Does the media report rail stories accurately

[Mathew S]

Insisting one paywalls is locking the stable after the horse has bolted. People were accustomed to free journalism from the early days of the internet, and now it is an expectation. Having said that The Guardian contribution model has seen some success, how well that works for local journalism remains to be seen.

Paywalls can work for specialist publications where consumers, to be blunt, have no alternative. You are right though that, other than that, they're useless.

 

[The_Train]

At least twice this year I have had a couple of door to door callers/salespeople on my doorstep offering me discount newspapers if I sign up for a year or so but I told them that I wasn't interested & that the papers today are more or less gutter press.

Often the papers are just full of advertisements & wingo/bingo/jingo games bollox that no buggers mean't to win, rubbish gossip columns that are full of Z list celebrities.

I can still remember how the national tabloids hounded Freddie Mercury in the early 90s as he was dying of AIDS (the poor guy couldn't even snuff it in peace).

& the actor Lewis Collins (who played Bodie in ITVs 1970s-1980s TV show "The Proffessionals") was also attacked in the tabloid press as he'd lost his looks because he was riddled with cancer & looking very worse for wear living in relative obscurity...the paper even made a cruel pun on words using his 1970s character's name (Bodie).....The Daily Mirror referred to him as .... 'Mr No Bodie' (A man who was dying of cancer).

Disgusting Anorak News | Lewis Collins: The Daily Mirror Attacked Him Growing Old And Fat

Not to mention what the sun "reported" about Hillsborough.
Plus the phone hacking scandal, where the tabloids hacked a murdered dead schoolgirl's mobile (Milly Dowler)
Plus the phone hacking of celebrities etc & invasion of privacy.


Certain aspects of the media have behaved in a deplorable manner this past few years.
In my opinion as for reporting it seems to be ...'That'll do..just copy & paste it'.............'Now?? What's Katie Price/Jordan doing??'.

These days if I need toilet roll, I'll get quilted aloe vera...thanks.

Great post and one I certainly concur with

 

[Mathew S]

Oh I've heard some corkers.

Back when I was a kid the BTP came to our high school to show some photos etc & do a bit of rail safety talk/anti trespass talk etc on the run up to the Summer holidays.

They went on about the usual, stone throwing, trespass, deaths, overhead line dangers, third rail dangers, vandalism.

I understood & certainly respected the dangers as I came from what you would have called back then 'a railway family' (it was in the blood) as a lot of my family worked on the railway (& I aspired to become a signalman as soon as I was old enough)

Personally I was just happy to have an hour or two doing something in the assembly hall instead of being in class bored out of my skull.

At the end one of the teachers asked...'Does anyone have any questions??'

Needless to say I just kept schtum at the back but one girl at the front (a bit of a teachers pet) asked.......

'Miss?? what would happen if stones were put on the track?'.

Before the BTP could answer with the sensible & correct answer the same teacher just quickly replied back.....

'That's obvious.........you'd burst one of the trains tyres'

The BTP officer did a kind of double take & what you would kind of call a discreet "facepalm"? where he then kind of remarked in a tactful/damage limitation way that trains do have tyres, but they are metal & even though they are metal they can indeed be damaged.

She could have been going on about the Paris metro though??.

That's a classic.
Of course, there are as many journalists who believe myths like that as there are people in any other job... hence why things are perpetuated in the press.

And why do they believe this to be true? Wouldn't be because they choose to believe everything they read in the media would it, irrelevant of how factual the story may be?

There are all sorts of reasons why there are biases and innacuracies in the media, especially in the print media, most of which we've already covered.
I'vealready posted in this thread about how we all have a responsibility to be sceptical about what we read. I'll say it again, because it's important: never believe anything that hasn't been backed up with sources or which you can't verify yourself elsewhere.

So if drivers and their colleagues are not 'honest, open and accessible' to people how do you and your colleagues write such factual stories about them?

That's exactly my point: we can't be more accurate unless people talk to us.

Modern journalism is more about churnalism and click-baiting to get traffic, because the success of a journalist (or content writer, given you barely need any journalistic qualifications these days it seems) is measured by engagement/hits. And so accuracy is less important than speed/quantity. Also, there's an obvious need to sensationalise and only write about things that are going to get engagement with shares and likes.

