Over 70 Left Dead in Russian Coal Mine Explosion
The New York Times has run an article today on a methane gas explosion in a Siberian coal mine this morning. At the time the article ran, 61 people had died as a result of the catastrophe, with 64 people alive but trapped and 88 rescued. Rescue workers continued to work into the evening to save those afflicted by the disaster, one of the deadliest in recent times. The death count from this one incident has nearly surpassed the combined deaths from all of Russia's 22 mine accidents last year.
The article is written as a breaking news piece, delviering the information in a succinct and fast way and not giving too much detail about what caused the methane gas explosion. These details will probably be expounded upon at a later time. The one instance of attribution in the article comes from the chairman of the Russian Union of Miners, who says what actions are necessary and places fault for the incident on the level of pay and wage, for whatever reason. There's no quotes from witnesses or those rescued. The lead summarizes the story while the following graphs expound upon it.
An more recent article on the same event published on Mosnews.com, a Russian news site, has put the death count at 78, and says that at least 40 people still remain underground morethan 10 hours after the blast, so the final number of deaths could rise. The article says that there were around 200 miners inside, with a total of 81 rescued, figures that also differ from the original article's. There is more attribution in the article, with quotes from ambulance workers, Russian governors, and officials at the rescue operation. The company who owns the mine is also expounded upon, with no comment given from them.
The differing figures in the two articles are confusing, and there's really no way of telling which article is more correct in this regard. I feel like the article published on Mosnews.com is the better of the two because it has more attribution and talks about the company who owns the mine, both of which I feel are crucial for the article. The section it has devoted to the history of mine accidents in Russia is less extensive than the New York Times article, but I don't feel like that facet of the story is as important as getting attribution from people involved and talking about the mine owners.