Photo choice in our e-mail

[MRTerry]

Dear Garden Railways readers,

 

We sent an e-mail advertisement for our magazines earlier today that featured a photo of a father and child walking on a railroad track. The photograph was inappropriate and we apologize for using it. I can assure you that all of us at Garden Railways and Kalmbach Publishing Co. remain dedicated to promoting railroad safety in all our efforts.

 

Thanks for reading Garden Railways,

 

Terry D. Thompson

Publisher

[DennisB]

How odd. If a child is curious about something that is dangerous, why is it wrong that he should investigate it with his father? A resposible adult can instruct in the dangers of those things that we see every day. Have we become overly protective and sensitive? My two cents worth. Dennis.

[swoodnj]

I can't believe anyone got up in arms over that photo. You'd think the ad said "Please be sure to bring your kids dangerously close to the railroad tracks, overpopulation needs to be taken care of!" What an uptight world we live in...

[gbbari]

The adult and child in that photo are breaking the law (of course the tot is too young to know) because they are trespassing on railroad property. Second, the rails are shiny, so that track is used frequently. Third, it appears the ties are concrete, so it's most likely a mainline which could mean moderate speeds.

Kalmbach figured it out real quick (better late than never). It's amazing that there is any criticism of their retraction/apology in this forum. They are not being "uptight", they are being responsible. Are we aware of how many people are struck by trains that they never hear coming up behind them until it's too late? In this photo, it's also somewhat foggy so any engineer coming up behind may not see the man and child until they are very close.

Every railroad claims investigator takes gas each time they see a movie or tv show depicting children or adults playing around tracks - making it seem normal and OK, when it is extremely dangerous and illegal.

[blownout cylinder]

gbbari

Kalmbach figured it out real quick (better late than never).

It was the timing that got them i think--Fathers Day was a week away---throw a picture out there advertising subscriptions ---OOPS, wrong one

Maybe next year they could do this with a 6 week campaign and therefore a little more time to pick the photo they'll use. As for the kvetching---oh well---

[GearDrivenSteam]

This is almost as bad as apologizing for the American flag. I thought it was a nice picture. What about "MY" opinion?

[ttrigg]

Two adults committing a heinous crime accompanied by one despicable juvenile delinquent. Come on now, let's all get a life. The photo has already been analyzed, shinny rails, concrete ties, switches (and yard?) just beyond the fog. Seems like everyone is missing the fact that three generations are depicted in this photograph. The "despicable juvenile delinquent" is walking alongside his grandpa! (Those are the ear lobes of a 50~60 year old, not a 20~30 year old.) Where's dad, you say, well think about it! Who took the photo? Dad did. To me the photo speaks volumes about the love and companionship inside one American family. Yes, they should have picked a safer location for their early morning walk.

[Phoebe Vet]

Apology accepted, lets move on.

[Shu]

As a publisher, I feel you did the responsible thing with the email campaign and I respect you for that and understand your actions and obligations. As a responsible reader, father and grand-father I have the same reaction as the majority do here.. I thought the photo was done very well and was very touching and brought back wonderful memories for me as well - bringing back memories of my late father and I as a boy. On the other hand, the complaint is embarrasing to me - on the order of those who complain and SUE when the phrase "in God we trust" is publicly used... do people have nothing better to do than pick this stuff apart looking for issues that anyone with any sense of responsibility or common sense would know you don't walk on tracks, smoke three packs a day, drive too fast or eat too much fast food. Give 'em some credit here for goodness sakes. Compare this to any automobile or motorcycle commercial that shows the vehicles driving down the highway at high speeds - always followed by the disclaimers about it being done on a 'closed course'. Sort of like the disclaimers on medical advertisements. 30 sec of material followed by 30 seconds of disclaimers and possible reactions from A to Z. Some people are toooo sensitive and are missing the big picture. This causes manufacturers and publishers to cover their A** (backsides) with both hands to avoid frivilous lawsuits. I would very much like to see the photo used again and again with maybe a small "closed track" note at the bottom of the page in small print. enuf said.

[gbbari]

Shu - LIke some others here in this thread, you realized that the publisher here took the correct action for more reasons than just liability, but then you, in effect, totally dismiss the importance of their action by getting lost in touchy-feely gobbledygook. The fact is, the picture shows people breaking the law as well as putting a small child in mortal danger. The fact is, the same two figures could be shown in any number of other situations around railroad scenes that are NOT illegal and present no obvious danger to either of them.

As usual the argument is made using straw man objections - where what is being objected to was never mentioned, such as suing over "In God We Trust". Nor did anyone call the child a "despicable juvenile delinquent" nor did anyone label the actions as a "heinous crime", nor did anyone complain about smoking three packs a day, driving too fast or eating too much fast food. As is often the case, those with weak and poorly thought out positions must conjure up straw man arguments because if they stick to the facts at hand, they lose.

I am a both a father and grandfather and that clearly influences how I viewed this situation. I am also the son of a retired career railroad Claims Investigator who had to investigate, take pictures of, and interview victims and witnesses of the carnage and destruction that trains can wreak on people and vehicles caught in their path, usually because they were on the tracks illegally and should never have been there in the first place.

[Shu]

"As is often the case, those with weak and poorly thought out positions must conjure up straw man arguments because if they stick to the facts at hand, they lose"

I don't disagree concerning the legality or danger of the act, I am simply voicing my opinion that maybe some people go overboard and we should all apply some good ole' common sense. Lets get back to the trains - enuf said on this

[MTCarpenter]

 Awesome pic.  Cropped it a bit and set it to my desktop.