What’s Black, White, and Read All Over? Media Coverage of Serious Organizational Errors as 'News'

Abstract

In this paper, we study what constitutes a 'newsworthy event.' That is, we investigate which errors by firms are deemed sufficiently serious to warrant coverage in major business daily newspapers. We argue that media determination of an error as 'news' is due as much to perceptions of the actor who commits it as to the error’s underlying characteristics. Specifically, we theorize that the media categorizes firms as either 'sinners' or 'saints' and that this filter affects the decision to report, holding the magnitude of the error constant. We test this theory in the context of major oil spills in the U.S., defined as an amount greater than 50 barrels (approximately 2,000 gallons), from 1985 to 2016--a period during which 1,125 of these serious errors occurred. Results support our theory that, while larger spills are more likely to be covered, spills committed by saints are more likely to warrant coverage than similar spills committed by sinners. Rather than a free pass, we suggest positive perceptions cause the media to hold a firm to a higher standard, increasing the chance an error will be perceived as 'serious,' and thus newsworthy. These main effects are moderated by the firm’s prior media coverage. Implications for theory about the effects of serious errors are discussed.