 What reason did the newspaper have to focus on the possible active volcano theory and not the opinion of the geographer?
It was still a matter of academic interest when in the late '40s geologists speculated on the relationship between the Kiowa Fault and the Conchas Fault farther south, in New Mexico, and which followed the Pecos as far south as Texas. Nor was there much in the papers a few years later when it was suggested that the Niobrara Fault (just inside and roughly parallel to the eastern border of Wyoming) was a northerly extension of the Kiowa. Newspapers in the mountain states gave it a few inches on the front page; anything is news in late August. Sunday supplements ran four-color artists' conceptions of the possible volcano. "Only Active Volcano in U. S.?" demanded the headlines, and some papers even left off the question mark. Only Joseph Schwartzberg, head geographer of the Department of the Interior, wondered if the disturbance might not be a settling of the Kiowa Fault. The idea was not nearly so exciting as a volcano, even a lava-less one, and you couldn't draw a very dramatic picture of it. To excuse the other geologists, it must be said that the Kiowa Fault had never acted up before. The dust volcano was on the face of it a more plausible theory. They found themselves on the scene of what was fast becoming the most violent and widespread earthquake North America—probably the world—has ever seen in historic times. East, where sharp reports and muffled wheezes told of continued buckling and dropping, the earth trembled downward.
 Simply that the idea of an active volcano was much more interesting to the public.
 There wasn't enough evidence to disprove the active volcano theory.  There wasn't enough evidence to write about the fault line theory.  Simply that the idea of an active volcano was much more interesting to the public.  Joseph Schwartzberg was the only geologist saying otherwise.