But it is supposedly up to a reporter to check facts and figures when given him, question his source, and seek the truth and the facts. "Joe Blow said there were 10,000 in attendance at the rally but I counted only 1000". Or "....but police say there were fewer than 5000" But it is up to you, the reporter to verify so that neither you nor your employer look stupid and inept and don't get sued.
RIDEWITHMEHENRY is the name for our almost monthly day of riding trains and transit in either the NYCity or Philadelphia areas including all commuter lines, Amtrak, subways, light rail and trolleys, bus and ferries when warranted. No fees, just let us know you want to join the ride and pay your fares. Ask to be on our email list or find us on FB as RIDEWITHMEHENRY (all caps) to get descriptions of each outing.
That's true to a point....It's very simple to check things like attendance records or ball game scores. But what about something more esoteric like city accounting records... improper writeoffs etc?... Reporters generally aren't accountants or experts in any one area and therefore quite often have to trust the source's expertise. This is especially true of small papers that don't have the resources of a large paper that can afford to hire specialist writers. A remember in my very short stint as a journalist I covered sports, the city beat, the police beat, the science beat, the business beat.. the schoolboard...etc.. You can say "check your facts" but don't forget that there are also time deadlines.. I had to get my stuff written up in a couple of hours...this was before the internet, and there was no easy way to double check sources. Maybe if you write for a monthly magazine where deadlines are less frequent, but if you write for a daily paper you're expected to have it all done and ready for printing within hours. I wasn't half bad at it..its the embellishment and outright fabrication of facts that got me into trouble...but it was a long time ago, and my stuff had humor and entertainment value that the strictly factual stuff didn't have.. .
In past years I owned and bred racing Greyhounds. I loved the dogs and I loved watching them run.
Animal rights people regularly fed false stories to the media about how we mistreated our dogs. The media types would just run with what they were told, often never bothering to even contact anyone in Greyhound racing to get our side of the story.
A certain national cable network, owned by a major broadcast network, and then headquarted in Ft. Lee, NJ, did a two part hit piece on us. They claimed to show poorly treated racing Greyhounds. One problem, the dogs they showed were not racing Greyhounds. Not all greyhounds are racing dogs. The breed came to the Great Plains as a working breed to help farmers and ranchers control rabbits and coyotes. They're still used for coyote control today. The dogs shown on CNBC were not racing dogs. But the network used them to slam racing. Greyhound racing has stringent rules requiring humane treatment. People who are found to violate these rules get a life time ban from racing.
Now if you want a real experience in being treated as garbage, call up a national network and explain why the dogs they falsely portrayed as racing Greyhounds were not racing Greyhounds. Even if you own racing dogs, the network nit wits believe they know more than you do.
After several months of writing letters I did get a response. The network had not checked to see if any of the dogs ever went to racing. But they never publically admitted it. (The dogs were not registered, and you cannot race an unregistered greyhound. The registration process is a strict, three step process. There is no plausible way the dogs shown could have ever raced. They were coyote chassers and they had nothing to do with Greyhound racing.)
That didn't matter to the network. And it had nothing to do with lack of money on the network's part. It had everything to do with promoting an agenda at the expense of the truth and at the expense of a lot of good people who take very good care of their racing Greyhounds.
Want more stories of media malpractice? I've got 13 years of 'em to tell.
One thing that gets my goat about TV reporting is interviewing the locals who have no idea about what they are speaking and presenting it as fact.
Norm
Checking facts and reporting truth used to be a badge of honor and high attainment in the field of journalism. Today it is how well you apply your make up and if your tie is straight or if your story cost less to present in the paper than another's story which is taking several more hours to fact check.
Zardoz, I know of at least two rail magazines that print corrections. As for the magazine you're probably referring to, the corrections they print often fail to address even half of the errors they've published. Sometimes, they're probably oblivious to certain errors. But other times, they've been informed of errors and chose not to clarify them among the readers. In years past, the letters section of that magazine and others like it used to be an appropriate place for printing lengthy clarifications submitted by readers. Nowadays, those letters sections tend to be used more for cheerleading.
I grew up in Altoona, which was the home of the heavy works of the PRR, and it was a crew change point for all freight and passenger trains passing through Altoona.
The Altoona Mirror, which was the major paper when I was growing up, reported daily on railroad events. It had management and reporters who knew the railroad's management and employees. They lived amongst them as friends and neighbors. As I remember it they usually got the story correct.
Outside of places like Altoona railroads don't make that big a splash. Accordingly, most news outlets don't have the resources to develop the expert insights found amongst the news people in Altoona. Or found amongst them when I was growing up in the 50s. They are dependent on sources to give them good information. If the sources get it wrong or bias the information, that is the way it is likely to appear in the new media.
