Wwp, Review Learned Lessons From Ice Storm

Four days into ice storm ‘96, Washington Water Power Chief Executive Officer Paul Redmond canceled his newspaper subscription.

His company blew a fuse over a headline that read, “WWP turns away offer of help.”

The next day, Redmond issued a press release calling the headline, the story and the newspaper irresponsible.

From WWP’s perspective, the story while technically accurate, missed the bigger picture.

WWP believed it was doing everything it could to get the power up.

Crews were working extraordinary shifts. People were pulling together, trying to do the best they could under difficult circumstances.

The headline hit WWP employees like a low blow in the middle of a gallant fight, knocking the wind from their morale.

WWP’s response blew a few fuses around my office.

From the newspaper’s perspective, the story about the crews being turned away was accurate and the headline reflected what the story said.

Writers and editors believed the story about developed largely because WWP issued contradictory statements on why the crews were being turned away.

First it was because of the Border Patrol. Then it was because of paperwork. Finally, and logically, it was because the company felt it couldn’t safely handle any more crews as it struggled to get a grip on its overall repair strategy.

Thousands of phone lines lit up at WWP and at the newspaper that Saturday as people offered choice words and opinions about WWP’s response to the ice storm or the newspaper headline they read as putting down the hard work of the utility.

Today, nearly a month later, as houses have warmed and emotions cooled, the questions raised on each side are still valid. Was WWP prepared? Did the newspaper make too much of the crews being turned away?

Over the last few days, the newspaper has initiated a number of community conversations about these questions. The paper has convened its citizens advisory councils in Spokane and Coeur d’Alene. The publisher and editor met with representatives of WWP. The news staff has conversed with friends and neighbors.< Here is what these conversations have revealed.

First, this region was hit hard by a crisis. It was big. It was nasty. Decisions had to be made on the fly, without power, without heat, and with significant pressure on time and resources. Tempers grew short and it showed.

Second, both WWP and this newspaper threw everything they had into serving the community.

Descriptions of long hours, difficult working environments, dedication to the job sounded amazingly similar as I listened to WWP workers tell their stories, and heard tales from my staffers.

These efforts speak well of each institution.

Third, neither side was perfect.

To date, WWP has acknowledged at a press conference a few days ago that it struggled with its communications and learned it did not have a smoothly-functioning system to bring in crews from the outside.

The newspaper learned some things, too. We learned that in extraordinary times, a big headline carries even more weight and significance than we imagined.

In retrospect, I have concluded, along with our publisher, that the headline about the crews should have been toned down.

It should have been toned down because it led to unintended hardship for the people whom the community was relying on to get the power back.

I felt that hardship from the WWP workers who spoke about the headline’s impact. I respect public reaction from friends of the newspaper who said we had made the crew issue out to be a bigger problem than it probably turned out to be.

The newspaper regrets any hardship the headline caused WWP’s workers or any undue anxiety it caused readers.

Still, I would humbly ask WWP and readers of the paper remember that November 20 and December 8, this paper ran 290 stories, columns, tip sheets, and personal journals about ice storm ‘96.

On many days and in many ways, the paper’s coverage of the storm aided this community, and WWP, in ways no other medium could when the power was out.

The paper always got through to worried, cold citizens hungry for information and warmed by our presence. Of that overall effort, we are proud.

Yet we also are sobered by the knowledge that much of our good work was damaged in the minds of some by one headline that, in hindsight, was too big.

This public critique of our work, the Monday-morning quarterbacking if you will, has been painful for us.

The public hearings on WWP’s performance, which are scheduled early next year, could be painful for WWP, too.

I tell my people that public comment and criticism come with the territory for a newspaper that strives to be a responsible, candid friend to its readers. That’s what we are.

In the spirit of the season, I’ve personally renewed Paul Redmond’s subscription.

We do a good job down here. He does a good job over there.

All the fuses around town are back in place and we need to get on with rebuilding a community. , DataTimes MEMO: Chris Peck is the editor of The Spokesman-Review.