I will agree that the larger the city/market the better chance the journalist will be in getting information and getting it correct. However, what I witnessed concerning this Dec 1 MNRR wreck did not show me that. Identifying jobs by wrong titles, not understanding terminology, and not knowing what was being told to them so they could not ask an intelligent question for clarification or exploration. They leave stories dangling, asking to be explored and exposed because they don't know enough about the subject to recognize a door begging to be knocked on and opened. Getting their pretty or handsome face on camera, out of breath and excited, shouting into a microphone, is not journalism or reporting, it is theatrics to cover up what they don't know and can't do.
And I speak from a platform of 50 years experience on both sides of media: reporting stories, providing stories and information, and being the story,
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.
Norm48327 rjemery Indeed, there are media sources whose journalistic integrity leaves much to be desired. The more sensational the item, the better. However, there are plenty of news sources that get it right, even postponing publishing a story until all facts are checked and double-checked. The New York Times and The Washington Post fall into this latter category. If a controversial quote is included, it usually is balanced with another quote from a different source offering an opposing view. I wouldn't bank on that. Reporters-I won't call them journalists-have to get a story out that sells papers. Most haven't a clue what they are reporting on.
rjemery Indeed, there are media sources whose journalistic integrity leaves much to be desired. The more sensational the item, the better. However, there are plenty of news sources that get it right, even postponing publishing a story until all facts are checked and double-checked. The New York Times and The Washington Post fall into this latter category. If a controversial quote is included, it usually is balanced with another quote from a different source offering an opposing view.
Indeed, there are media sources whose journalistic integrity leaves much to be desired. The more sensational the item, the better. However, there are plenty of news sources that get it right, even postponing publishing a story until all facts are checked and double-checked. The New York Times and The Washington Post fall into this latter category. If a controversial quote is included, it usually is balanced with another quote from a different source offering an opposing view.
I wouldn't bank on that. Reporters-I won't call them journalists-have to get a story out that sells papers. Most haven't a clue what they are reporting on.
Don't lump responsible journalists with the tabloid press. The NY Times and Washington Post get it right by a very high percentage, and if they are wrong, they are quick to print a correction. You won't see that in any media outlet touched by Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.
RJ Emery near Santa Fe, NM
henry6 I will agree that the larger the city/market the better chance the journalist will be in getting information and getting it correct. However, what I witnessed concerning this Dec 1 MNRR wreck did not show me that. Identifying jobs by wrong titles, not understanding terminology, and not knowing what was being told to them so they could not ask an intelligent question for clarification or exploration. They leave stories dangling, asking to be explored and exposed because they don't know enough about the subject to recognize a door begging to be knocked on and opened. Getting their pretty or handsome face on camera, out of breath and excited, shouting into a microphone, is not journalism or reporting, it is theatrics to cover up what they don't know and can't do. ...
I will agree that the larger the city/market the better chance the journalist will be in getting information and getting it correct. However, what I witnessed concerning this Dec 1 MNRR wreck did not show me that. Identifying jobs by wrong titles, not understanding terminology, and not knowing what was being told to them so they could not ask an intelligent question for clarification or exploration. They leave stories dangling, asking to be explored and exposed because they don't know enough about the subject to recognize a door begging to be knocked on and opened. Getting their pretty or handsome face on camera, out of breath and excited, shouting into a microphone, is not journalism or reporting, it is theatrics to cover up what they don't know and can't do. ...
Depends on what sources you follow. As far as I can see, the NY Times had the best coverage and certainly accurate coverage at that.
henry6 I will agree that the larger the city/market the better chance the journalist will be in getting information and getting it correct. However, what I witnessed concerning this Dec 1 MNRR wreck did not show me that. Identifying jobs by wrong titles, not understanding terminology, and not knowing what was being told to them so they could not ask an intelligent question for clarification or exploration. They leave stories dangling, asking to be explored and exposed because they don't know enough about the subject to recognize a door begging to be knocked on and opened. Getting their pretty or handsome face on camera, out of breath and excited, shouting into a microphone, is not journalism or reporting, it is theatrics to cover up what they don't know and can't do. And I speak from a platform of 50 years experience on both sides of media: reporting stories, providing stories and information, and being the story,
C&NW, CA&E, MILW, CGW and IC fan
I understand your questioning the verbage. I think the way it has to be interpreted is that MNRR has to get 2 men in the cabs of their trains until such time as a suitable and complete and reliable (failsafe?) train control system is in place. How MNRR does it, between which points or on what routes, when, etc., is up to MNRR operations. It probably make more sense to have a full trip "fireman" on all trips than to play chess and checkers with assignments and segments. I don't know if union rules and pay scales say anything about firemen any more. The real open questions are: does Amtrak have to comply? Just from Poughkeepsie to Spuyten Duyvil? Do trains on Danbury and Waterbury lines get included or just Shore Line? Harlem Line above Southeast? It might also leave out MNRR routes being dispatched, crewed, and equipped by NJT. There might be a legitimate argument back and forth on that.