The news media today is as vibrant as ever. It has shifted, however, from a paper to an electronic delivery platform. That does not make it inherently less accurate. There is no evidence that there is more misreporting today than there was 50 years ago. Except in the minds of old folks who remember what they want to remember and engage in a age old past time, i.e. extolling the virtues of a long ago past that was never quite as good as they would like to remember it.
Sam1The news media today is as vibrant as ever. It has shifted, however, from a paper to an electronic delivery platform. That does not make it inherently less accurate. There is no evidence that there is more misreporting today than there was 50 years ago. Except in the minds of old folks who remember what they want to remember and engage in a age old past time, i.e. extolling the virtues of a long ago past that was never quite as good as they would like to remember it.
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
henry6 Checking facts and reporting truth used to be a badge of honor and high attainment in the field of journalism. Today it is how well you apply your make up and if your tie is straight or if your story cost less to present in the paper than another's story which is taking several more hours to fact check.
I'm sure fact checking is now more important than ever... much more so than in days gone by because today the average reader or viewer has the ability to check and verfy and cross check with other sources with the click of a mouse. The reporting biz is so much more competitive today because readers and viewers have so many sources to choose from..
It's not just railroads, and it's not anything new. I work in the homebulding industry. You would think that with a strong Homebuilder's Association with 500 plus members, that it wouldn't take too long to double check things. You'd be wrong. Going back about 20 years ago, our local paper, had a front page photo of the front door of a house. The headline read: "One of only 3 houses being built in the city". The story was about how the coldest January in a long time was affecting the building trades- including the fact that only 3 home building permits had been issued that January. I protested to the reporter, and to the newspaper editor, that had the photographer turned around, he could have taken photos of 19 other homes under construction. The editor said that perhaps the reporter "had missed the mark a bit", but that it didn't warrant any kind of correction as far as the newspaper was concerned. Anymore, I figure it doesn't matter much what's in the paper. No one reads it.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
Ulrich henry6 Checking facts and reporting truth used to be a badge of honor and high attainment in the field of journalism. Today it is how well you apply your make up and if your tie is straight or if your story cost less to present in the paper than another's story which is taking several more hours to fact check. I'm sure fact checking is now more important than ever... much more so than in days gone by because today the average reader or viewer has the ability to check and verfy and cross check with other sources with the click of a mouse. The reporting biz is so much more competitive today because readers and viewers have so many sources to choose from..
It certainly is more important. But done less because of not enough time or untrained people handling.
henry6 Ulrich henry6 Checking facts and reporting truth used to be a badge of honor and high attainment in the field of journalism. Today it is how well you apply your make up and if your tie is straight or if your story cost less to present in the paper than another's story which is taking several more hours to fact check. I'm sure fact checking is now more important than ever... much more so than in days gone by because today the average reader or viewer has the ability to check and verfy and cross check with other sources with the click of a mouse. The reporting biz is so much more competitive today because readers and viewers have so many sources to choose from.. It certainly is more important. But done less because of not enough time or untrained people handling.
For all its faults, the news media has and continues to uncover major scandals, such as Watergate, through Woodward and Bernstein (who were just local reporters at the time) and Enron (uncovered by two Wall Street Journal reporters, Rebecca Smith and John Emshwiller. Without their reporting, the Enron scandal almost certainly would not have come to light when it did and conceivably might never have surfaced).
Often journalists must cover people who have no idea what they are talking about. Those so covered who have not a glue will offer solutions for the railroad industry.
In 1979 the Midwest rail network was melting down. The Rock Island was broke and so was the Milwaukee Road. Candidates for president were stumping Iowa.
One candidate for president vowed to save the Wabash Railroad. Once that gaffe was exposed, the candidate who would save the Wabash was hammered. The candidate who would save the Wabash was thrown from the train. That candidate did not receive their party's nomination in 1980.
Victrola1 Often journalists must cover people who have no idea what they are talking about. Those so covered who have not a glue will offer solutions for the railroad industry. In 1979 the Midwest rail network was melting down. The Rock Island was broke and so was the Milwaukee Road. Candidates for president were stumping Iowa. One candidate for president vowed to save the Wabash Railroad. Once that gaffe was exposed, the candidate who would save the Wabash was hammered. The candidate who would save the Wabash was thrown from the train. That candidate did not receive their party's nomination in 1980.
Maybe they should have used the "glue" to put it back together?
Say you are the glue when you have not a clue.
A count of the number of freight trains would not be impossible to verify. There just have to be 3 or 4 people who take turns at the tracks recording the number of freight trains that pass over 24 hours. Is that too much work to stop and observe what is actually happening in the world? Observe before reporting.
