As we collectively gulp about the unfolding disaster in the Gulf of Mexico at least two unfortunate things are abundantly apparent. First, the scope of the oil gusher and its technological fix is not yet known. Continuous flailing and finger pointing between and within the private sector and government (especially the feds) is rampant. Second, to date, few involved have been earnest about the gusher and its fix.
Maybe the scope of the disaster in its environmental and economic implications fuels this. Maybe not. But no story, regardless of how important to the public good, can live an authentic life without good facts. And so far too many of the relevant facts about this gigantic story are either unknown or been left unsaid.
This creates a third disappointment. What’s left of American journalism is falling down on the job. The complexity of the Gulf mess means the avenues to ferret out authentic story lines are abundant. Forensic journalists should be having a field day with the story. But with few exceptions across all media, story lines about the disaster have been remarkably narrow.
There has been a great focus on the size of the oil leak with who knows what accuracy, even though its size has long been irrelevant to the question of whether the spill will do significant damage. There has also been a great focus on the blame game, as though those tawdry scenes somehow supersede the importance of the original problem. Of course, as they should, news outlets have been good at profiling the human and wildlife damage wrought. But little context about the entire story exists. Why? There are a host of large story areas that remain largely untouched. Plying them may help provide badly needed clarity and story context. Consider:
- Regional officials are demanding an emergency barrier island be erected to protect against further coastline damage. Little reporting or analysis has surfaced about the practicality of such a move, its benefit and whatever secondary environmental consequences it may bring. Why? Simply watching officials scream is not a story.
- Similar large leaks in other parts of the world have been partially contained through use of “skimmer tankers” which suck up the oil, partially recycle and return the water to the sea. It’s reported that the recycled “seawater” does not pass U.S. environmental muster. Fine. Why not? And under the circumstances should that standard be waived?
- What international assistance is ongoing? Dozens of countries around the world drill for oil in places as fragile as the Gulf. What assistance might they offer in technology, brain power and ideas? Who is coordinating this and with what impact?
- If the leak stops tomorrow the needed clean-up will still be substantial. Images of workers tentatively skimming landed oil from the top three inches of beach sand with old coal shovels hardly suggests an effective clean-up strategy. Why? How will the beaches be cleaned? And how about the even more difficult to reach marshes and wetlands?
These story angles are hardly radical or “reaching” in any sense. They loom as important subchapters to a story that in the 21st century has only been surpassed by 9/11 and maybe, Hurricane Katrina. Probing them methodically will yield an understanding that can be the cornerstone for stories with greater context and authenticity. But grabbing the facts to facilitate this means spending less time on he said/she said and more time on thinking, analyzing and legwork on a story with an almost incomprehensible scope. Are you listening, journalists?
John Durante is senior marketing associate for WordWrite Communications.
