news; the families and friends gave it to the reporters.

But the media went on to validate those rumors and reinforce them without any basis whatsoever. That, my friend, is a screwup on the media's part.

What a sick mind you have, RC.

Thanks also for ignoring the fact that I did not address the company's complicity in the accident at all, but was talking only about the blame game being played around the rumor propagated by the families and the media.

Thanks for not addressing that part of my post where I talk about why the media has a motive to demonize the company, and how other actors undoubtedly on the scene also have a motive to do the same.

Are you saying that it is not in the best interests of the media, the unions, and the plaintiffs bar to make the mine owner look as bad as possible? Are you saying there is no way these people would use and abuse the grieving families for their own ends? Do I have a sick mind, or am I merely well acquainted with some deeply exploitive and callous organizations?

What a naive little lefty you are, joe.

[ChicagoTom]

One thing where I would fault the companies is when I heard a report (I think it was on the Today show) the following morning where they were talking about how the mistake was made, and it was said that company personel (sp?) new "20 minutes" after the erronious reports started coming out that it was in fact wrong and that 12 had not in fact survived, but never disclosed or issued corrections for hours for some reason. There was some justification given by the comapany spokesperson that didn't seem very believable when I heard it at the time. (Sorry for the fuzzy memories, but I usually am not very awake when the today show was on).

I think that corrections should have been issued much sooner than they were. If that 20 minutes time frame was true (and I think in the report company spokesman confirmed the 20 minutes time frame) than it was irresponsible to sit on a correction.

I also think that there is something wrong with journalism today when something "overheard" gets reported as fact. How hard would it have been to get someone from the company on the record to confirm or even to say "we have no idea. We can't confirm right now"

I mean this shit was reported (at least the reports I saw) without even an a hint of doubt.

[joe]

Well, if you say so.

I always thought recognizing the grief of those who've lost family members went beyond any particular political philosophy.

But I guess not. It's the lawyers and those union troublemakers.

[Thomas Paine's Goiter]

One of the rescuers made a statement over the radio that led people who overheard him to believe that the 12 miners were alive. It's still not clear if the rescuer sent back a false statement, or if his message was misunderstood. They then began to spread this rumor among family members and townspeople.

Last I heard, "they" that spread this rumor was the pastor of the church...

The media then heard these rumors and repeated them. "The media actors who screwed up" weren't the ones who gave the families and friends the incorrect news; the families and friends gave it to the reporters.

But again, they didn't verify anything. The only person who did was the Waggoner, the local reporter:

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1001804568

Amazing - she waited for official verification. Good reporting, that.

The complaints about the company - other than those about it running an unsafe mine

Which are overblown. The company took over the mine in November from a bankrupt company and have apparently corrected 1/3 of the citiations the previous company received last year.

- are about its slowness in correcting the misinformation. To which they have a good response: they wanted to wait until they had complete information, not tell people "We might have been wrong, your husband might actually be dead. We'll let you know."

And they can still, honestly, hold to "We never gave an official statement"

[ChicagoTom]

Are you saying that it is not in the best interests of the media, the unions, and the plaintiffs bar to make the mine owner look as bad as possible? Are you saying there is no way these people would use and abuse the grieving families for their own ends? Do I have a sick mind, or am I merely well acquainted with some deeply exploitive and callous organizations?

What a naive little lefty you are, joe

This post is funny. Esp. coming from R C Dean.
I hope you are this open minded when they lefties espouse their conspiracy theories about the war and Haliburton and KBR and the Carlyle groups.

Are you saying it wasn't in the best interests of Haliburton and many members of the Bush clan and the Cheneys to start a war in Iraq and then "reconstruct" the country and liberate the oil fields from the clutches of a brutal dictator and savage brown ppl?

I get it...when they are your conspiracy theories they should be treated respectfully and as viable, but when they are the conspiracy theories of those who have a different world view they are "tin-foil hat" type nonsense

[johnl]

It's a shame that nobody at the church, the Gov, the pastor, nobody told people not to get their hopes up till they know what's going on. They were all operating on low sleep and not on top of their games, so they are blameless. Still, it's too bad.

But reporters should have better reflexes. They should be looking for the name to put the quite to and digging till they can get somebody on the record who can report a first hand account. And so should editors. So if the reporter on-site is too close to a story or too sleepy to report right, a sober editor should keep them off the wire.

For as long as I've been reading the paper, reporters have been using second hand accounts from sources they are already talking to when first hand accounts are available but would require an extra phone call. And they have been messing stories up as a result.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

My biggest gripe is that august institutions like the Washington Post FLAT OUT said that the 12 were "alive". They didn't use any qualifiers whatsoever. These people were found alive. Period.

And today's edition makes no mention at all about the fuck-up. No redaction. No apology.

What a bunch of arrogant twats.

[zeiner]

It seems to me that the mainstream media cares more about the emotion of a story instead of the facts. If media outlets care more about the emotion, then mistakes are going to be made.

[Kevin]

"I wouldn't be shocked to learn that union and/or plaintiffs bar representatives weren't also part of a push to demonize the company as well, each for their own reasons."

