A tram heading for Sandilands station
Alongside the wall-to-wall post-election coverage, the tram incident was relegated to the ‘in other news’ slot. On the day following, there was more media coverage and one particular phrase on a BBC breakfast bulletin got my attention. The report gave the story so far and said there was a possibility that the driver had blacked out, the story continued with the reporter quoting a source as saying that it was: ‘too early to speculate on a single cause for the accident’.
This reinforced the perception that journalists want to – and are often pushed to – broadcast the cause of any incident as soon as possible in order to quench the thirst of the 24-hour news cycle. Although, to be fair, interviews with accident investigators during week commencing 14 November, have reported comments about the probability of a lengthy investigation and multiple causes.
However, I do think there is definitely room for cooperation between health, safety and incident investigation professionals and the media to improve reporters’ understanding of an incident, including causation and prevention.
An offline session (i.e. one that is not connected to an ongoing incident) would allow an exchange and give an opportunity for health and safety people to coach the journalists, reporters and editors who cover these incidents about some key principles in health and safety. It would also result in health and safety people understanding where the media are coming from.
I originally trained and worked as a reporter covering – among other tragedies – the Manchester Air disaster ; the Zeebrugge ferry sinking; the INLA Ballykelly bombing; and the Bradford City fire.
From there I went into public relations consultancy, helping companies avoid or minimise the impact of industrial and commercial crises – a sort of poacher, turned gamekeeper. Then I spent a decade in corporate communications before a nine-year stint as head of crisis management, security and health and safety in a Fortune 500 company with operations in 100 countries.
The result of my experience has allowed me to look at incidents from many points of the compass and to appreciate some of the stresses and strains involved in preventing, reporting and speculating on, investigating and learning from fatal and severe injury incidents.
The media often slaps ‘elf and safety with accusations that it’s populated by a killjoy bunch of humourless, hard-hatted jobsworths whose only aim in life is to stop school trips, snowball fights and conker contests.
As we know, health and safety concerns are often used by those in schools and businesses as a universal panacea to cover up other inadequacies and general laziness in thinking, planning and managing activities at school, work or related to transport. Thanks to the HSE’s Myth-Buster campaigns, this has lessened, but still features in some media.
But the reality for the media is that it seeks victims, culprits and answers and this is central to the way they work – often because of the limited time or space allowed for a news report on an incident.
As an example, media coverage of the Croydon tram incident started with reports from the emergency services, eye witnesses and then residents who said they predicted something like this would happen.
It moved on to the announcement of the investigation to criticism of shift rostering and the company statement in response, stating that rosters were agreed with unions, etc.
As the driver was arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and has been released on bail until May, it wouldn’t be wise, or legal to dig further into this case. Media coverage also wanes at this point, to reappear at the next court date.
But reporting of this incident does offer background and input into how the media could improve the quality and depth of coverage of incidents.
So what would be in my ‘101 Health and Safety Coaching for the Media’ aimed at reporters and others involved in covering these incidents?
Three areas:
Understanding the Swiss Cheese model, or the Reason’s Incident Causation Model is a ‘must’.
As the readership of SHP is predominantly safety professionals – I won’t go into the detail, other than to outline that the multiple failures in each level of management and supervision are the ‘supply chain to the incident’ and that the last act is the final failure that completed the series of failures.
The media, however, wants simplicity and speed – ‘pilot error, driver error, equipment failure’ are ideal starting points for them – and often, finishing points.
Passers-by and incident witnesses will always remain good media sources in the first hour or so, for quotes on ‘what (they think) happened’. Understanding the contributory factors – the failure of all the slices of cheese – leading to an incident will be of benefit to the reporter, because it will indicate who he or she should seek to interview next and soon.
In addition, the reporter, equipped with the principles of incident causation will consequently be able to ask more incisive and relevant questions of company spokespeople, regulators and the emergency services.
Understanding incident causation will also segue into how an incident is investigated and the methodology of an investigation, together with an appreciation that ‘pilot error or driver error’ is at the final stage of a series of actions or omissions that contributed to the incident.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
This article is pretty unjust, just like to many others UK “news” sites. You criticise journalists who “quench the thirst of the 24-hour news cycle” yet frequently use clickbait techniques on SHP. The article in itself is a clickbait, with “Trump” being the first word of your title and a tag for your website SEO. How ironic. So may of your posts are copied and pasted press releases with credit to SHP as the authors. Changing one word in a title is not journalism. Try harder next time.
Personally I do believe the article has dealt with the article in a very diplomatic manner. Whilst Trump has nothing to do with the article, inexpensive needs to understand, the press and the health and safety professional are two different animals. Diametrically opposed in thinking and motivation. The reporters immediate reaction to an occurrence is “Here is a story it’s news I can sell.”. The HSE professionals thinking is “Let us establish the facts and then once we are sure can make an informed comment”. Sad but true. Often the press jump in and sensationalise a story rather than establish the facts. Facts are often boring. They don’t get the emotions pumping. To the press HSE professionals are boring. The press is not concerned about the impact of inaccuracies in their report they are only really interested in the short term benefit of selling news, sensationalism get a situation does this.
Whilst respect of the press is respected, there seems to be no body controlling the press and ensuring honest unbiased reporting.. editors no longer establish facts and edit stories. There seems to be the approach of the press is a law to themselves and can write and do as the wish. The thing which all hide behind is , “We have freedom of the press and freedom of expression so we can do as we please.” Over the years the fight for freedom of the press never encompassed irresponsible inaccurate reporting. Sadly what we fought for has unleashed a rampant animal who preys on society in an uncontrolled manner.
