Part of this is explainable by the fact that “crash,” as a word, simply flows more easily in speech than, say, “water landing”—and that it’s much more common than the NYT’s relatively obscure “ditch.” Cable’s “crash”-ophilia, in this instance, isn’t likely a case of conscious sensationalism so much as it’s a case of the unconscious: TV, in breaking-news coverage, traffics in spur-of-the-moment commentary from its narrators, and therefore is more susceptible than print to the vagaries of human emotion. (Were I talking to my friends about this afternoon’s event, I’d call it a crash; were I writing about it for public consumption, I would not.)
That’s an explanation, though—not an excuse. Any event that combines the terms “plane” and “New York City” and “crash” is bound to create panic, even if, in the next moment, the real situation—apparently-casualty-free water landing—is revealed. Those relating the story of that event, therefore, have an even greater responsibility than they usually do to be both accurate and sensitive in their narratives. Here’s yet another area where TV news can take a cue from its fellows in print: before you share information with the public…choose your words carefully.
None of the teevee talkers have any aviation safety expertise. They are no more informed than any other gawker on the street.
Matthew Wald, on the other hand, has systematically and carefully investigated the aviation industry and aviation safety, in particular.
I find your word choice analysis interesting, but the absence of analysis into the qualifications and expertise of the talker gawkers versus investigative journalists to be puzzling.
#1 Posted by Annie, CJR on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 07:04 AM
I found ABC's John Berman most infuriating when he attributed Governor Patterson's comment about a "miracle on the Hudson" to Mayor Bloomberg.
I also found ABC's reliance on "eyewitness Robin Roberts" whose apartment is on Riverside Drive some 50 blocks north of the site to be over-reach write large. She really did not see anything.
#2 Posted by steve@esrati.com, CJR on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 08:41 AM
There are two typos in my letter above. The governor's name is Paterson and I said "writ large."
#3 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Fri 16 Jan 2009 at 10:18 AM
If there was a miracle it was that there was no boat traffic and the water was dead calm. Pilots simulate this thing all the time, and Sullenberger executed what appeared to be a very good water landing. I particularly liked his second walk of the aisle.
Naturally the dribbling MSM want to expand this into some sort of miracle, that way they can jabber about it for days and ignore things with consequences to us all.
#4 Posted by messagecomplete, CJR on Mon 19 Jan 2009 at 04:11 PM
"Any landing you can walk away from was a good landing. Any landing you can walk away from and use the plane again was a great landing."
I am both a College grad [AB, 1968] and an experienced former professional pilot and flight instructor. The NTSB defines an accident as "an occurrence associated with the operation of an aircraft ... in which any person suffers death or serious injury, [sic] or in which the aircraft receives substantial damage." Given that the flight attendant's leg gash was classified as "serious" and the aircraft lost an engine, US Airways 549's ditching was an accident.
Captain Sullenberger made a good landing, but there's no point in sugar coating what could have happened. Focusing only on his landing means that we will fail to recognize and correct the conditions which made such a landing inevitable.
And sooner or later they will result in a major tragedy instead of a near one!
I can say with near certainty that this accident was caused by much more -- and much less -- than a multiple bird strike!
If you'd like to know more, visit me at:
http://us-airways-1549-crash-analysis.blogspot.com/
---Captain DT [Deep Throat]
#5 Posted by Captain DT [Deep Throat], CJR on Tue 10 Feb 2009 at 11:25 AM