When tragedy strikes, the news media always stoops to new lows. As loved ones waited in Reagan National Airport for a plane which would never land, the instantaneous reaction from newsrooms is ‘get people to talk.’ It ends up being anyone and everyone. Experts, government officials, first responders, witnesses, people who are about to get on a plane at a different airport, and most definitely people who knew the deceased.

Some of these things are ultra important others are just flat out wrong. 

Experts: 

As stated in previous columns I don’t like “experts.” However, every rule has an exception and this one is mine.

When it comes to aviation crashes most pilots (if not all) study them. It helps you learn how to prevent another crash. With the information provided to the public 12 hours after the crash you still can not ask an expert “Could this have been prevented?” If they don’t say yes, they look like a hopeless dope. Almost anything can be prevented with proper knowledge and training. 12 hours after the crash, they can not with certainty say the mishap could have been prevented by doing X, Y, and Z.

Another bad question? ‘How did this happen?’ They literally don’t know, it’s been between 0-36 hours and there’s no public information for them to study. This means the answer is going to be speculation (bad).

What outlets should be asking experts instead are:

• What can we learn when studying aircraft accidents?
• What are some regulations which were put in place after previous accidents?
• What are the questions you have when the time comes for you to study this accident?

These three questions can create a 5-8 minute segment and it pushes the story forward. Pair this with team coverage hits before the interview and you have a solid 12-14 minute A-Block, my friend. 

Government officials & First Responders:

You need the government officials – but only to a point.They will provide you with the facts but once they start adding color — or worse, politics — they need to be cut out. When Senator Jerry Moran calls the crash a “very personal circumstance” you need to be removed from the press conference. Senator, If you knew someone on the plane, I am sorry from your loss but then don’t go to the newser, be with your family in this time of tragedy. 

If a goverment offical or first reponder can not provide the facts, you should not be standing at the podium. It’s tragic for everyone involved, from the families to the first responders and witnesses. When politicians and officials insert their own personal feelings (other than the blanket thoughts and prayers statement), it becomes less about the accident and more about them.

We need facts, not feelings.

Witnesses:

Reports within the first 6-8 hours are completely acceptable. What did you see? What were you doing when you saw it? This is all you need to ask.

What’s not acceptable is questions about feelings (“How do you feel about it?” “Are you nervous getting on your next flight again?” etc…).

It’s completely natural for outlets to fearmonger for whatever reason it sells a lot of headlines but does not produce a whole bunch of real “shoeleather journalism.”

After 6-ish hours, the witnesses are likely all gone from the scene and their sound does not push your story forward, meaning it’s time to move on.

People who are about to get on a plane at a different airport: 

This is one of the most unnecessary pieces of breaking news coverage you could have. Going to someone in Logan, LAX, or Sitka and asking ‘How do you feel about this tragedy?’ is not journalism. It’s reactive and impulsive.

Aside from the fact, anyone who doesn’t say something along the line of “it’s terrible” is not getting on air and is probably a psychopath.

It doesn’t move the story forward. If your sound is stagnant, it’s not worth putting in your story. 

People who knew the deceased:

This is the most controversial piece of storytelling. Yes, some family and friends want to talk. Others do not.

For those who want to share the story of their loved one, that’s fine. I also think it’s exploitative and emotionally manipulative, but that’s the reporter’s (or newsroom’s) choice and on their conscience.

However, shoving a camera or microphone in someone’s face before asking them if they want to talk about their loved one is wrong.

Stop, talk, and listen to people. Some people find it therapeutic to talk about. That’s fine, but its not for everyone. Respect people. Put down the microphone and camera before starting the conversation. 

What outlets should actually be doing:

You need to push the story forward with facts. The pieces you should be writing are the following (and feel free to write these today/over the weekend, I’d really love to see them):

• What recruitment for being an air traffic controller looks like? (Maybe this can provide insight as to why there is almost always a shortage of folks working in this field.)
• What in the 48 hours since the crash have we learned? (And then, with this information, ask your expert if they have any other questions about the crash.)
• Last week, President Trump signed the “Keeping Americans Safe in Aviation” executive order. What are the “serious infirmities” he believes some members of the FAA have and how does it prevent them from doing their job to the extent of which it is needed?

Facts, facts, facts. Don’t manipulate emotions at a time of tragedy. Stay calm, provide the facts. It helps more than inflicting emotions into every story.