Andrew
Watch my videos on-line at https://www.youtube.com/user/AndrewNeilFalconer
Andrew Falconer A count of the number of freight trains would not be impossible to verify. There just have to be 3 or 4 people who take turns at the tracks recording the number of freight trains that pass over 24 hours. Is that too much work to stop and observe what is actually happening in the world? Observe before reporting. Andrew
That would be okay if there was enough time to do that sort of verification, but it would require more than 24 hours to do, since you would need to line up a half dozen people to do the sitting and watching (eats and bathroom breaks could possibly screwup the count if trains passed during that time).
Is the editor chompin' at the bit to get the story in the evening edition? Do you even have 4 hours to get that 24 hour count done?
Then there is the need to select a place where the count would be meaningful for the task at hand. If counting trains that pass a particular spot were the need, then parking at that spot would suffice, but if the number of trains through town were the required value and the town is of any good size, then the point the count was taken from would need to be selected properly so that locals in and out of a nearby yard could be accounted for. But would the people doing the counting have any idea what the difference is between a through freight and a local to the cannery or grainery? Would it be necessary to even know that?
Then there is selecting the day of the week properly to get a correct count. Are some days busier than others? What about track work confusing the schedule? Do you count the work train that ties up the mainline for 8 hours?
Be a whole lot easier to just CALL THE RAILROAD and ask how many trains there are per day. Granted, the RR might fudge the numbers a bit one way or the other, depending on whether you present yourself as pro- or anti- RR or whether your story is to promote or denigrate railroading in general, but at least your article could state, "CMBY RY CEO Mr. S. Vaporo said there are an average of 4 trains servicing the Unobtanium mines, 13 through freights and 4 passenger limiteds per day." Then the onus of truthfulness is on that scoundrel Vaporo if the Unobtanium mines were closed 120 years ago, the through freights only went to the edge of town and the passenger limiteds were limited to 4 mumified passenger pigeons on the circus train 75 years ago.
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Semper: "Be a whole lot easier to just CALL THE RAILROAD ... "
Exactly right, and not too complicated. Then the monkey for error or falsification is right where it belongs, on the source's back. It's the media's job to have the phone number of that official spokesman -- often the only one who will talk to you -- handy.
If the official source refuses to give you what you need, then you do something like count the trains for yourself. (No time to do that for your deadline story, but it'll work for a followup story.) One time, as a reporter, I asked the flak for our railroad about some work being done on a prominent bridge. He wouldn't tell me anything ... for whatever stupid reason ... so I just called up a trustworthy locomotive-engineer friend who told me what I needed for my story.
The capper is: Before the story could even run, the flak who had stiffed me -- I won't tell you his name, because he's still out there, but his initials are Gus Melonas -- e-mailed and asked if I would send him a copy of whatever I wrote.
Guess who got stiffed back!
DAKOTAFRED; bingo ~~~ right on the mark. The event of yesterdays reports are a classic example of what you speak of. It is not only railroads , it is anything else that happens. Mr.Cronkite is still turning over in his grave. No further comment as it could be censored. ~~ No train derailment yet today or auto crash.
Cannonball
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
Semper Vaporo Andrew Falconer A count of the number of freight trains would not be impossible to verify. There just have to be 3 or 4 people who take turns at the tracks recording the number of freight trains that pass over 24 hours. Is that too much work to stop and observe what is actually happening in the world? Observe before reporting. Andrew That would be okay if there was enough time to do that sort of verification, but it would require more than 24 hours to do, since you would need to line up a half dozen people to do the sitting and watching (eats and bathroom breaks could possibly screwup the count if trains passed during that time). Is the editor chompin' at the bit to get the story in the evening edition? Do you even have 4 hours to get that 24 hour count done? Then there is the need to select a place where the count would be meaningful for the task at hand. If counting trains that pass a particular spot were the need, then parking at that spot would suffice, but if the number of trains through town were the required value and the town is of any good size, then the point the count was taken from would need to be selected properly so that locals in and out of a nearby yard could be accounted for. But would the people doing the counting have any idea what the difference is between a through freight and a local to the cannery or grainery? Would it be necessary to even know that? Then there is selecting the day of the week properly to get a correct count. Are some days busier than others? What about track work confusing the schedule? Do you count the work train that ties up the mainline for 8 hours? Be a whole lot easier to just CALL THE RAILROAD and ask how many trains there are per day. Granted, the RR might fudge the numbers a bit one way or the other, depending on whether you present yourself as pro- or anti- RR or whether your story is to promote or denigrate railroading in general, but at least your article could state, "CMBY RY CEO Mr. S. Vaporo said there are an average of 4 trains servicing the Unobtanium mines, 13 through freights and 4 passenger limiteds per day." Then the onus of truthfulness is on that scoundrel Vaporo if the Unobtanium mines were closed 120 years ago, the through freights only went to the edge of town and the passenger limiteds were limited to 4 mumified passenger pigeons on the circus train 75 years ago.
