Why Australia’s media bought the ‘Irish babies in the septic tank’ story

Bodies of 800 children, long-dead, found in septic tank at former Irish home for unwed mothers” was the headline in The Sydney Morning Herald. “Almost 800 ‘forgotten’ Irish children dumped in septic tank mass grave at Catholic home,” said the ABC. “796 Irish orphans in a septic tank tomb,” pronounced The Australian. The problem? There is little evidence that there are any bodies in that infamous septic tank at all.

Why is the story being reported everywhere if it might not be true? As many a news reporter has learned with chagrin and horror, it is often the headlines and photo captions that do you in — those bits of the newspaper you did not write but are in close proximity to the story you did.

Two weeks ago, The Irish Mail on Sunday, a British tabloid with an Irish edition, ran a story that fit into the Irish national zeitgeist so well that it instantly broke through all the other scandals, pieces on governmental malfeasance and analyses of economic woe that make up the front page of many an Irish paper. The headline read: “Mass septic tank grave ‘containing the skeletons of 800 babies’ at site of Irish home for unmarried mothers”. The caption under a grainy, black-and-white picture of a Dickensian-looking children’s home was clearer still: “The bodies of 796 babies and children were found next to the former children’s home at Tuam, Co. Galway.”

The story itself is a bit more nuanced. The intro begins: “The bodies of nearly 800 babies are believed to have been interred in a concrete tank beside a former home for unmarried mothers.” Note the “are believed”. The second paragraph begins, “The dead babies are thought …” and the third starts, “It is suspected …”.

The story hit the world’s wires almost instantly. The sober-enough Washington Post ran a story under the headline: “Bodies of 800 babies, long-dead, found in septic tank at former Irish home for unwed mothers” (the SMH republished the story under a copy-sharing arrangement). But the story itself in the Post was hedged a bit. The story is given a feature treatment, so the reader is well into the third paragraph before learning the fate of the 800 children “… has perhaps now emerged: Their bodies were piled into a massive septic tank sitting in the back of the structure and forgotten, with neither gravestones nor coffins.” Perhaps.

All these stories are based upon research by a local historian named Caroline Corless, who has been researching the home for years. In her painstaking work, she has secured death records for 796 children who were in the home for unwed mothers, but for whom she could find no burial records.

Add to this an account from a local man, now middle-aged, that as a small boy he and a friend saw bones in the long-unused septic tank when they broke up the concrete slab covering it. Corless surmises that the babies are buried here or somewhere nearby.

In television interviews since the story broke, she has maintained that her goal all along has been to get a commemorative plaque placed on the site listing the names of the children who died. She does not want the site opened up and is adamant that it does not matter if there are 10 children buried there or 200. Or 796.

It is not possible from this remove to know exactly what she told the Mail on Sunday or what she told The Washington Post. But it is pretty clear that she did not say she had found skeletons of 800 children. The stories about the matter said she had unearthed records, not that she had unearthed  bones. Headlines committed the worst of the hyperbole.

Page 1 of 2 | Next page

Tags: , , , , ,

Categories: Europe, Journalism

10 Responses

Comments page: 1 |
  1. Yet the media wonders why they - with their opinion-laden conversion of news to views, churning news into “entertainment” - aren’t taken seriously?

    by klewso on Jun 13, 2014 at 1:47 pm

  2. maybe instead of spending millions of dollars and several years on an investigation they could spend a hundred grand and a few days digging up the site in question? or is that too logical for the irish?

    by Jelly Belly on Jun 13, 2014 at 1:55 pm

  3. A long bow to draw perhaps but, at base, the same gynophobia that drives the 3 religions of the Book stones women to death for rape (see Genesis) or beheading (see Anne Boleyn)also sets them to work in steaming, commercial laundries for expiation.

    by AR on Jun 13, 2014 at 3:09 pm

  4. What worries me about this article is the assumption that there is nothing unusual about 800 babies/children dying in this home and no burial site can be found. We aren’t talking 100 years ago. There has also been further investigation that these homes were used to test immunisation. I’m guessing it would take an Irish man, brought up in Ireland, rising to a prominent position, in which he would have had to rely on the Catholic Church patronage to achieve, to admit that something is not quite right with the Catholic Church in Ireland.

    by Delerious on Jun 13, 2014 at 3:16 pm

  5. Bearing in mind that these orphanages appear to have been established at a time when there were living memories of the Irish Famine, when many died of starvation, I am surprised that this catastrophic event is not seen as a part of the context for the treatment of unmarried women and their babies. In a world where death was so common,and life held so cheap it would be easy for those in authority to become cruel.

    by jmendelssohn on Jun 13, 2014 at 4:25 pm

  6. One never knows, maybe if they do some digging and sifting they’ll find Saddam’s hidden WMDs.

    by Dion Giles on Jun 13, 2014 at 11:51 pm

  7. Infant mortality” back then wasn’t such a big deal - life was precarious and tenuous, without all these modern miracles we have - it was accepted with sad resignation as “a part of life’s gamble”, especially among the less affluent without access to the limited resources available.

    by klewso on Jun 14, 2014 at 10:22 am

  8. Not finding burial records doesn’t mean that they were not buried. No wonder you must treat with scepticism everything you read or hear these days.

    by mikeb on Jun 16, 2014 at 9:36 am

  9. Klewso you have said it in one. The media now looks for attention getting, sensational headlines to lead the news, sell papers etc. The public have often been duped by the media into accepting into truth what is plain bollocks.
    Journo’s are now ambulance chasers, not checking the facts and falling for all sorts of stories based on, sometimes, spurious “facts”.
    I am surprised at Corless accepting the “eyewitness” account of a child now midddle aged. How many years have passed since the bones (how many?)in the tank were seen. If such bones were there, why could they not have been animal, or was the child versed in forensic investigation? Eye witness testimony after long periods is notoriously suspect, and subject to embellishment as the years go on. What John Stuart Mills stated long ago, stands the test of time: “Truths not subject to continual challenge eventually cease to have the effect of truth by being exaggerated into falsehood”.

    by MJPC on Jun 16, 2014 at 11:48 am

  10. Yet another example of the seemingly inevitable devolution from news to ‘click-bait’

    by Luke Hellboy on Jun 16, 2014 at 3:21 pm

« | »