It's frankly horrible and I will make damn sure my son never wants to follow in my footsteps as a journalist.

Journalists should be able to do research, and it shows how bad it has become when even fairly respected journalists allow the likes of politicians to lie and deflect without being called, often because they are not in a position to counter such wayward claims and statements because they don't know.

Even worse are those who are lazy and don't care because all they need to do is quote what was said and leave it at that. Hence why embedding Tweets is good enough to make a story these days, with the engagement coming from the comments.



The fact there's no money to buy photos, and local papers all got rid of their photographers (at best maybe using a freelance for stories they HAVE to cover with images, like a store opening or Christmas fair), shows that they just can't last. Nobody wants to pay for content (Paywalls just don't work for most sites) and now people use ad-blockers because publishers had no clue on what adverts to use (and not use) and forced people to block them. It's not going to end well as every year, publishers will be seeking to find ways to cut costs because they're pretty much unable to increase revenues.

Absolutely agree. I'm incredibly lucky to work on a comparatively well funded radio news desk, and be able to do (mostly) decent journalism. Most of the industry doesn't have what has sadly become this rare opportunity.

 

[Mathew S]

At least twice this year I have had a couple of door to door callers/salespeople on my doorstep offering me discount newspapers if I sign up for a year or so but I told them that I wasn't interested & that the papers today are more or less gutter press.

Often the papers are just full of advertisements & wingo/bingo/jingo games bollox that no buggers mean't to win, rubbish gossip columns that are full of Z list celebrities.

I can still remember how the national tabloids hounded Freddie Mercury in the early 90s as he was dying of AIDS (the poor guy couldn't even snuff it in peace).

& the actor Lewis Collins (who played Bodie in ITVs 1970s-1980s TV show "The Proffessionals") was also attacked in the tabloid press as he'd lost his looks because he was riddled with cancer & looking very worse for wear living in relative obscurity...the paper even made a cruel pun on words using his 1970s character's name (Bodie).....The Daily Mirror referred to him as .... 'Mr No Bodie' (A man who was dying of cancer).

Disgusting Anorak News | Lewis Collins: The Daily Mirror Attacked Him Growing Old And Fat

Not to mention what the sun "reported" about Hillsborough.
Plus the phone hacking scandal, where the tabloids hacked a murdered dead schoolgirl's mobile (Milly Dowler)
Plus the phone hacking of celebrities etc & invasion of privacy.


Certain aspects of the media have behaved in a deplorable manner this past few years & those bad apples have done the industry no favours.

In my opinion as for reporting it seems to be ...'That'll do..just copy & paste it'.............'Now?? What's Katie Price/Jordan doing??'.

These days if I need toilet roll, I'll get quilted aloe vera...thanks.

Sadly I doubt that I'll ever buy another newspaper again, as I just don't have any faith in what's being printed anymore.

Everything you've said there I would 100% agree with. There are some "journalists" who frankly deserve to be hung, drawn, and quartered for what they've done.
I'm hopeful that, since the recent court ruling which redrew the line on privacy vs. freedom of expression, we will see things improve somewhat. Sadly, I fear Brexit may scupper that hope.

 

[Ken H]

Everything you've said there I would 100% agree with. There are some "journalists" who frankly deserve to be hung, drawn, and quartered for what they've done.
I'm hopeful that, since the recent court ruling which redrew the line on privacy vs. freedom of expression, we will see things improve somewhat. Sadly, I fear Brexit may scupper that hope.

what had that got to do with brexit?

 

[Mathew S]

what had that got to do with brexit?

The concept of a "right to a private and family life," which is what protects an individual from press intrusion, stems from European law. Without spending too much time explaining, a withdrawal from the EU will allow the UK government to weaken those protections; something they are under enormous pressure to do from certain newspapers.
Press regulation, and the right to privacy, are two areas where the majority of Europe is lightyears ahead of the UK.

 

[Ken H]

The concept of a "right to a private and family life," which is what protects an individual from press intrusion, stems from European law. Without spending too much time explaining, a withdrawal from the EU will allow the UK government to weaken those protections; something they are under enormous pressure to do from certain newspapers.
Press regulation, and the right to privacy, are two areas where the majority of Europe is lightyears ahead of the UK.

