cacole I worked at the local daily newspaper for six months in between retiring from the U.S. Army and being hired as a Department of Defense civilian employee in 1986, and believe me, the run-of-the-mill newspaper employees and reporters are poorly paid and have little motivation to check the facts.
I worked at the local daily newspaper for six months in between retiring from the U.S. Army and being hired as a Department of Defense civilian employee in 1986, and believe me, the run-of-the-mill newspaper employees and reporters are poorly paid and have little motivation to check the facts.
Same here. I was a sports writer for a small daily for six months back in 1981. I was paid $250/week gross. I took it because back then the economy was really bad; the town in which I worked was a mining town, and I was one of the few who had a job. Covering sports, I couldn't really stray too far from the truth. One of the perks was that I got to travel all over northern Manitoba and Saskatchewan to watch the hockey games, and I got to meet many of the up and coming NHL stars before they were big names. But eventually I had to quit... just couldn't afford to work there any longer.
Yes indeed , as the story goes.The likes of Walter ,Edward R . and H.V.K. were the best of the best. For amusement I grin at Fox and HLN, oh and the great cutsey CNN fashion ladies.
I would hope no other trains were derailed during this post.
Y6bs evergreen in my mind
tree68Many are just passing through on their way to bigger and better things.
That is a different group of people, individuals who work with you for a short time in order to get a credential. They are using the position as a stepping stone to get to where they want to be. Or where they think they want to be.
I don't want to comment on people who took a different path than I did as I really don't know how they ended up. But I did see a fair number pass through.
Sorry, but every time I hear or read about people going "on to bigger and better things", I am reminded of a stand-up comic (I think it may have been Don Adams of "Get Smart" fame) routine on the Ed Sullivan TV show. His routine was of a man making the welcoming speech to a new class at Major League Baseball's Umpire School. It concluded with:
"Those of you that pass this course will go on to bigger and better things, those that don't - - will become umpires."
Semper Vaporo
Pkgs.
Very few are "passing through to bigger and better things" today unless they are really smart enough to buck the trend, think for themselves, are curious and intelligent enough to look beyond what is presented. Owners do no allow enough time for newbies to do the job we defined and created in the last Century. Some are their for the glory, others because it seem like easy work...and the owners take advantage of that by not demanding a professional journalistic job from them, not paying them enough to stick around, and not supervising and teaching to be better enough for them to stick around nor want to: you can make a buck fifty more down the street being something else.
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.
One of those "old heads" (who handled police and fire, mostly) just retired from our local daily. He knew the people and we knew him. And I don't ever recall an incident of bias from him.
The "new kids" phenomenon is very obvious in the small-market broadcast world, where one tends to see the faces or hear the voices. Many are just passing through on their way to bigger and better things. I think we sometimes get some who are associated with the nearby military base (dependents), so their tenure is necessarily limited to just a few years.
As I've mentioned in other threads, we have the same problem in the fire service - reporters with no clue as to how we do our job. At least one FD that I know of has run "mini-academies" to help the media (and others) understand how we operate.
Given that fires happen far more often than RR-related incidents, I don't know that a RR version would be all that useful, with the possible exception of an OLI course.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Victrola,
I've never worked as a journalist. However, I worked at one job for almost 40 years and I came to believe that experience is not valued enough in our society.
Over those years I worked with many new people. If being inexperienced is a fault they had that fault; they were new to their job. But I found them in general to be energetic, careful and willing to learn. I was happy to work with them.
Frankly, every barrel has its bad apple. Some bad apples are new to the job; some are old veterans. And I have to agree with Schlimm about nostalgia.
John
Victrola1 An old reporter long dead scoffed at schools of Journalism. He said any wishing to be a reporter should get a good liberal arts education. The emphasis should be on English, History and Politics with exposure to the Sciences. The old reporter claimed he could teach the basics of writing a news story to any competent graduate in six weeks. The old reporter did not just hang out in the same bar with his cohorts from the office. He made it a point to know a wide variety of people in the city he covered. Butchers, bakers, bankers, brakemen, etc. he developed a list of contacts he could use as a resource when needed to write a story. The old reporter worked at the same paper for years. He was an anchor of his news room. He is now long dead. News rooms now, especially in small markets, often lack such a veteran. Reporters come and go. The pay is low. Some move up. Many go into higher paying fields. Students cost even less than low paid reporters. Many small market media outlets over utilize "J" school interns. These students are clueless about the area they are covering. Editors with a fraction of the old reporter's knowledge do not catch the errors of interns and green reporters as they should. The old reporter was not out to save the world. He kept he kept his facts and his aim straight. The world was better informed when he covered an assignment. He is sorely missed.
An old reporter long dead scoffed at schools of Journalism. He said any wishing to be a reporter should get a good liberal arts education. The emphasis should be on English, History and Politics with exposure to the Sciences.
The old reporter claimed he could teach the basics of writing a news story to any competent graduate in six weeks.
