Skip to footer

Costa Concordia: Top 4 'deceptions' by ship's captain

From the moment that Capt. Francesco Schettino made his fateful decision to steer the Costa Concordia cruise ship close to shore, to his description of whether he stayed with the ship to help evacuate its 4,000 passengers, there has been a pattern of untruths and attempted coverup. Here are four examples, running the gamut from 'technical' to incredulous.

Costa crew members told passengers and port authorities the problem was electrical

Gregorio Borgia/AP
The cruise ship Costa Concordia leans on its side Tuesday, after running aground on the tiny Tuscan island of Giglio, Italy, on Friday evening.

  • By Robert Marquand Staff Writer

Video by a German passenger records crew members reassuring passengers in the dark corridors not to panic. Later. it is alleged the captain authorized the communication: “Due to an electrical fault which is currently under control, we are currently in a blackout,” the voice from the speaker says. "Our technicians are working to resolve the situation and we will inform you of developments as they occur.” Passengers were later seen hanging around corridors, some holding life jackets and looking unaware of what action to take.

The boat hit the rock at about 9:40 p.m., well before this announcement. The captain did not alert port authorities about the crash until 10:42 p.m. by several accounts. The port controller called the ship’s commander four times for information and the captain replied it was an electrical problem. During this time the captain tried to “turn” the boat, the action of which caused the water to flood the ripped hull compartments. The ship finally tilted on its side near a rocky shelf where it now rests.

Only at 10:50 p.m. did Schettino finally give the order to evacuate. A crew member told journalists that had the hour of delay been used to lower the life boats on both sides of the ship, all passengers would have arrived on land “without getting their feet wet.” Investigation continues as to whether there was an electrical fault.

2 of 4
Mark Sappenfield
Editor

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

Subscribe to insightful journalism

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.