Share thisI got a note from the editor of ALN that this column was due. It has been a tough week to get anything done. I have been forced to spend much of my time responding to articles in our local paper dealing with a power outage at CDC Building 18 caused by a lightning strike. I realized I could deal with both issues at once so I am going to share some lessons learned on the issue of newspapers and containment, while they are still very fresh in my mind.
While the overall premise of the stories about Building 18 was incorrect, I was lucky in that the newsperson in this case accurately reported the information I gave her. However, in doing her job, she was reporting the information she was getting from all sources, informed or not. In addition she had some limited project documentation of discussions during the design phase. I worked to be honest and open in what I said while recognizing that few actual facts about the incident were available during the time the stories were being developed. I worked to avoid speculation as to the cause of the incident sticking to the fact that the building systems worked as intended in the event of such a failure and that safety was maintained. Sticking with facts and not speculation made me comfortable if anything I said ended up on the front page. From this experience, I would like to share some observations related to the press coverage of containment facilities.
The first point I would like to make is that incidents related to containment facilities make a good story in the eyes of the press. However, it is only a story if the incident can be perceived as a threat to the workers or the community – otherwise it is not news. That means that the headline, out of necessity, will tell the sensational side of the story. I would be surprised to see a headline that says “Incident at Containment Lab, No big Deal.” Be prepared, the headline for containment facilities will never tell the true story.
Second, the basic rationale related to the safety inherent in the design of these facilities will quickly get lost and muddled in the “statements of fact” that are made by people that 1) know nothing about the project, 2) have little expertise on the design and operation of containment facilities, and 3) may have their own unspoken agenda. Apparently containment brings out people, although expert in their own field, who cannot keep from commenting on something they don’t know anything about. According to the reporter she was contacted by “experts” from around the country expressing their views on the issue. Unfortunately, every statement they made that was published was incorrect and demonstrated an appalling lack of knowledge on the basics of biocontainment or security system design. Expect the same for your incident. Be prepared to discuss the rationale behind your containment decisions and why it provides a safe secure solution.
Third, the complexity of the issues related to containment facility design and operations is difficult for a reporter to decipher and learn on their tight deadlines. News is only news for a brief time. Trying to explain a decision that took a year to study that has many facets to consider to a reporter in a few minutes over the phone while they are trying to get the overall story written for a deadline a few hours away is an impossible task. Even well meaning reporters will be confused by the complexity of the issue and will not be able to take the time to get a full understanding. In addition, all you can expect is a written “sound bite.” A six inch thick report will get at best, a one line description in the news story.