The old reporter did not just hang out in the same bar with his cohorts from the office. He made it a point to know a wide variety of people in the city he covered. Butchers, bakers, bankers, brakemen, etc. he developed a list of contacts he could use as a resource when needed to write a story.
The old reporter worked at the same paper for years. He was an anchor of his news room. He is now long dead.
News rooms now, especially in small markets, often lack such a veteran. Reporters come and go. The pay is low. Some move up. Many go into higher paying fields.
Students cost even less than low paid reporters. Many small market media outlets over utilize "J" school interns. These students are clueless about the area they are covering. Editors with a fraction of the old reporter's knowledge do not catch the errors of interns and green reporters as they should.
The old reporter was not out to save the world. He kept he kept his facts and his aim straight. The world was better informed when he covered an assignment. He is sorely missed.
About as accurate an assessment of the status of journalism as any I've seen or heard. 100% in fact!
The most common response today from journalism students when asked, "Why do you want to be a journalist?' is "I want to change the world."
That is the problem with today's journalist. Opinions over neutrality. A true reporter gives the who, what, when, where, why, and how without bias. They should be as intangible to a story as a good set of umpires in a baseball game.
When a "reporter" starts hunting the truth to fit his/her opinion we have crossed the line to editorial, commentator, or talk show host. Unfortunately most news stories today are printed or broadcast with this biased basis.
As Henry and others have stated, cutbacks in the newsroom is also partly to blame. However, any good editor should be able to weed out the bias in any news story. Unless the editor is the pushing mechanism for the bias in the first place.
I always read, watch, or listen to every news story with the thought that these are the same reporters who give us such "correct" reports on incidents involving railroading. Does this reporter know the subject he/she is currently reporting on as "correctly"?
Jay
John WR Henry, Isn't the issue here the fact that people who become journalists do so because they have the ability to write well? Their education is focused on the craft of writing rather than on any particular subject matter. Therefore they originally approach any subject as a learner. Over time a journalist may come to know one or more subjects and his or her ability to understand and report them will improve. Some become real experts in a field. But at any given time journalists as a whole will have mixed abilities in any one field. It seems to me to expect that journalists all over American will have consistent expertise about railroading or any other subject is unrealistic. John
Henry,
Isn't the issue here the fact that people who become journalists do so because they have the ability to write well? Their education is focused on the craft of writing rather than on any particular subject matter. Therefore they originally approach any subject as a learner.
Over time a journalist may come to know one or more subjects and his or her ability to understand and report them will improve. Some become real experts in a field. But at any given time journalists as a whole will have mixed abilities in any one field. It seems to me to expect that journalists all over American will have consistent expertise about railroading or any other subject is unrealistic.
Overmod Schuylkill and SusquehannaYou're right about jornalism. Our local paper writers apparently don't even run "spell check" on their work. Or "garmmar check" for that matter. I have seen sentances without a noun, and sentances with out a verb. Not to mention those where the verb modifies the wrong noun. How did these people score well enough on the SAT to get into college? This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this forum. (Presuming, as I do hope, however, that all the grammatical and orthological mistakes in it were in fact intentional...) RME
Schuylkill and SusquehannaYou're right about jornalism. Our local paper writers apparently don't even run "spell check" on their work. Or "garmmar check" for that matter. I have seen sentances without a noun, and sentances with out a verb. Not to mention those where the verb modifies the wrong noun. How did these people score well enough on the SAT to get into college?
This is one of the funniest posts I have ever read on this forum.
(Presuming, as I do hope, however, that all the grammatical and orthological mistakes in it were in fact intentional...)
RME
IT would be funny if it weren't so true!
You're right about jornalism. Our local paper writers apparently don't even run "spell check" on their work. Or "garmmar check" for that matter. I have seen sentances without a noun, and sentances with out a verb. Not to mention those where the verb modifies the wrong noun. How did these people score well enough on the SAT to get into college?
By the way, I hope that the train DID have somebody on board, otherwise there was a runaway train. YEESH.
Modeling the Pennsy and loving it!
1. It is the job of the writer and the Editor to produce a piece free of errors.
2. It is not done before hand anymore.
3. It would be a full time job finding, correcting, and writing to the editors all the corrections needed.
Certainly one or even many letters to the editor is not going to change the institution of journalism from what it has become. But it is possible to correct errors when we see them. I think that is worthwhile.
Ulrich In some ways journalism is better today. Nowadays you have more checks and balances because there are more media outlets covering the same stories . And then you've got the informal reporting on Youtube and the various social media, some of which is downright good and informative. It is probably more difficult today to make it as a generalist reporter when so many facts are readily available on the internet.
In some ways journalism is better today. Nowadays you have more checks and balances because there are more media outlets covering the same stories . And then you've got the informal reporting on Youtube and the various social media, some of which is downright good and informative. It is probably more difficult today to make it as a generalist reporter when so many facts are readily available on the internet.
