Producers fired over embarrassing Asiana crash broadcast

A couple of weeks ago I commented on how a local television station suffered considerable embarrassment by airing what was thought to be the names of the four pilots involved in the recent Asiana Airlines crash in San Francisco. The station had done its due diligence: the names came from a normally reliable source and were confirmed by the National Transportation Safety Board (the "verification" was provided by a summer intern). The names turned out to not only be wrong but offensive to the Asian community. Asiana threatened to sue the station and the NTSB.

The station corrected the problem almost as soon as it was aired (following the next break), offered profuse apologies, and promised to investigate and discipline those responsible.

One would think that the dust would settle rather quickly after a few weeks, particularly as Asiana decided not to proceed with its threatened lawsuit. Not so – the incident has become toxic to anyone associated with it. At least four producers at the station have been fired.

There is no question that the incident was embarrassing to a station that prides itself on the accuracy of its reporting. Certainly there should have been consequences for those involved. They should have known better. They should have been a bit more culturally sensitive, particularly in the San Francisco Bay Area. But termination of employment? It seems a pretty steep price to pay for a moment of stupidity.

I'm always leery of expressing opinions without knowing the facts. There may have been egregious conduct on the part of the producers that warranted such a drastic measure. But my experience with the reporters and producers in the Bay Area has almost always been that they are hard-working professionals dedicated to getting the facts right. This sort of lapse seems out of character and it's hard for me not to believe that they were sacrificed to political correctness.

If this is indeed the case, the station may well have an additional reputational problem. A story that might have gone away quietly continues to play in the news. At least one of the producers is suing for wrongful termination, which guarantees that the story will continue. It's a good example of how to make a reputational crisis worse.

Related articles

NTSB says an intern to blame for embarrassing names read by TV news

Video: San Francisco TV Station KTVU Incorrectly Names Asiana Pilots

San Francisco plane crash: Asiana Airlines will sue KTVU after TV station used racially offensive names for the four pilots

Fact checking doesn't replace commonsense

KTVU fires at least three producers over Asiana names

Manslaughter Conviction for Costa Concordia Crisis Coordinator

Last year I wrote about the conviction for manslaughter of a group of seismologists in the Italian courts for their predictions related to the L'Aquila earthquake. Now the Italian courts have upped the ante.

Five employees of the Costa Crociere SpA cruise company have been convicted on multiple counts of manslaughter related to the wreck of the Costa Concordia. Two bridge officers and the helmsman were sentenced to 20 to 23 months in prison (the captain will be tried separately) and the Concordia's cabin services manager received two years and six months. However, the company's crisis coordinator received the longest sentence: two years and ten months.

Sentences under two years were suspended and the longer sentences replaced with house arrest.

Now one must be careful about drawing assumptions because there are no details on why the crisis coordinator was tried and convicted. It is unclear whether he was on the vessel and responsible for deaths through negligence or merely developed emergency plans for the company. The court's reasoning behind the verdicts will be released within 90 days.

However, the sentence does have a certain consistency with the L'Aquila verdict on the part of the Italian courts: a tendency to blame planners as well as those actually responsible for the incident. As did the L'Aquila verdict, the conviction of a crisis coordinator raises an interesting question of responsibility. Since most crisis coordinators have limited authority both in planning and executing emergency plans, should they be held accountable for inadequate planning in a court of law? Or does the true responsibility lie with the organization for which they work? In the case of the Costa Concordia, Costa Crociere avoided criminal prosecution through the payment of 1 million Euro fine.

If this is becomes a trend in other countries, it makes the use of standards and program documentation critical. Professional practices are not just the right thing to do, they may be your sole defence if you're called to account for your stewardship.

Fact checking doesn’t replace commonsense

Last week I wrote about the importance of checking your facts before passing on information. However, I should probably have also mentioned that the source you use to check those facts is important. Confirming one Facebook posting by using another does not count. Also, a little common sense goes a long way towards keeping you out of trouble.

One of our local TV stations found this out the hard way last week. In my former life as Director of Emergency Services, I came to know many of the reporters and news editors here in the San Francisco Bay Area and, almost without exception, I found them committed to factual and accurate reporting. This station is no different. When they found themselves in possession of information that had the potential to be a "scoop," they checked it with a credible source and then ran the story.

The "scoop" was a list of the names of the Korean pilots of the Asiana Airlines flight that crashed at San Francisco International Airport last week. The station is not saying where they got the names, but I suspect it was from a social media posting. The station contacted the National Transportation Safety Board which confirmed the names. The station then aired a report complete with graphics identifying the pilots.

So what's the problem? Didn't the station do what was expected by confirming the information with a credible source?

The key is the word "credible." The person who answered the phone at the NTSB was a summer intern who was trying to be helpful and confirmed the names, even though he didn't know them. But it shouldn't never have gotten that far. The list of names was: Sum Ting Wong, Wi Tu Lo, Ho Lee Fuk, and Bang Ding Ow. Whoever thought that these were real names is probably polishing their resume and should consider some sensitivity training. The NTSB is most likely looking at the training it provides interns. And there are already plenty of jokes about newscasters reading whatever is on the teleprompter.

