| Sign up | Log in | Forgot Password |
How Well Did the Press Cover the Constitution Center?
By Ed Goppelt
Tuesday, 07/08/03
(1057678900253)
Part of the press' job, it seems to me, is to get to the bottom of things, to pay attention to the things that matter, to present the public with a report on what happened that is both accurate and meaningful. How well did the press do its job when it came to the National Constitution Center dedication ceremony?
Many media outlets seem to have had trouble deciding whether to cover what happened at the Ceremony as a near disaster worthy of serious scrutiny or a happy occasion.
The Inquirer and Daily News did the story both ways, giving their coverage an odd, schizophrenic quality. For an example, see Bob Warner's Amazing Day and July 4 What a Bang! stories.
But at least the local dailies led with the falling picture frame in some of their stories. Would a USA Today reader even realize that a Supreme Court Justice was almost killed on national television? Only in the fifteenth paragraph of USA Today's story does the paper get around to mentioning that dignitaries "got a scare during the ceremony."
In my opinion some of the best reporting on the story comes from the Philadelphia Inquirer. See Schogol's 7/6/03 stories on the accident and previous black eyes to the City's reputation. Soteropoulos and Twyman's piece describing the scenery's fall 7/4/03 and Down, Wood & Tanfani's 7/6/03 report on the reasons for the frame's fall.
But even the Inquirer appears unwilling at times to acknowledge the seriousness of what happened.
For example, officials injuries are consistently characterized as minor, not just by the officials--this is to be expected--but by the reporters themselves.
Why not let the facts speak for themselves?
Some news organizations got basic facts wrong. For example, what did Justice O'Connor say when the frame collapsed around her and other dignitaries?
According to Channel Six O'Connor said "we could have been hit, bumped." I was watching the Channel Six's coverage of the ceremony. I heard O'Connor say something different: "we could all have been killed there."
In stories about mass events, readers need to know how many people showed up. The AP dutifully reports that 4,000 people attended the event. This is indeed the official figure, but I actually counted the seats. There were a little more than 2,000, nowhere near the 4,000-4,500 seats Mayoral Spokesperson Barbara Grant said would be available at the event. While I understand the AP reporter's decision to take officials' word on attendance--counting seats is tedious--one has to wonder: do AP reporters take everything officials tell them at face value?
With a couple of exceptions (see Acel Moore's editorial on the Center's failure to point out the founding fathers' hypocrisy in permitting slavery), coverage of the Center in the months preceding its opening was relentless in portraying the Center in a positive light. It reads like advertising copy.
While accurate, skeptical reporting may not matter, or even be desired at ceremonial events, I wonder if the reporters who only wrote uncritical stories did the Center or the public any favors.
A Supreme Court Justice was almost killed during the dedication ceremony. If reporters had covered the Center seriously would we have been spared this near disaster? I don't know, but I do think the press can and must do a better job of covering the Center.