What you're talking about here Semper, is journalism, real journalism, whereby the reporter and/or Editor dig for facts, have contacts and friends who can confirm the right answers or send them to those who do have the answers. They are not curious, inquisitive, enterprising, intelligent, hungry, enough to go find out.
May as well get this off'n me chest while we are at it... I started using a News & Weather "app" on my cell phone to catch up on the days news and I am finding that way too many of the "NEWS" items are actually links to personal BLOGS wherein the writer gives only his opinion of what he/she wants me to believe... no facts at all, just opinion. I guess opinion has its place, but BLOGS are "editorials" wherein the writer only expresses their opinion of the days events, but do not contain "the whole story" so I can make up my own mind. I know "newspapers" and TV news have often done the same, but they usually expressed the majority of their "opinions" in a limited "Editorial" section and the rest of the storys were presentations of the facts of the events of the day (albeit sometimes slanted in the direction of the Owner's/Editor's personal opinion). Not having seen a real paper newspaper in several years I don't know if that is true anymore or not. But I am seeing more and more television "news" programs that are just biased "BLOGS" of the station owner's/operator's opinion and I can tell that they are not reporting all the facts.
But I guess that is not much different than our judicial system where facts are supressed at the whim of the lawyers and judges out of bias and personal opinions.
We eschew the factual and integrity of a practiced and schooled media for the mobility and abundant sources freely expounding information without supervision or caution.
WE are a NOW society. We want our 'news' now, the facts be damned. It takes time to uncover and develop a factual trail to any event, as a society we don't want to wait for a factual, truthful reporting - we want a sorid reporting and we want it NOW. The internet age, isn't it wonderful.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
I don't think the problem of inadequate checking of sources is anything new - a great example of wildly inaccurate reporting from the 1930's was Walter Duranty.
What is also not new in journalism is not even paying attention to the facts that are basic to the story. While a bit OT, the 1978 PSA crash was almost invariably described as the Cessna colliding with the Boeing, when the reality was that the faster Boeing hit the Cessna from behind.
- Erik
The problem today Erik, are multi-investor owned and operated multiple ownership of stations in given markets and across the country. They often have "centralized" or "borrowed" talent. All programming or news operations from a central station or designated stations or newspaper offices or printing plants. A friend of mine did morning news live on a station in Rochester, NY and at nine in the morning was required to record the afternoon news casts on a sister station in Providence, RI. Another problem is when they do have people working in any given market, they are not given the tools...one of the tools being time...to do nothing more than accept what is given them either via internet, email or fax and pass it on without checking for facts or rewriting. So for that kind of journalism, media will not pay wages a professional should be getting and non trained but starry eyed candidates need only apply...and that is the last application they will do in that job until they apply for another.
henry6 The problem today Erik, are multi-investor owned and operated multiple ownership of stations in given markets and across the country. They often have "centralized" or "borrowed" talent. All programming or news operations from a central station or designated stations or newspaper offices or printing plants. A friend of mine did morning news live on a station in Rochester, NY and at nine in the morning was required to record the afternoon news casts on a sister station in Providence, RI. Another problem is when they do have people working in any given market, they are not given the tools...one of the tools being time...to do nothing more than accept what is given them either via internet, email or fax and pass it on without checking for facts or rewriting. So for that kind of journalism, media will not pay wages a professional should be getting and non trained but starry eyed candidates need only apply...and that is the last application they will do in that job until they apply for another.
And look at all the money they save!
Yes they save money...American business is in business to save money. Not produce an honest and quality product, not to be of service to the public or provide accurate, timely, factual, information as in this case, but just make money.
They do produce a quality product--a low quality product.
When I worked in a lumber yard, grading fencing boards, "quality" grade boards had knotholes and could have strips where bark had been (wane) on the edges; warped, bent, bowed, crooked, or twisted boards were rejected, though. "Number 2 or better" boards were were of higher quality than "quality" boards.
I am continually amused by the use of the description "quality" without any qualification as to its being high, medium, or low quality.
And, recently, there was in the local paper an article which had a picture in which a man was described as drinking a tanker of beer--it looked to me that he was holding a stein, which perhaps could have been called a tankard. It seems that the caption writer had little education.
Johnny
Deggesty And, recently, there was in the local paper an article which had a picture in which a man was described as drinking a tanker of beer--it looked to me that he was holding a stein, which perhaps could have been called a tankard. It seems that the caption writer had little education.
Must be the same guy who wrote a recent article about "navel" officer training..
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.