All EU law has been passed into Uk law as part of the brexit process.
If you dont like what governments do you have a remedy at the ballot box.
Its a very fine line between protecting peoples private lives and exposing scandals in the public interest.
the EU law didnt protect Cliff Richard did it?

 

[Esker-pades]

All EU law has been passed into Uk law as part of the brexit process.
If you dont like what governments do you have a remedy at the ballot box.
Its a very fine line between protecting peoples private lives and exposing scandals in the public interest.
the EU law didnt protect Cliff Richard did it?

He successfully sued the BBC though. Therefore, it did.

 

[Mathew S]

All EU law has been passed into Uk law as part of the brexit process.
If you dont like what governments do you have a remedy at the ballot box.
Its a very fine line between protecting peoples private lives and exposing scandals in the public interest.
the EU law didnt protect Cliff Richard did it?

The court in the Cliff Richard case ruled that, yes, EU law protects you, me, him, and all of us. Specifically, it made very clear that Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (the right to a private and family life) can only be superseded by Article 10 (the right to freedom of expression) in exceptional circumstances. In practical terms what that means is that EU law protects individuals from being identified in the press unless there is a compelling public interest argument that they should be. In criminal cases, like Sir Cliff's, that will generally be after charges have been brought by the CPS, and not before.
Theoretically, these rights were transposed into UK law by the Human Rights Act 1998 however the ultimate protection remains at a European level, in the form of the European Court of Human Rights. It is that pan-European minimum standard which has prevented successive UK governments caving to pressure from (mainly) the print media to weaken individuals protection under Article 8 under the phoney guise of "freedom of speech" or "freedom of the press".

You are correct that it's a very fine line; a line which I and other journalists walk every single day. Whenever we identify anyone - by name or otherwise - we have to be able to justify that breach of their Article 8 rights as being in the public interest. The starting point is always that identification isn't permitted, unless you can justify it.

 

[nr758123]

You can tell by the website that its from the same parent company, so would be a shared story - at least he tried to rehash it

Unfortunately in trying to rehash it, the unfortunately named Mr Ankers managed to turn it into nonsense.

 

[theblackwatch]

One thing that sums up some areas of the press is on the Daily Record site HERE.

Gemini Rail Services, which was formally operated by Knorr-Bremse, is to close its Springburn plant

The writer cannot even differentiate between 'formally' and 'formerly'.

 

[Bevan Price]

so why is tesco not morrisons while Northern is Thameslink.

rail users get blasted with TOC corporate identity all the time.

Because the corporate lawyers of "supermarket 1" will be in contact with the media if the story is actually about some other organisation, and said story might affect the reputation of "supermarket 1".

 

[sprunt]

One thing that sums up some areas of the press is on the Daily Record site HERE.



The writer cannot even differentiate between 'formally' and 'formerly'.

Yes - the thing that sums up is the slashing of sub-editing budgets in the modern media. That's an error that would have been there in any era, but historically the article would have passed in front of more pairs of eyes before publication, and it would have been picked up.

 

[DanDaDriver]

I look forward to Matthew S telling me how this is all tube drivers fault for not having their own paper to publish a rebuttal in....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6500923/amp/Mind-pay-gap-London-Tube-drivers-100-000-year-salaries-pilots.html

 

[70014IronDuke]

I look forward to Matthew S telling me how this is all tube drivers fault for not having their own paper to publish a rebuttal in....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6500923/amp/Mind-pay-gap-London-Tube-drivers-100-000-year-salaries-pilots.html

This is unfair: you cannot expect - effectively taunt - Matthew S to defend errors or bias in another publication other than his own. And even then, he might not want to. The Mail is just one of a gang of tabloids that just works on - or works up - peoples' resentments with headlines like this. It's a form of populism - making little or no attempt to understand the issues on the different sides. But if people buy it - or click on it - which they clearly do, they are equally complicit with the poor quality of the media.

 

[Mathew S]

I look forward to Matthew S telling me how this is all tube drivers fault for not having their own paper to publish a rebuttal in....