You might me shocked to learn that, by all reports, these were non-union miners.

[coarsetad]

"I always thought recognizing the grief of those who've lost family members went beyond any particular political philosophy."

Its does, but not when they are playing up "I'm a victim."

[Billy Ray]

Better to mine data rather than coal.

[Billy Ray]

The fourth estate is more often than not, just a bloated tick in society's ear.

The fourth estate, needs to face checks and balances just as the other three estates do. But there really aren't any, especially since Sullivan.

[Heather]

brutal dictator and savage brown ppl

But the oil revenuues are being given to the "savage brown people" not Haliburton

[R C Dean]

You might me shocked to learn that, by all reports, these were non-union miners.

Which hasn't stopped the United Mine Workers from expending more space on the miscommunication, as opposed to the deaths themselves, in their official statement on the tragedy. Interesting that the UMWA calls for a federal investigation of the miscommunication, but not the cave-in itself, isn't it?

http://www.umwa.org/pressreleases/pressmain.shtml

[R C Dean]

For some reason, my observation that there are institutions out there with an interest in demonizing the mine owner has really lowered the reading comprehension around here.

when they are your conspiracy theories they should be treated respectfully and as viable

I never said there was a conspiracy. I merely pointed out, which no one has yet taken the trouble to dispute, that it is in the interest of the media, the trial lawyers, and the unions to see to it that the mine owner is blamed for as much as possible, including the disgraceful performance of the media itself. And that none of these fine institutions are beyond using and abusing the grieving families to achieve their ends.

Anyone care to dispute any of these assertions? Because while they have drawn a flurry of ad hominems and straw men, they haven't drawn any refutations.

I neither allege nor believe that there is a "conspiracy" about any of this. Geez. This ain't rocket science.

[ChicagoTom]

R C Said:
I wouldn't be shocked to learn that union and/or plaintiffs bar representatives weren't also part of a push to demonize the company as well, each for their own reasons. Whether, and if so the extent to which, they have engaged the families in their machinations would be interesting to know. Based on my experience with both unions and the plaintiff's bar, they are both easily capable of using the families to pound the company, even if doing so increases the pain felt by the families.

Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but IMHO there is definately a conspiracy implication in this statement. You are implying that all of these actors have some kind of vested interest in "blaming the mine owner" and are all doing just that. You offer no proof other than some half-assed "Based on my experience with both unions and the plaintiff's bar.." and you are accusing them of "using" these families to further some agenda of their own.

What is there to dispute exactly? Your assertions are based on nothing more than your bias against said institutions. The burden of proof is on YOU to justify your statement not on everyone to disprove it. Do you care to offer up any evidence that said institions are manipulating the situation other than : "based on my experience ...they are capable". Well golly RC, many people are capable of many things, that doesn't mean that they are actually doing everything they are capable of.

Furthermore, do you care to offer any kind of evidence that there is a "push" to "demonize the company". Most of the coverage I have witnessed talked about failures on more than just the company's part. So where is this "push to demonize the company" you speak of other than in some kind of conspiracy theory in your own head?

But if I concede that your statment is merely an astute observation will you concede the same about mine? :

I never said there was a conspiracy. I merely pointed out, which no one has yet taken the trouble to dispute, that it is in the interest of the Bush and Cheney family, the Neo-Cons, the Carlyle group and Haliburton, to see to it that the Iraq's leader is toppled and a US-friendly regime is put in place, and the Iraqi oil fields are secured and we have easy access to them and lots of US taxpayer money is spent on US corporations to rebuild whatever we destroyed. And that none of these fine leaders/corporations are beyond using and abusing the events of 9/11 to achieve their ends.

[Phil]

Its does, but not when they are playing up "I'm a victim."

I rather think that people whose relatives were just killed in a mine explosion and collapse actually qualify as victims.

[Phil]

Which hasn't stopped the United Mine Workers from expending more space on the miscommunication, as opposed to the deaths themselves, in their official statement on the tragedy. Interesting that the UMWA calls for a federal investigation of the miscommunication, but not the cave-in itself, isn't it?

One assumes that an investigation by the MSHA, a Federal body under the Dept. of Labor, is a given in any such cave-in, and thus doesn't need to be "called for" by UMWA or anyone else. That is, if one has a motherfucking brain.

[Lurker]

Clearly, the answer to this problem is to sue the plaintiffs' bar, United Mine Workers and others with a vested interest in making the mining company look bad. If they've inappropriately manipulated the families, we'll find out in discovery. Right?

[jf]

From R C's link:

This terrible event was made worse for the families by the inexplicable confusion regarding initial reports that twelve of the miners had been found alive. That the families were allowed to believe for three hours that their loved ones were alive-when in fact only Mr. McCloy was-is inexcusable. The UMWA strongly encourages the appropriate state and federal officials to investigate how this could have happened, so that no family will ever have to suffer like this again.

