Versailles Hall floor collapse: a review of Israeli press coverage

Citation

(2001), "Versailles Hall floor collapse: a review of Israeli press coverage", Disaster Prevention and Management, Vol. 10 No. 4. https://doi.org/10.1108/dpm.2001.07310dab.007

Versailles Hall floor collapse: a review of Israeli press coverage

Versailles Hall floor collapse: a review of Israeli press coverage

At 22:45 on the evening of Thursday, 24 May 2001, the floor of the Versailles Hall, a catering establishment in Jerusalem, collapsed during a wedding celebration. Hundreds were injured, and 23 people lost their lives.

Several minutes after the accident (the worst civilian disaster in Israeli history) Channel 2 television broadcasts were interrupted with a special news bulletin. After several more interruptions, disaster coverage finally replaced regular broadcasts. Reports concentrated on what happened and the condition of those injured. Only after more than an hour was the issue of fatalities raised.

The Jerusalem Post was one of the first newspapers to close its Friday morning paper, and even in a second edition (very rare in Israel) only one relatively short article was dedicated to the disaster. Significantly, a sub-title mentioned 13 dead, a statistic not reported by some other papers with later deadlines. Thrust of the coverage was the rescue effort, except for a statement by the Jerusalem police chief that the cause was "an engineering fault," and not terrorism. The elimination of terrorism as a cause is certainly within the police domain, however in retrospect it seems rash to report an engineering fault, since even ten days later the exact cause(s) has not been determined and is the subject of investigation.

Yediot Aharonot, the largest selling Israeli daily, dedicated its entire front page news coverage to the disaster under the headline, "Disaster at a wedding: hundreds injured." Graphic pictures, on page one and also on page two, brought home the gruesome reality of what had happened. The relatively short textual coverage, only on page two, stressed what was known about the disaster and the rescue response. Again, the Jerusalem police chief was quoted, but this time with the caveat that "although it is too early to know, the cause was apparently …" Contact telephone numbers were given to help the public search for missing persons.

Maariv, another popular Hebrew tabloid, had coverage similar to Yediot; however, it covered four pages (also with a heavy emphasis on pictures) and mentioned 14 dead. Maariv also put more emphasis on personal tales of what happened, with less emphasis on reporting of the rescue effort. Editorially, the story was broken down into four articles, one of which (five paragraphs in length) reported the police reaction. The article also quoted the national police chief, and raised issues of negligence, safety inspections, and procedures. Again, hospital telephone numbers were provided.

Haaretz, a newspaper with a reputation for serious reporting, dedicated a significant portion of the front page to headlines, mentioning children amongst the 13 fatalities. The paper quoted the national police chief as saying, "It is possible to determine with certainty that there was an engineering failure." Despite the front page headline counting 13 dead, a second page article (obviously written earlier) cited the number as only ten. The newspaper used its files well. On the second page there was a picture of the hall before the disaster, and a list of previous building accidents.

Yated Neeman is an ultra-religious tabloid. In relatively abbreviated coverage the newspaper set the time of the accident at 22:43 (13 minutes later than the time noted in Haaretz). The newspaper seized upon the opportunity to publicize the roles of two ultra-religious volunteer organizations that responded to the disaster.

HaModi'a, a newspaper belonging to the ultra-Orthodox Agudas Yisroel party, ran a front page article mentioning tens, of dead. Although this later proved technically correct – 23 does qualify as "tens" – the phrase suggests many more fatalities. It was also impossible to accurately report more than 14 dead at the most at the time of press closing. A more accurate description would have been "Fear that tens were killed."

Finally, HaTsofeh, run by the National Religious Party, devoted part of its front page to running headlines outlining the disaster. There was no article.

A summary of "morning after" coverage shows that the basic interest was what happened and response details used, sometimes leaving the reader with the impression that they functioned as a filler. Different papers used more or fewer personal experience stories. It was clear that there was a paucity of confirmed facts at press time. Reporting of police reaction varied, but it seems clear that the police response attributing cause was premature, if not prejudicial.

The next day was Saturday, and there were no newspapers due to the Jewish Sabbath. Continuous television coverage, however, continued without pause until mid-day, when rescue efforts were suspended[1]. That reporting, however, was not necessarily accurate. At one point a television reporter described six families identifying the dead in the National Center for Forensic Medicine. As Mrs Yonah Tannenbaum, administrative director of the Center, later described, the bodies had already been identified. The families merely went to view the cadavers.

Sunday's newspapers reported a much fuller description of the disaster. The Jerusalem Post dominated its front page with disaster coverage, including the names of the dead and the fact that nine people had been arrested. The cause of the collapse was described as "a combination of shoddy construction, reckless renovation, building violations, and criminal negligence." One article described the wedding video that recorded the floor collapse. The article mentioned the wedding couple's "outrage" at the photographer's decision to sell the footage for broadcast; however, the article failed to even hint at the legal issue of film ownership.

Both Yediot and Maariv placed portrait photographs of the dead under banner headlines on their front pages. Inside coverage was also similar, with a large number of personal recollections of what happened and descriptions of victims. Yediot gave more emphasis to the roles of those arrested and supplemented coverage with a drawing describing the building and floor collapse. Maariv dedicated considerable space to a history of Pal-Kal, the construction method described by many as the primary cause of the collapse.

As expected, coverage in Sunday's Haaretz was much less emotional, although personal accounts were printed. Emphasis was not only on who was arrested, but also on the suspicions held against each person. Building failure and problems with the Pal-Kal method were illustrated with drawings to allow for better reader comprehension.

HaTsofeh also ran extensive Sunday coverage, again concentrating on those arrested and the Pal-Kal method, with non-hyper recounting of what had happened at the wedding that turned into a disaster.

In all of the Sunday coverage there was mention of the search and rescue effort made by the Army, but none of the newspapers dealt in any real depth with the response of the National Ambulance Service, that brought in teams from different areas outside Jerusalem. There was also very little mention of the theory that the disaster was the result not of a single cause but of a series of causes (mentioned in passing in Sunday's Jerusalem Post, but not really developed fully there or in any other paper). This supports the theory that much popular journalism is oriented towards simple explanations to complex questions.

A number of the Sunday newspapers (the eve of a Jewish holiday) dedicated extensive magazine coverage to the disaster.

Note

1. 1.

   Walls in the building were in danger of collapse. This meant that a minimum number of people were allowed to participate in the extrication effort. Police technicians, for example, were not allowed to access the area to photograph bodies in situ. They were given access to bodies only after they had been extricated and removed to a safe area. When all missing persons were accounted for, it was decided that, in light of the dangers involved, the search and rescue effort should be terminated.