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6500923/amp/Mind-pay-gap-London-Tube-drivers-100-000-year-salaries-pilots.html

First off, I am no fan of the Daily Mail - far from it - but my professional opinion is that the page you've linked to is a well written, well-researched article.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is wrong for tube drivers - or anyone else - to negotiate for the best pay and conditions they can get. I rather suspect, however, that you will not find many allies in defending average salaries over £60,000, or 69% pay increases, when others working in jobs most people consider more challenging and more important, e.g. policing, receive far, far less.

What this comes down to is that nobody will leap to your defence, nor are they obliged to. If you want to change the perception that a £100,000+ salary is "eye-watering" either you, or your trade union, needs to be contacting the journalist involved to explain - calmly, rationally, and with evidence to back up your argument - why that is not the case.

 

[Mathew S]

This is unfair: you cannot expect - effectively taunt - Matthew S to defend errors or bias in another publication other than his own. And even then, he might not want to. The Mail is just one of a gang of tabloids that just works on - or works up - peoples' resentments with headlines like this. It's a form of populism - making little or no attempt to understand the issues on the different sides. But if people buy it - or click on it - which they clearly do, they are equally complicit with the poor quality of the media.

And I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of another publication anyway, least of all the Dail Mail (which, for the record, I despise because of its editorial stance on Brexit, Trans-rights, and many other things).

With the Mail, and all other print media, it is perhaps worth re-stating that the law specifically allows them to express bias and opinion. Only the broadcast media are legally obliged to be, in Ofcom's words, "fair and impartial."

On generating clicks; that @DanDaDriver has clicked on it, read it, and posted about it here means it is doing its job of driving traffic to the Mail rather well.

 

[Ken H]

And I wouldn't presume to speak on behalf of another publication anyway, least of all the Dail Mail (which, for the record, I despise because of its editorial stance on Brexit, Trans-rights, and many other things).

With the Mail, and all other print media, it is perhaps worth re-stating that the law specifically allows them to express bias and opinion. Only the broadcast media are legally obliged to be, in Ofcom's words, "fair and impartial."

On generating clicks; that @DanDaDriver has clicked on it, read it, and posted about it here means it is doing its job of driving traffic to the Mail rather well.

I fail to understand why broadcast media has a different set of rules to printed. Why can I set up a left of centre or right of centre radio station.
I can understand why the mainstream national TV and radio are regulated, but would a Radio Puddlewick which makes no claim to be unbiased really be an issue?

 

[jon0844]

First off, I am no fan of the Daily Mail - far from it - but my professional opinion is that the page you've linked to is a well written, well-researched article.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is wrong for tube drivers - or anyone else - to negotiate for the best pay and conditions they can get. I rather suspect, however, that you will not find many allies in defending average salaries over £60,000, or 69% pay increases, when others working in jobs most people consider more challenging and more important, e.g. policing, receive far, far less.

What this comes down to is that nobody will leap to your defence, nor are they obliged to. If you want to change the perception that a £100,000+ salary is "eye-watering" either you, or your trade union, needs to be contacting the journalist involved to explain - calmly, rationally, and with evidence to back up your argument - why that is not the case.

The problem with the article is that it is there to wind the reader up (and be shared heavily because of that) and push a political agenda from the paper.

It does state that this pay included overtime and other benefits, but plays it down as almost irrelevant. The average Daily Mail reader will see the headline figure and assume all drivers are getting this.

The mention of 'bonuses' is another great way to wind people up. Why the hell is a driver getting a bonus? For what? Driving a train? Will they read (or be told) what these bonuses are? Does everyone read beyond the first paragraph* before commenting or sharing?

What it seems to forget is that the driver concerned must have worked (yes WORKED) a lot of extra hours to earn that money. That's what overtime is. Pay for EXTRA work. Should someone work extra for no financial gain? Obviously not.

That's the problem with the story, not how well it is written. Daily Mail stories are usually very well written, following very strict editorial guidelines. The paper knows its audience. It also knows the value more than most (look at how slick the Mail Online is) of writing shareable content, and stories that upset people are the ultimate 'clickbait'.

