CNN.com ghoulish in coverage of plane crash

Vultures feed on the carcass of a zebra.

CNN’s Allan Chernoff – a senior correspondent who has made a career covering disasters both natural and manmade – has stepped over a line of decency in an article published Tuesday by CNN.com.  Running under the headline “Screams, ‘We’re down,’ recorded in cockpit of crashing plane,” was a report of the released transcripts of cockpit recordings from doomed Flight 3407 that crashed into a home near Buffalo, New York on February 12th of this year, killing all 50 souls aboard. 

In addition to revealing pertinent details from the transcripts that might be useful in shedding light on the exact nature of the pilot error which may have contributed to the tragedy, the article (which has no byline, but lists Chernoff as the sole contributor) uses the horrific account of the pilot and co-pilot’s final desperate words as a hook.  From the CNN.com article:

The pilot of a doomed plane that crashed, killing 50 people, said "Jesus Christ" and "We're down," seconds before the plane hurtled from the night sky into a house outside Buffalo, New York, in February.

The last sounds heard in the cockpit were First Officer Rebecca Shaw saying "We're" and then screaming at 10:16 p.m. on February 12, according to a transcript of the cockpit recording.

Seconds earlier, the pilot, Capt. Marvin Renslow, said, "Jesus Christ," as a sound "similar to stick shaker" was heard, the transcript said. Renslow said, "We're down," and a thump was heard before Shaw said, "We're" and screamed.

By appealing to a perverse curiosity that exists about such moments, Chernoff inflicts unnecessary emotional damage on the families of victims who will be haunted by thoughts of the suffering of their loved ones in the moments leading up to the crash.

I will disclose that my own experience may color my reaction to the CNN story. A month before my twelfth birthday, my father was killed in a mountain-climbing accident. An enterprising reporter with one of the Seattle newspapers took it upon themselves to interview the sole survivor of the hike. In the aftermath of a traumatic incident, reporters are taught to recognize that people sometimes talk openly; any willing listener becomes a source of much-needed therapy.

At a time when my family and I were coming to grips with the mere fact that my father was gone, one unprincipled reporter splashed the details of his death across the city paper as though it was nothing more than a gripping scene out of a gothic horror novel. I would have preferred to make the choice about knowing the tormenting particulars of my dad’s death. Having the vivid eyewitness description to join with my own tortured visions of how the accident might have unfolded was not comforting.

Had there been some greater purpose served in releasing those details to the public, I think I could have reconciled the reporter’s decision. This has always been in my mind when writing about tragic events for which the living are still carrying emotional scars. It is also a consideration recognized by the Society of Professional Journalists in their Code of Ethics. In particular, member journalists agree to “minimize harm,” specifically to:

Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.Replace text with your entry.

As well as:

Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

In contrast, when my brother was killed in 2003, when the US Navy S-3 Viking he was piloting crashed during a training exercise, killing all four aboard, the media reports were detailed but respectful.  Reporters conducted polite, respectful interviews and published stories that were informative but considerate of the memories of the fallen and the feelings of those left behind. 

CNN and Chernoff have demonstrated that they are not worthy of being called professional, at least with regard to observance of these standards of journalistic ethics.  There was no utility in providing those gruesome details other than to appeal to lurid curiosity.  There is every reason to feel that the families of those affected would be re-traumatized by the details of those transcripts, no matter their factual basis.  It should have been the choice of family members themselves to decide if they were prepared to confront these things.  Now they have no choice.

This sort of necrovoyeurism, a perverse fascination to make public moments of human mortality, often shadows a culture’s demise.  News compilers like Chernoff should be more aware of their responsibility to ethical coverage, not only the pursuit of ratings by stirring up the shock reflex at the expense of those for whom the emotional damage of events has not yet healed.