Those who tend to apologize too much when they make a mistake have a lot to learn from the editors of the San Francisco Chronicle.
It was the Chronicle that gave the world its false impression of how many people were killed in the October 17, 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake. In the hours after the quake, radio and then TV reporters described the three obvious disaster sites — the Bay Bridge, the Cypress section of the Nimitz Freeway and the Marina District — and the scene at Candlestick Park. The general impression created by these scattered vignettes was that a major tragedy had been miraculously averted. The earliest estimates of how many people had died on the collapsed freeway were in the neighborhood of 40.
Around 10 p.m. the broadcasters reported that the Chronicle was about to come out with a headline reading, “HUNDREDS DEAD IN HUGE QUAKE.” From that point on — such is the authority wielded by the Mediocrities of the Morning —”hundreds dead” became the accepted story. The national anchormen jetted out. (Dan Rather in combat fatigues.) The vice-president came. The president came. They all shook their heads and tried to look grim. And it was only after a week that Mayor Lionel Wilson of Oakland let it be known that the death toll on the Nimitz was much, much lower than had been reported.
The Chronicle responded to this turn of events by assigning William Carlsen to write a long, analytical piece entitled “How Estimates of Quake Dead Grew in the Media.” Not a word of self-criticism did it contain. “Police and rescue workers” were blamed for issuing false estimates. Singled out for responsibility was Alameda County Sheriff Charles Plummer, “whose office gave out the most-quoted first estimates after the quake, which was (sic) that 100 to 200 may have been killed.”
The truth is —as we all knew from the radio, and as Carlsen’s piece begrudgingly mentioned — the earliest estimate of how many had died on the Nimitz was 40. This accurate figure (the eventual toll was 41) was used in the Sacramento Bee’s morning-after story. It was the job of the Chronicle reporters to make their own estimate by first-hand observation; or to give their readers a sense of the range of estimates coming from the scene (from 40 to “100 to 200”), which would have conveyed the uncertainty of the situation. Instead they took the high end of Sheriff Plummer’s tentative estimate and made it definitive. Not even a qualifier — “Hundreds feared dead” — with an eye towards accuracy. They blew it big-time, a magnitude 7.1 exaggeration. Not as bad as “Dewey Beats Truman,” but pretty bad.
The Chronicle’s lead story on October 18, written by Randy Shilts and Susan Sward, asserted flatly: “A terrifying earthquake ripped through Northern California late yesterday afternoon, killing more than 200 people…” Nowhere in the article did they even mention that some observers on the scene had made much lower estimates than the one they chose to accept.
A reprint of the “historic” earthquake edition was inserted into the October 30 issue of the paper and the Chronicle brass used the occasion to congratulate themselves on a job well done. They then sent copies of the “historic” edition to college newspapers throughout the Bay Area — God forbid any young reporters should miss this fine example of the craft — with a cover letter from Executive Editor William German, and Managing Editor Matthew Wilson. The letter began: “There are two special reasons for sending you this very special edition of the San Francisco Chronicle…” And it concludes: “Around here this edition is now in heavy demand as a souvenir. Altogether a tribute to the talent, wit and energy of a dedicated staff of journalists.”
Sic and double-sic.
Be First to Comment