Schlimm...when reporters, journalists, or whatever they want to call themselves, cannot differentiate between a conductor and an engineer; between a car, a locomotive, and a train; a track or a rail; driving, steering, or operating or running; track and third rails, and switches; basically not knowing what the are talking about, there is a problem and a building skepticism about how truthful the reporter is. I shoot the messenger when the messenger lies, deceives, or doesn't tell the real or whole story. Several quickly jumpedc on the fact that in July a CSX freight train derailed at this very site but not explaining that the train, direction, circumstances, and actual location was completely different than the Sunday morning wreck of an eastbound 82 mile an hour passenger train. Reporters and journalists should be reporting on these "tragedies of railroad and rail employee negligence" not as "embarrassing" tales or to embarrass the railroad and its employees, but to tell the truth of what happened to and by who, with facts and true statements and not mistaking the roles of people involved and the equipment involved. I hear people slam the media all the time because of perceived political positioning when the real problem is the ignorance and inability of the journalists and reporters to uncover and report factually.
If a few railroad terms are inaccurately used, big deal. That does not allow you or anyone else to dismiss the reportage as a whole. The question is whether or not the core story is accurate in terms of reporting what various people involved said happened. That is the job of journalists. Seems like the NYT did a pretty good job. The truth about this accident, in the form of an initial report and final findingst will come from the NTSB, shortly and maybe in one year, respectively. That is its job.
schlimm If a few railroad terms are inaccurately used, big deal. That does not allow you or anyone else to dismiss the reportage as a whole. The question is whether or not the core story is accurate in terms of reporting what various people involved said happened. That is the job of journalists. Seems like the NYT did a pretty good job. The truth about this accident, in the form of an initial report and final findingst will come from the NTSB, shortly and maybe in one year, respectively. That is its job.
In my mind it does. First, as a private person and second as a journalist, and third when I know something about the subject being reported. If the reporter/journalist is wrong, uses wrong identifications, makes false statements, bases comments on false assumptions, produces stories riddled with mistakes or is constantly making the same mistake, then I mistrust his reporting of even his name. And I say that because it is not just the reporter's knowledge of the subject that is wrong, so is the knowledge of the subject of all those who read or listen or see that reporter's story. And his editors inability to catch and correct the mistakes makes for a more uninformed public. Truth has a hard enough time making it to the eyes, ears, and minds of the public without ignorant or inept reporting blocking more. I dismiss stories and their perpetrators when so full of errors. I hate to say, "When I was a reporter..." but, when I was a reporter we checked our sources, we checked our facts, we checked with others when in doubt. We didn't just report and cash our checks.
I agree with schlimm, you can't disregard the entire story just because of some misunderstanding of rail jargon. While some large news organizations may have access to industry consultants, you can't expect others to pass on an important news story just because they don't have a railfan on staff.
I have a question about modern commuter cars. It's been a while since I rode the Hudson/Harlem lines. Do they still have emergency brake pulls in the coaches? If they do, could one of the conductors have pulled the brakes when he saw that they were going too fast thru the junction area, while the engineer was still zoned out?
Despite what was sometimes depicted in the movies, where a train went into emergency when someone pulled on one of those cords, they did not actually apply the brakes -- they just set off a buzzer that told the engineer to stop.
I've seen similar cords on some city buses and trolley cars, where such are still in service, to let the driver know that someone wants to get off at the next stop, because sometimes the driver would not stop if there was no one waiting to board.
MidlandMike I agree with schlimm, you can't disregard the entire story just because of some misunderstanding of rail jargon. While some large news organizations may have access to industry consultants, you can't expect others to pass on an important news story just because they don't have a railfan on staff.
I don't disregard the entire story. But all too often in these situations I have to work at separating the reporter's fluff from the few nuggets of hard fact. That will include checking other news sources, any photos that show the scene instead of just a mangled car, perhaps Google Earth to see the local geography. Doing all that will sometimes get me closer to having an idea of what may have actually happened, despite any single ignorant reporter. More often it merely gets me to the point where I know what questions to ask. And those are the questions the reporter should also be asking but isn't.
Meanwhile the public at large has their ignorance of rail operations reinforced by the ignorance of the reporting.