Because of potential ligation and potential damage to both parties and in the interest of fact finding and reporting the HSE professionals has been groomed over the years you report facts and facilitate the findings of good workable remedial actions. On the other hand the reporters training ground is to write and report as they see matters and within the parameters of the particular bias of the paper they work for, sad but true.
Sending reporters on HSE training is not the answer. They are professional reporters let them do their job but responsibly. A reporter reporting on engineering matters need not be a engineer.
The answer would be to establish a control body for the press, for example an ombudsman reviewing the published stories of reporters for accuracy and fact. If it is established a reporter misuses his position to fine or suspend the reporter and the editor of the news forum. For too long the press has gone unchecked . This control should also be extended to news papers and news channels. They should also be licensed and if they fail to comply with accurate and responsible reporting stand a chance of not only being fined but also having their license to operate revovoked
!) i think the election of Mr Trump is far more news worthy than a UK related tranm crash
2) The media must be allowed to act within guidlines other wise freedom of speech and democracy becomes secondary
3) I agree with the sentiments of the below poster SHP and further add the obvious pro EU tendencies and anti Tory sentiments of the pubication
I am a former journalist who now works with companies and organisations as a media relations adviser to help them promote and protect their reputations. My company specialises in crisis comms.
While I appreciate we need a better informed media, you need to be realistic about the world journalists work in. Trying to engage reporters in some sort of ‘background briefing’ is somewhat unrealistic. Most reporters are generic reporters who cover any topic that happens – and cover the story in a rush. They simply don’t have the time to understand ‘causation’ models or the law surrounding the incident. To put it bluntly they need a simple way of explaining the situation or a ‘soundbite’.
So we suggest to our clients: you come up with the simple version and the ‘soundbite’. Because if you don’t, and you give the media the complex version, they will turn it into the simple version – and it will probably be one you don’t like.
I agree with the need to simplify for people – it IS an interesting post though.
My point exactly. Why should companies now be forced to hire experts to nullify the utterances of a rampant press and irresponsible reporting. In the good old bad old days whilst we were fighting for freedom of press it was never I visited that the press would abuse their position.
Why should the Press be permitted to abuse their role in society. We have calls for gun laws and licensing. There is statute protecting citizens from slander and abuse. Why should irresponsible reporters and press be permitted to ruin the reputation of any person or organisation in the interest of free press and freedom of speech. This is a privildge and should be used prudently and with respect. The police is there to enforce law and order. Who is there in place to check on the press and ensure they do not abuse their position in society. Contrary to popular belief the press is not franchised to check on public. There press is franchised to report facts in an unbiased manner. I.E. Not their slant to mislead the public. Now another position is created to nullify the beast that freedom of expression and free press has created. Do a root cause analysis in this matter. The root cause is a biased and unchecked press . One of the factors is the cost of litigation for the man on r the street and smaller companies. Another is the time taken to get the case heard and the financial clout of the various media’s making the whole potential action too expensive to contemplate. Another is once bad news is publicised the damage is done and even an apology does not fully negate the stigma created. The press bosses know this.
Freedom of press and freedom of the speech is a great power and there needs to be used responsibly. There needs be some form of a regulatory body checking and controlling the press. As previously mentioned an ombudsman to whom complaints may be sent for investigation with the authority to suspend a reporter, ban the reporter. Whilst the reporter is only the writer there should also be suitable action which can be taken on an editor. After all, this is supposed to be the control on the reporter and the final ,inexpensive before publication. The editor is not there only to collect the a fat check with a right to act with impunity. He is supposed to be the check to ensure what goes to press is accurate and not slanderous or libelous. This should responsible reporting. If there is continued abuse or the abuse is of a very serious nature the ombudsman should have the right to withdraw the licence for that outlet of the media to operate. In other words close them down. A few convictions will quickly bring about a change of approach. One cannot continental to bring in an intervention for an intervention for an intervention and so on. It does not make sense. Once this happens the press will ensure that simple versions are accurate versions or face action, the same as any other person in this world. Regulation will be top down and bottom up
.
A correction is needed to the post: the tram dirver has not, as far as I know, been charged with any offence but he was arrested and questioned on suspicion of manslaughter and was subsequently released on police bail.
Yes – completely right David. Our mistake, I have updated the article to reflect that.
Interesting comments and observations…the above aricle states: ‘As the driver has been charged with manslaughter and bailed pending further proceedings, it wouldn’t be wise, or legal to dig further into this case.’ However with my knowledge of the law and accident causation I was surprised at this comment given that the authorities have still to complete their investigation.
Meanwhile, having checked out the BBC news from yesterday an article states: ‘Mr Dorris, from Beckenham, south-east London, has been arrested on suspicion of manslaughter and released on bail until May.’ That is very different to being ‘charged with manslaughter’. Perhaps the author needs to take a leaf out of his own book.
Thanks Ray – completely right. I missed that in proofing, thanks for commenting and have updated the post to reflect that.
As a retired railway employee with much experience in the Safety field, I am aware that the RAIB will conduct the investigation but it is clear that journalistic speculation may illustrate some ignorance of what the remit of any investigation of light and heavy rail incidents. I would expect them to look at shift and roster patterns; whether they are agreed with the unions or not is irrelevant to their fitness for purpose. I would expect the condition of the track and tram inself to be rigourously examined. There are standards concerning fatigue mangement, competancy assessment and training, route knowledge, and the place of these in company policy which apply to tram (light rail) and train (heavy rail) alike. Meanwhile, trams still run under presumably the same conditions that may be contributory factors to a fatal and tragic accident. The families of the dead are facing months of speculation by those who are more interested in making political points that finding the truth.