It would almost be funny if it weren't for the consequences. A television station that touts its accurate coverage has had its reputation tarnished and is suffering extreme embarassment. Worse, Asiana Airlines is suing the station over its "racially discriminatory report" and is considering suing the NTSB.

So when doing your fact checking, don't neglect to use a bit of common sense. If the story seems too good to be true, it probably is. And in checking facts, make sure you know who is answering the phone. It just might be the janitor.

SF Hotels Gouge Crash Victims? Definitely not!

The Internet has given everyone the power to be a reporter. This is not necessarily a bad thing – I know better than most how little gets reported in the mainstream media and how ofter what is reported is distorted. Unfortunately, the average Internet user doesn't receive a journalist's training in fact-checking and ethics.

Case in point is a story making the rounds about how local San Francisco hotels gouged the victims of the recent airplane crash as San Francisco Airport with inflated room rates. Hey, the facts were right there on the hotels' websites for all to see: rooms that normally rent for $100 or $200 a night were costing up to $1,200.

Except, of course, that isn't the whole story and the truth is quite different. The high rates are indeed correct – at the time of the crash the Bay Area was hosting the annual Semicon West conference, a huge microelectronics conference that creates the second busiest week of the year for Bay Area hotels. Hotel rates are adjusted based on the rules of supply and demand, so the rates hosted on the companys' websites are normal for this time of year.

But that isn't the rate that was charged to victims and their families. Instead, local hotels set aside hundreds of rooms, lowered rates and offered discounts of up to 70% to victims and their families while turning away guests at the higher rate. Our local hotels did their bit and they don't deserve the bad rap they got from the Internet "journalists".

So they next time you come across a startling expose and are tempted to hit the "share" button, take a minute or two to do some fact checking. There's plenty of bad information out there already and we should do our best not to add to it.

Vigilance as the Price of Freedom? Some thoughts on the 4th

The Founding Fathers were not universally nice people. The were venal and indecisive, made decisions based on political or economic gain, and had hidden vices. They were not gifted with prescience or an ability to see the future. In short, they were just ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances. Yet somehow they managed to craft a political experiment unique in the history of the world, one where all people, at least in theory, are equal before the law.

How is that experiment faring these days? It depends on who you ask. Our personal fears have allowed the emergency of a government that spies indiscriminately on its citizens using a bloated intelligence bureaucracy staffed primarily by contractors, replaces citizen soldiers with mercenaries, uses torture and assassination as instruments of state policy, and has laws that permit citizens to be stripped of constitutional rights by declaring them enemies of the state. Is this truly the America we want?

There are certainly those that would argue that these are necessary compromises that must be made to prevent threats to our way of life. I'm not naive enough to deny that there isn't some justification to these arguments. I have been a soldier and have worked in security during the terrorism scare of the 70's and 80"s. I understand the threat and am sympathetic to those centurions who stand on the wall.

But what is the that threat? The decimation of a city? We've survived that: San Francisco in 1906, Chicago 1871, Galveston 1900, Boston 1872, New Orleans 2005, and countless others. The death of thousands? An estimate 675,000 Americans died in the flu pandemic of 1918. Approximately 49,000 die each year from the flu.

My point is not to minimize loss of life or the suffering occasioned by a terrorist attack. These are horrible and senseless events and we are right both to fear them and to try and prevent them. However, we need to stop fearing terrorism as a personal threat and recognize that collectively we are stronger than any terrorist organization. No matter the nature of the attack, our society can survive so long as we hold to our values.

Vigilance is indeed the price of freedom but that vigilance needs to be turned inwards as well as towards external threats. There is a reason that the oath taken by any soldier or government employee is first and foremost to the Constitution and the rights it embodies. On this 4th of July, it is well to remember the quote attributed to Edmund Burke, "The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men should do nothing."

Hostile Interviews: Lessons from a public relations disaster

The Salvation Army has been under fire for alleged discrimination against homosexuals, so when Major Andrew Craibe, Territorial Media Relations Director for the Southern Territory in Australia, was invited to be interviewed by two LGBT journalists for a local radio station last June he probably thought it was a good chance to set the record straight. Instead, he created a public relations disaster.

If you listen to the broadcast, Craibe starts out on message and it's a good one: the Salvation Army does not discriminate in employment, provision of services, or participation in worship. However, the Salvation Army, as do many other Christian organizations, believes that homosexuality is a sin proscribed by the Bible and prohibits membership in the church by active LGBT people. As the reporters began asking questions based on this belief, Craibe first creates a faux pas by using an argument that is offensive to the LGBT community and then let's himself be drawn off message to support a controversial biblical passage that claims that those engaging in homosexual practices "deserve death." Craibe's poor defense of the passage and lack of preparation resulted in world-wide headlines along the lines of  "Senior Salvation Army Officials believe gays should be put to death!"