John
First, pull cords. Two different things in trains. One is a communication cord which signals the engineer with buzz, beep, or whistle...has been around since Paddy Ayres on the Erie reportedly put a tin can or bell tied to a rope which ran the whole length of the train back in the 1800's. There is also a rope tied to a valve handle which when pulled sets the brakes of a train...all passenger cars are so equipped.
As for misinformation by a reporter. As a former reporter/journalist, when I find a mistake, a questionable conclusion or statement, or anything else that makes me question the reporter/journalist's understanding and knowledge of the subject matter and facts, I question the whole story whether railroad or not. When one writes that the Conductor was running the train, misidentifies a car as a locomotive or vice versa, makes some fictional statement about railroads or railroading operations, etc. I tend to discard the whole story...and that holds true for stories other than those about trains and railroading, too.
You don't need a video recorder. Trains are equipped with event recorders. Download the data on a regular random basis and take the appropriate actions, just like we do with random drug and alcohol testing.
The history of US railroading is littered, literally, with the wrecks of trains where more than one person was in the controlling locomotive. Look at Creston, Iowa; Goodwell, Ok., Bettendorf, Ia.
If FRA thinks single person operation is a risk, then it needs to provide evidence for that. There is no such evidence.
rjemery Don't lump responsible journalists with the tabloid press. Railway employees and their unions are more interested in protecting jobs than protecting the public
Don't lump responsible journalists with the tabloid press.
An "expensive model collector"
narig01Just a comment on journalists. If they are making mistakes write them. Must news organizations these days have a place where one can write the reporters. Education is important.Thx IGN
I've done that, even talk to them in the field and elsewhere. They are nonchalant, shrug their shoulders, say they don't plan on staying in the job or in the locale, so why bother learning jargon....as long as they either look pretty on camera, get a by line in the paper, and get a paycheck from an employer who cares as much or less than they do.
henry6As for misinformation by a reporter. As a former reporter/journalist, when I find a mistake, a questionable conclusion or statement, or anything else that makes me question the reporter/journalist's understanding and knowledge of the subject matter and facts, I question the whole story whether railroad or not. When one writes that the Conductor was running the train, misidentifies a car as a locomotive or vice versa, makes some fictional statement about railroads or railroading operations, etc. I tend to discard the whole story...and that holds true for stories other than those about trains and railroading, too.
That is your choice, of course, but for most of the public it doesn't misrepresent the pertinent facts of this accident. Since you seem to find little of today's reportage up to your standards, could you show us where errors of material significance were made in the NY Times' reporting? Much of your and others' complaints seem like red herrings to divert attention from the negligence involved in this fatal accident. And what will the excuses be when the preliminary NTSB report is released soon? More errors?
Real reporters and journalists aim to educate and inform the public with facts and truths not misguide with ignorance, lies, made up stories, wrong facts, and stupidity so that you have an properly informed and intelligent public. The media is not to make people dumb and stupid, but to inform, enlighten, and educate them.
Some reporters are good, some reporters are hacks, and there are all gradations in between. I think that some of the problem is that railfans are too involved in this story to give reporters any slack. It's painful to hear that a railroad caused a tragedy, and I realize that I probably wouldn't be very objective by rejecting all negative news reporting.
It is telling that our resident critic of contemporary journlistic standards is unable or unwilling to specify the who, what, where and how/why the NYT account was inaccurate in reportng the story, as opposed to making sure it used all the jargon that means little to anyone except railroad workers and railfans. Forest for the trees.
In order to return to railroading, two Senators have insisted Metro North install inward facing cameras and audio:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/09/nyregion/senators-propose-cameras-inside-cabs-of-trains-post-metro-north-accident.html?_r=0
ten90 The history of US railroading is littered, literally, with the wrecks of trains where more than one person was in the controlling locomotive. Look at Creston, Iowa; Goodwell, Ok., Bettendorf, Ia. If FRA thinks single person operation is a risk, then it needs to provide evidence for that. There is no such evidence.
That the engineer said he was "zoned out" is obvious evidence that single person operation is a risk. While it is also evident that two person operation is not a guarantee that there still won't be wrecks, human sleep problems will guarantee that eventually there will be wrecks with one man operation.
henry6 Real reporters and journalists aim to educate and inform the public with facts and truths not misguide with ignorance, lies, made up stories, wrong facts, and stupidity so that you have an properly informed and intelligent public. The media is not to make people dumb and stupid, but to inform, enlighten, and educate them.
Thanks to Chris / CopCarSS for my avatar.
'The older I get, the better I was!'
Anon ....
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
The Metro North train had no alerter in the cab car! How do they get away with this? Why do the railroads always test the disaster gods by doing the absolute minimum (like leaving oil trains on a grade with not enough hand brakes set)?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.