Nope, can't disagree a bit there, either...although Bob Murray has never
been one to shy away from a camera and he would have been better served
early on to have probably said far less than he did. But, his latter
restraint has been much better from what film/clips I've seen/heard.
I commented to my wife that he was making a big mistake. He should
have appointed a person with experience in handling the press to do
all the briefings. He was clearly out of his depth by day 2.
You clearly don't know about Murray! :)
He's been notorious for years. Testified at congressional hearings,
etc., etc., ... Says what most other independent operators probably
think but consider more prudent to keep to themselves, no doubt.
I didn't lay it on the press, I just said there was a mis-
communication. It's still the presses responsibility to check the
facts even if your own mother told you the facts, same with the mining
company (if they are going to talk to the press at all). So it's best
to tell the press to just go away.
And even if it were the reason, I would hope that conservative media
wrould try as hard as liberal media to avoid getting people deported
while their men are trapped in a mine. Maybe that makes me a liberal,
but it might just make me a compassionate conservative. Someone has
to be one of them.
IIRC, 3 of the 6 had Hispanic names, but I have heard no hint of any
being illegal. But I'm sure it's only a matter of time before the
mining industry uses illegals because of lower pay, dangerous work,
and general indifference of what happens to them.
Thats the way it should be out of respect for the family and their
privacy. It really annoys me when I see these "reporters" poking a
camera into someones face when their family members fate is unknown or
as a body is being pulled out of the water.
The media has no business doing that to people. If they feel the need
for crap and insensitive programming let them show a jerry springer
rerun or something.
Some of the media should have had their asses kicked the way they were all
over the Scott Peterson (sp?) case. Right there showing things that weren't
"news" in any sense of the word. And talking about the facts of the case
BEFORE the trial. I don't see how he didn't go free because nowhere in the
US could they find someone who had not seen intimate details of the case on
It's like showing pools of blood after car crashes. I don't want to see
that stuff, particularly close to dinner time.
You said, "out of respect for the family and their privacy". Some people
don't have a clue what that means, and will argue with you all day long
about "freedom of the press". Well, just as freedom of speech doesn't cover
yelling fire in a crowded theater, freedom of the press has some lines yet
to be drawn.
Paparazzi causing collisions and fatal wrecks to get "news" photos.
Apologies to REAL vultures.
It's either A) because the news is there to read or see, but some
people only pay attention to politics or public school news, but
ignore crime stories, or B) because they've changed? the standard for
jurors from total ignorance of the case to not leaning to the guillt
or innocense of the defendant. I'm not sure which, and it might vary
from case to case and state to state.
I hate that too. Used to be, no sign of a body was shown, and if so
it wsa totally covered. Around the 70's I think it was they started
I guess that is some reminded that the French are no better than the
Americans. In fact, I don't know of a case like that, so far, in the
Yes, it's the way it should be, but it seems it never is.
I had a date once with a tv reporter from a small town station in a
rural area and she told me that she would have to ask a lot of people
before one would talk to her. I was happy to hear that, because I
used to wonder why so many people would talk. (Or course on tv, they
don't show interviews with people who don't give interviews, so the
image is biased. :-) )
I also wanted to ask her if she had a problem asking the questions,
but I didn't know how to phrase that nicely . Hmmmm. What I have here
is actually pretty nice. What I wanted to ask is "How come you're
willing to intrude in their lives in their worst moments? Don't you
have any compassion for them?"
I didn't ask because it was a first date (or maybe a phone
conversation before the date) and we had a second date, for lunch, and
she got disgusted with me for a reason she never said. She was good
looking but still single 10 years later, so maybe it wasn't me. Oooh,
I'm off topic but anyhow, a lot of people won't be interviewed she
To add one thing to my original post. It wasn't just the last Pa.
mine crisis that contrasts with this one, but a string of mine
cave-ins going back my whole life afaicremember, which were all like
the pennsylvania one. They may have all been east of the Mississippi,
and llike a couple people said, the part of the country may be the
reason, in one way or the other. Either the people are different, or
the mines are older and more people live closer to the mine so they
are more likely to go there, or the mine properties are smaller so
that the news reporters can get closer to the mine area, or the owners
just let them in because they have always done it that way or didn't
think not to. I'm not even sure the places where the owner Murray
makes his statements are near the mine. Maybe there is an office in
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.