* When I post a link to an article I've written, which might be a 3000+ word review, I'm always amazed how quickly it gets liked or re-tweeted. There's no way someone has had a chance to read the article at this point. They've liked it, hopefully, because they respect my work - but they haven't actually read it!

 

[CHAPS2034]

CHAPS2034 said: ↑
Now here's a specialist Rail on line magazine who should know better.

http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/dft-denies-experimenting-with-new-east-coast-partnership-pledges-better-franchise-bids-assessment?utm_source=Rail Technology Magazine&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=10073504_RTM NEWSLETTER NOV W5 27-11-2018&dm_i=IJS,5ZWRK,JKUTCF,NI42J,1

What's the problem with it ?

It's a specialist magazine.

The article refers to goings on on the East Coast Mainline.

The picture is of a West Coast Pendolino.

As has been mentioned, most people will see a picture of a train in a non specialist publication and not know and not care whether it is correct or not.

But this is a specialist publication, so you would have thought that they would try and find a related picture?

 

[Mathew S]

I fail to understand why broadcast media has a different set of rules to printed. Why can I set up a left of centre or right of centre radio station.
I can understand why the mainstream national TV and radio are regulated, but would a Radio Puddlewick which makes no claim to be unbiased really be an issue?

As long as we have the BBC as a public service broadcaster funded from a compulsory licence fee, rules for broadcast media won't change. Mostly because you can't have an effectively publicly funded service spouting political bias.

As for smaller broadcast outlets: these tend to take fairness and impartiality far more seriously than their large cousins because they don't have the funds or resources to contest issues in the courts. One moderately serious breach of the broadcast code would be enough to instantly close many small radio stations whereas to Sky, the BBC, or LBC it's just another Tuesday.

Print media is allowed to be biased because it always has been, and no politician has ever had the guts to properly regulate it. If that ever changes (fat chance) and regulation of all media is made equal, ie. all news/current affairs must be fair & impartial, it will be the best thing that has happened to the UK media industry in a very long time indeed. In my opinion, of course - others, including some very eminent journalists, would disagree with me vehemently.

 

[muz379]

First off, I am no fan of the Daily Mail - far from it - but my professional opinion is that the page you've linked to is a well written, well-researched article.
I'm not for a moment suggesting that it is wrong for tube drivers - or anyone else - to negotiate for the best pay and conditions they can get. I rather suspect, however, that you will not find many allies in defending average salaries over £60,000, or 69% pay increases, when others working in jobs most people consider more challenging and more important, e.g. policing, receive far, far less.

What this comes down to is that nobody will leap to your defence, nor are they obliged to. If you want to change the perception that a £100,000+ salary is "eye-watering" either you, or your trade union, needs to be contacting the journalist involved to explain - calmly, rationally, and with evidence to back up your argument - why that is not the case.

I beg to differ , it to me does not seem well written . Suggesting that the pension contributions made by the employer are part of the salary is to me stretching the facts of the matter a fair bit . The article opens by saying "The salaries of some london tube drivers have broken the £100,000 barrier"

It then goes on in the next paragraph to expand on this by saying " The eye-watering figures, which include overtime, bonuses and employer pension contributions "

I really do not think that most persons use of the term "salary" includes the pension contributions a persons employer makes .

As for the point about 69% , this only indicates to me that there has been much more overtime available .

I seem to remember The Sun earlier this year running a story about rail staff salaries which it later had to correct .

 

[jon0844]

I seem to remember The Sun earlier this year running a story about rail staff salaries which it later had to correct .

In 2pt text on page 47. The seed was planted, job done.

 

[Mathew S]

I beg to differ , it to me does not seem well written . Suggesting that the pension contributions made by the employer are part of the salary is to me stretching the facts of the matter a fair bit . The article opens by saying "The salaries of some london tube drivers have broken the £100,000 barrier"

It then goes on in the next paragraph to expand on this by saying " The eye-watering figures, which include overtime, bonuses and employer pension contributions "

I really do not think that most persons use of the term "salary" includes the pension contributions a persons employer makes .

As for the point about 69% , this only indicates to me that there has been much more overtime available .

I seem to remember The Sun earlier this year running a story about rail staff salaries which it later had to correct .