The Salvation Army issued an immediate apology and statement that it did not advocate the death of LGBT people but the damage was already done.

So what can we learn from this? There are three simple rules to keep in mind when participating in a potentially hostile interview:

1. Like the old World War II quote, "Is this trip really necessary?" Opening a dialog and telling your side of the story is an essential part of crisis communications. But make sure that the interviewer will actually let you do this. If you haven't done your homework on the interviewer, his or her bias, and the nature of the audience, don't accept the interview.
2. Do your homework on the community to which you will be speaking. Any cultural group has words or concepts that they find offensive. Remember that it is not about what you believe personally but about what the audience is hearing. Just as you would not use racially-charged language when speaking to a minority group, don't use insulting language to other groups out of ignorance. You can make your point without alienating your audience.
3. Stay on message. Hostile questions are intended to put you on the defensive and to make you say things you will later regret. Be prepared for the hard questions. With a little thought,
   you can pretty much figure out what questions will be asked and you
   should have answers ready or at least a strategy for dealing with them.
   There are any number of techniques available for dealing with hostile
   questions but you won't remember them if you haven't prepared.

Having the courage to engage a potentially hostile interviewer is not a bad thing but failing to prepare for that interview is. I'll have more to say on this subject in this month's featured article in my newsletter, Emergency Management Solutions.

Thanks to my friend and colleague Bill Nicholson for calling this incident to my attention.

National Preparedness Report shows limited capacity for risk reduction

FEMA has just released the National Preparedness Report for 2012 and it makes for interesting reading. The NPR is intended to report on progress towards developing the capabilities outlined in the National Preparedness Goal. This is the second year that the report has been published.

What I found interesting was the summary of current capabilities. As will come as no surprise to those who have followed my blog for any length of time or have read my book, the summary demonstrates a clear focus on response at the expense of other areas of emergency management. Indeed, the five "high priority" capabilities are all response oriented.

This is neither surprising nor necessarily a bid thing. With limited resources, jurisdictions focus on developing the capacity to respond to the initial event and place reliance in mutual aid and the Federal government. This is borne out by another portion of the report that deals with addressing capability gaps and demonstrates a reliance on Federal support. However, several of the areas that are neglected (such as long term vulnerability reduction at 39%) can have a direct bearing on response capabilities.

What is surprising and disappointing to me is how low hazard identification and resilience assessment scored. Only 45-46% of the respondents rated this as a current capability. As I noted above vulnerability reduction (i.e. mitigation) scored even lower at 39%. These are core components of an emergency management program. All planning must begin with an understanding of risk in relation to the vulnerability of the community. If the states and territories that responded to the survey don't believe they have these capabilities, how can we expect local jurisdictions to do so?

If we truly want to achieve the National Preparedness Goal, we have to do better.

Is San Francisco’s New Fireboat a Political Football?

SFFD Proposed Fireboat (SF Chronicle photo)

According to an article in this morning's San Francisco Chronicle the San Francisco Fire Department has just lost out on a Federal grant for $7.8 million for a new fireboat because of "procedural delays." 

This is a big deal to us here in San Francisco. While others around the Bay have had to mothball their fireboats, SFFD has worked hard to maintain its capacity to respond to incidents on our waterfront and throughout the Bay Area. During the 1989 Loma Prieta earthquake the fireboat Phoenix played a vital role in containing the fires in the Marina Distict.  A second boat, Guardian, was presented to the City a year later and is maintained in reserve status. Both boats have done yeoman work but they are both over 50 years old. The Phoenix was built in 1954 and the Guardian in 1951. We're past due for a new vessel.

So who's to blame for the procedural delays? Hard to say. The grant was awarded in the fall of 2009 and Homeland Security took until January 2011 to approve the use of a grant from Chevron as matching funds. The first contract for the design of the new vessel was challenged by one of the bidders, requiring the bidding process to be repeated. A second conttract for construction also ran into problems, causing further delays, and was finally in place in February. Unfortunately, the terms of the grant required that construction be completed by next month, a physical impossibility given the delays.

Granted that taking two years to get contracts bid and approved may seem excessive but that's not unusual for San Francisco, or, indeed, for many jurisdictions. Could we have done better? Given our byzantine contracting process, I'm sure we could have but that's not the point. There is no suggestion that anyone delayed or obstructed this project.

So here's my question: is Homeland Security really so out of touch with reality that it will withhold a vital resource over an administrative requirement? Apparently so, as the best efforts of Senators Boxer and Feinstein and House Minority Leader Pelosi have had no impact. It seems to me that San Francisco has made a good faith effort to meet the terms of the grant and any of us that have worked with Federal grants know that extensions are routinely granted. So what's the problem here?

Could it be that there's a political side to this? Silly question.