I'd say he's got a point with this. Perhaps there would have been no miscommunication had this been a union mine?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Yeah, I agree, RC is totally out of bounds in his heartless skepticism. There's no way there are people who are seeking to make political hay out of this tragedy. It's impossible that unions and lawyers have economic or political stakes in these men?s deaths.

And any scrutiny of the media is totally unfair. Yes, they're serving as the mouthpiece of the union message, but that's only because they're objectively reporting the truth. These are professional men and women we're talking about. The media doesn't have a political agenda of its own, and they're certainly not trying to call attention away from their ALLEGED bungling early in the story. It's just not happening.

Jeez, RC, get a clue.

[joe]

I'd have to say that a company that operated the most dangerous mine in the United States pretty much "demonizes" itself.

And decent human beings don't hold it against anyone who points that out. Twelve people are dead, and those responsible deserve every bit of shit they catch.

We don't get our daily bread from the charitable instincts of the baker, and criminally negligent mine operators don't get what's coming to them from the charitable instincts of the reporter, the union organizer, or the attorney.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe:

People like you and me who work at desks are extremely fortunate. I think we easily take safety for granted. "OW!! I got a paper cut!! CALL OSHA! CALL OSHA!!"

But a lot of other jobs are dangerous beyond words. Mining is one of them. They can put these men in million-dollar armor with self-contained breathing aparati, and there would still be tragic deaths. It's simply impossible to make these jobs 100% safe. And, ironically, that inherent danger always provided a benefit for miners (including my grandfather), because it's what made mining one of the better-paying jobs throughout our history.

I think the bottom line is that it is MUCH better to have dangerous jobs then to have NO jobs. Unions in the past were crucial in creating and defending REASONABLE worker safety. But I think Unions today do little more then fatten the wallets of an elite few in the short term, and ultimately drive companies out of business.

Again, I think if a man had to feed his family (like my grandfather), he would choose the dangerous job over the NO job.

[thoreau]

There are more choices here than the mining staying open as is or the mine closing. Maybe better management to make the operations safer?

[joe]

Not interested, Mr. Nice Strawguy.

100% safe. Million dollar armor. A choice of a mine being operated as this one is, or there being NO JOBS.

If you want to talk seriously about industry standards and the requirements of the law, do so. Otherwise, buh bye.

[Mr. Nice Guy]

t:

I think the leftist knee-jerk reaction to a situation like this is "Oh No! Obviously it's those evil industrial overlords killing the workers with their greed!"

My knee-jerk reaction is "You have a bunch of grown-up boys running around deep under the earth with heavy equipment, total darkness, precipitous drops, cave-ins, air issues, etc, etc. It's terrible and tragic, but yeah, bad things happen."

[Mr. Nice Guy]

joe:

I'm making a very basic argument about the classic struggle between business and labor.

I'm also making some points about the inherent dangers of mine work, which I personally think are being blatantly ignored in this national discussion.

Are you genuinely having difficulty grasping these concepts, or are you just happy living in your smug, condescending little dogma?

Oh yeah.. "buh bye".. do you have any actual powers of censuring me on this discussion board, or are you just talking out of your ass?

Prick.

[joe]

It will be interesting to see whose knee-jerk is right.

Were these men's deaths the unavoidable outcome of being miners?

Or was the mine being operated in a manifestly unsafe manner, even when compared to the industry standard?

[Mr. Nice Guy]

If it's found by an independent, objective body that these men's deaths were directly caused by the company's violation of accepted standards/law, then I'll stand corrected.

[joe]

Likewise, if the mine was run as a tight ship, and this was an unforeseen bit of bad luck that the mine operator could be reasonably expected to have prevented.

[joe]

er, "...could NOT be reasonably..."

[thoreau]

joe, MNG, congrats on both offering reasonable conditions under which you'd eat crow. That's a rare thing on H&R.

I'm filing this one away on my last of all time favorite H&R threads.

[ChicagoTom]

I dunno who Mr Nice Guy would consider an acceptable independant source, but the more info that comes out the worse it looks for the mines and the enforcement agency.

From the CSM

Nearly half of the 208 safety citations levied in 2005 against the Sago coal mine where 12 men died this week were "serious and substantial."

Federal inspectors found 20 dangerous roof-falls, 14 power wire insulation problems, and three cases of inadequate ventilation plans, among the 96 major violations

Sago's "S&S" violations, which rose fourfold in 2005 over 2004, form a pattern that worries safety experts, who say it raises serious questions about mine management - and the efficacy of government inspections.

"I've seen other mines with as many or nearly as many violations," McAteer says. "But these are substantial ventilation, roof control, and emergency escape violations. If you look at the direction [Sago is] going, you see both federal and state numbers increasing."

I know that there are inherent risks in mining in general, but it seems like this particular mine was particularly concerned with safety.

[joe]

MNG, I think thoreau just called us sissies.

Let's kick his ass!

[Mr. Nice Guy]

Don't worry, joe. I know where he lives 🙂

[Mr. Nice Guy]

And, not to trivialize the horrible loss of these men and the impact to their families, this particular discussion thread has Devo firmly ringing through my skull.