Perhaps I should have made clear that in saying it was well written I meant exactly that. Research has evidently been done by the journo involved, but it is not for me to comment on the accuracy of the facts quoted.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps I should have made clear that in saying it was well written I meant exactly that. Research has evidently been done by the journo involved, but it is not for me to comment on the accuracy of the facts quoted.

It seems the story is just a regurgitation of another newspaper story, so I wonder how much research was done by the DM journalist, and how much was just re-wording and re-interpreting another story?

 

[Mathew S]

It seems the story is just a regurgitation of another newspaper story, so I wonder how much research was done by the DM journalist, and how much was just re-wording and re-interpreting another story?

Always possible, though the research has still been done by someone. One hopes then that anyone regurgitating the story elsewhere would do at least a "common sense" check to avoid howlers.

 

[ComUtoR]

The article refers to goings on on the East Coast Mainline.
The picture is of a West Coast Pendolino.

For me. All I saw was a story about Virgin with a picture of a Virgin train.

But this is a specialist publication, so you would have thought that they would try and find a related picture?

I kinda agree that a specialist publication should be much more specific and held to a much higher standard. Virgin story, virgin train does that job. You could remove the picture and the story would be the same. For this article,the story is what matters. I'm railway and still didn't know any difference. If it was a Thameslink train on a Virgin story I would have been crying inside. But, the picture serves a single purpose, and that is to make the publication look pretty and draw you in. If this was an article about West Coast Pendolinos or any specific unit then I would expect the article to reflect that because that too would be jarring.

The more technical knowledge you have the more stuff like this affects you, as you can see the juxtaposition. A publication must reflect its readers. For a nation newspaper a story about trains is sufficient to have a train, a story about Virgin I would expect to have a Virgin train and the deeper you get the more technical and accurate.

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2012/new-virgin-pendolino-debut/

Virgin Trains’ new Class 390 Pendolino EMU, 390055, made a trial run on the East Coast Main Line
Virgin Trains’ new Class 390 Pendolino EMU, 390055, recently delivered from Alstom’s works in Savigliano in Italy, made a trial run on the East Coast Main Line over the course of March 12th-14th, breaking new ground for the class. The train ran from Wembley depot, London, to Glasgow Polmadie traincare centre, on March 12th, prior to heading for Edinburgh Waverley that evening and proceeding to run south down the East Coast Main Line, operating under East Coast’s safety case

I'll just leave that there....

 

[Carlisle]

Not to mention what the sun "reported" about Hillsborough.
.

Im no fan of the Sun however it’s easy to be wise 25 years later after x million was spent on an official enquiry into almost every available minute detail of what actually happened, remember Brian Clough himself shared some slightly similar views on the whole episode if you read his autobiography. written about 4 years later

 

[Ken H]

For me. All I saw was a story about Virgin with a picture of a Virgin train.



I kinda agree that a specialist publication should be much more specific and held to a much higher standard. Virgin story, virgin train does that job. You could remove the picture and the story would be the same. For this article,the story is what matters. I'm railway and still didn't know any difference. If it was a Thameslink train on a Virgin story I would have been crying inside. But, the picture serves a single purpose, and that is to make the publication look pretty and draw you in. If this was an article about West Coast Pendolinos or any specific unit then I would expect the article to reflect that because that too would be jarring.

The more technical knowledge you have the more stuff like this affects you, as you can see the juxtaposition. A publication must reflect its readers. For a nation newspaper a story about trains is sufficient to have a train, a story about Virgin I would expect to have a Virgin train and the deeper you get the more technical and accurate.

http://www.rail.co.uk/rail-news/2012/new-virgin-pendolino-debut/


I'll just leave that there....

Sorry. Still not buying it. an inaccurate picture detracts from the written story. And if they get stuff I know about wrong, then I must assume the rest of the publications stories are sloppily put together too. And I reckon thats why newspaper circulations are falling off a cliff. People dont believe them any more.

 

[ComUtoR]

Sorry. Still not buying it. an inaccurate picture detracts from the written story.

It's not 'inaccurate' A train story with a picture of a train is an accurate representation. What you want is it to be more specific. If we want each article to be very very specific what will most likely happen is that they will just remove the picture altogether.

If you want quality, stop reading the Sun