Actually your reasoning, Ulrich, is faulty and opposite the truth. Checks and balances in journalism is having the intelligence to question a statement and know where to go to check it before publishing...often there are editors who might do this or pose the question back to the reporter. Today, this often does not happen because reporters are not curious enough or because they are not given the time to be curious and check for facts. A media outlet that doesn't do that could get caught for libel or false reporting, etc., so it is as much a legal issue as it is a moral one. FB, internet blogs, Youtube, Tweet, and many others which allow posting without fact checking lay themselves out for being an accomplice to any false claims and accusations. So many just say something is true because they heard it or saw it someplace without knowing if there is any truth to it. Modern day journalist and bloggers often write, publish or post information which has not gone through what we used to call a gatekeeper, an editor or reviewer who checks for accuracy and truth. Without that today, most all mass media reporting is suspect. Specialty magazines or controlled websites are not as suspect and are often chosen because of the trust one has in the publisher and his staff for providing the information because it is what you want and so you trust. Often, though, the specific interest publications and websites are tainted to a subject or a particular point of view...as long as you know that, you are ok..
Journalism today is a far cry from what it was and is supposed to be. One letter to the editor would never cover any of the problems if only because owners of the properties don't care....I'm not talking Yellow Journalism but the standards of journalism those of us who have worked for and built up since at least WWII, maybe even from the 30's. We built a system and craft of integrity and pride and professionalism which is denied by big business ownership, investment bankers and hedge fund managers, and non local ownership of media today. Readers/listeners/viewers are cheated as are small business advertisers.
henry6Journalism ain't what is used to be and far from what it's supposed to be.
Well, Henry, there is always the option of writing a letter to the editor to correct the record. With luck the letter might actually get published.
schlimm Oh for a return to the glorious days of yesteryear, riding the Nostalgia express and reading those fine examples of "Yellow Journalism!"
Oh for a return to the glorious days of yesteryear, riding the Nostalgia express and reading those fine examples of "Yellow Journalism!"
When news reporters never let the facts get in the way of a good story!!
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I've been in broadcasting and close to the media for almost 50 years. And it has changed...for the worst. It is billed as a glamour job with little effort needed. So what if you can write..that's good but that's not all that is needed....one needs intelligence, curiosity, knowledge of history.....and business...and industry....and geography...sociology....and religion.....and politics....and cooking....Look at today's newspaper's front pages..not news but feature stories aimed at getting attention and not enlightening on current events or people. I admit to be in a small market where weekend "news" is a series of video clips about fairs, walkathons, runs, bicycle races, food festivals, etc.that permeates from the TV Newscuties to the front page of the paper thin of Monday morning. Journalism ain't what is used to be and far from what it's supposed to be.
In many ways the answer is , YES, Paul. Journalists today, not matter how or how welled schooled, are not allowed to practice journalism of yesterday, nor do the seem to be nor need to be as curious. Today's media employers just as soon the cubs just rip and read or post internet or faxed stories without question. The cubs are not given the time or the freedom to be curious and "chase down" truth and facts of a story as was so yesterday. My conversations with several over the past few years, along with listening, watching, and reading the results of their labors, indicates many don't know how to do anything but what their employers tell them to do. For them, it is a glamorous dream job needing little effort but lots of make up.
ChuckCobleigh Just another toaster, it would seem.
Just another toaster, it would seem.
See, now You've done it!
A "Toaster" is an AMTK AEM-7. and so you have put me on the wrong railroad even before I looked at the article. And Toasters do run in push-pull service.
ROAR
The Route of the Broadway Lion The Largest Subway Layout in North Dakota.
Here there be cats. LIONS with CAMERAS
Sometimes that "fine reporting" is done purposely. Let's say you're trying to do your job as a reporter and the person you're interviewing for the story is a complete jackass. What do you do? You could have a lot of fun with that. There are actually very few checks and balances to ensure that the reporter is actually reporting the facts. Sure there are editors, but they weren't there and can only cross check some facts. Nobody can really cross check quotes, and one could make up some pretty inflammatory stuff and bogus facts that could easily find their way into print.
If you lament the journalistic style of today, would you prefer to return to the journalistic style and accuracy (?) of the "Front Page" era?
Hey, she got some of it right.
“ Part of a train caught fire in West Allis Thursday, around 81st and National.”
True, it was on fire, and it was around 81 st.
Union Pacific said the rear engine caught fire.
Also true, the rear engine was burning.
It was put out quickly but the train was stuck for a couple hours.
Again, correct, it was stuck for a few hours.
The train was run automatically so no one was on board.
Wow, now that’s the way out there part…but 3 out of 4 ain’t bad for today’s college grads.
23 17 46 11
Jeff, how many "trains" have you controlled at one time? Honestly, don't they use stylebooks any more? "Train" for locomotive, and "tanker car" for "tank car"...what next?Actually, you have to give her a little credit...she didn't call it a caboose!
Carl
Railroader Emeritus (practiced railroading for 46 years--and in 2010 I finally got it right!)
CAACSCOCOM--I don't want to behave improperly, so I just won't behave at all. (SM)
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.