RMweb Gold colin penfold Posted September 6, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 6, 2012 BBC Breakfast had an interesting item on the Africa Express yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00y6krb about how 80 musicians were going on tour in a "1970s Diesel Engine" Now obviously you don't get 80 people in a loco, so they meant the train. Apart from that it was an interesting item with not a gimpse of fun being poked at rail fans until someone called William from the UK Railway Data File was reported as having called in to correct the item because the locomotive(s) were built in 1965 and 66 and not 1970. The look on Bill Turnbull's face said it all - barely concealed mirth that anybody would call up with such an irrelevant correction. Sorry if William is reading this and thinks I'm out of order, but I think it's this kind of behaviour that encourages a view of railway fans as "anoraks." I can't see other hobbyists taking the BBC to task on a matter of such detail when it's hardly relevant to the story. I was a bit surprised that they read the message out at all. William, if you are out there feel free to respond. Others, what do you think? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bon Accord Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 As someone who travels on railtours and attends exhibitions on a reasonably regular basis, when faced with such trivialities bordering on OCD, I often find myself thinking "that's the kind of thing that gives the rest of us a bad name". Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete_mcfarlane Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 It's when Journalists get minor but easily checked things like this wrong, that you wonder how much else of what they are telling you is wrong or made up. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grovenor Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 But, to them its such a trivial detail its not important enough to check. Keith Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pacific231G Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 BBC Breakfast had an interesting item on the Africa Express yesterday http://www.bbc.co.uk...rammes/p00y6krb about how 80 musicians were going on tour in a "1970s Diesel Engine" Now obviously you don't get 80 people in a loco, so they meant the train. Apart from that it was an interesting item with not a gimpse of fun being poked at rail fans until someone called William from the UK Railway Data File was reported as having called in to correct the item because the locomotive(s) were built in 1965 and 66 and not 1970. The look on Bill Turnbull's face said it all - barely concealed mirth that anybody would call up with such an irrelevant correction. Sorry if William is reading this and thinks I'm out of order, but I think it's this kind of behaviour that encourages a view of railway fans as "anoraks." I can't see other hobbyists taking the BBC to task on a matter of such detail when it's hardly relevant to the story. I was a bit surprised that they read the message out at all. William, if you are out there feel free to respond. Others, what do you think? It's fairly well known amongst television and radio producers that, though there are many others, railways and especially locomotives, aeroplanes and especially engine sounds, and bird song are three areas of "life" most likely to attract pedantic complaints. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pointstaken Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 That station on the IoW that is looking for dummies should try the ranks of so-called TV presenters. Dennis Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB17005 Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 Sorry if William is reading this and thinks I'm out of order, but I think it's this kind of behaviour that encourages a view of railway fans as "anoraks." I can't see other hobbyists taking the BBC to task on a matter of such detail when it's hardly relevant to the story. I was a bit surprised that they read the message out at all. William, if you are out there feel free to respond. Others, what do you think? I think there are nit-pickers in all walks of life , it's not restricted to the rail farternity. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
woodenhead Posted September 6, 2012 Share Posted September 6, 2012 farternity Quite an apt misspelling Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37255 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I didn't used to notice this particularly, until I recently started making far fewer railway-related trips. Nowadays it really does jump out at me when sat at a pres line on a gala day... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Whilst not truly significant in the context of the story, it is indicative of sloppy journalism and whilst I agree in this case it's better to let it lie, sloppy journalism is sadly pretty endemic across the board these days. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Purely and simply the journalist was wrong. "William" sought to correct them. Giving out such misinformation (which the BBC is very good at whether it's railway related or not) is damaging on a purely historical basis. I can't imagine anyone not ringing in if the BBC said the battle of Hastings was 1077, so why is it acceptable to get the railway detail wrong? Perhaps it's the manner in which railway enthusiasts correct other people which leaves a lot to be desired, rather than the correction itself. I think Dave above has hit the nail on the head here though. Sloppy journalism. But then in a day which also included Eddie Jordan's crass reporting on Lewis Hamilton's contract talks (whether he is or isn't close to leaving Mclaren, Eddie Jordan was wrong for stirring it up. Or perhaps the agenda rears its head again?) we seem to have hit new lows for sloppy journalism. I don't know why I continue to read or listen to the BBC at times. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Max Stafford Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 In terms of factual reporting these days, the BBC is up there with Radio Pyongyang I'm afraid. Dave. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold Colin_McLeod Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 .....someone called William from the UK Railway Data File was reported as having called in to correct the item because the locomotive(s) were built in 1965 and 66 and not 1970. Who cares? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 Along with railway modelling, astronomy is one of my major interests. Since "space" topics always attract a lot of interest, there are frequent reports in the media on the subject. These reports are often full of grossly inaccurate information, dumbed-down or plainly wrong. I've lost count of the number of times the science of astronomy is mis-reported as astrology. Reporters on TV seem to find the concept of erroneous facts highly amusing. For example, does it really matter if it's Jupiter that has a Great Red Spot, when they reported it as Uranus (!!). Taken individually such mistakes could be excusable, but this kind of thing is prevalent. Often I just grit my teeth. More often I turn the TV or radio off. Getting details right does matter - Simon's Battle of Hastings example is a good one. It's also interesting to compare the same articles reported on the BBC and published on their websites. The websites often contain genuinely detailed articles. What you see on the news is a rounded-off summation of the details - with inevitable errors included. I think (and I used to see this as a Physics teacher) it's viewed as "geeky" and "uncool" to get the information too correct. What's the harm in a little artistic licence? Umm... From an enthusiasts' perspective, how we react clearly colours the public's view of us. But I agree with several of the posts. Why should we feel guilty about correcting sloppy reporting? It's just a matter of how we go about it, and, given the attitude of a lot of people in the media, anyone with expertise is in a lose-lose situation. Raises the question...better to keep our mouths shut? Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Gold beast66606 Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Gold Share Posted September 7, 2012 It's fairly well known amongst television and radio producers that, though there are many others, railways and especially locomotives, aeroplanes and especially engine sounds, and bird song are three areas of "life" most likely to attract pedantic complaints. If there was a piece of "Famous English footballers over the years" and Pele was in there - how many "Anorak" or "Pedantic" football fans would complain ... it's the fact that something has been made of the correction that's the real issue here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
S.A.C Martin Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 If there was a piece of "Famous English footballers over the years" and Pele was in there - how many "Anorak" or "Pedantic" football fans would complain ... it's the fact that something has been made of the correction that's the real issue here. Five Live each week has people ringing in to complain about this, that and t'other that's reported by the BBC which is wrong. It's one rule for a group of dedicated "fans" and one rule for another dedicated group of "fans" (using the term broadly). I'd just like it if it was more of a level playing field. Yes, on occasion railway modellers haven't done themselves any favours, but as a football fan myself I tire of the double standards applied. So someone can go on the radio and bleat about an unknown team scoring a magical goal into the wrong net but a railway modeller doing something similarly anecdotal is an "anarok". I do think the Media haven't helped. Has to be said mind, video gamers have the right idea - it's been a good decade since hardcore video gamers were thought of as nerds generally in the media, as it's become more mainstream. Is that a route railway modellers would want to go down, I wonder... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium petethemole Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hardcore railway modelling? The mind boggles. A layout full of European HO people in dubious poses? Or modellers who spend all night "controlling" complex layouts to "strict" timetables? Media facilities for comment and response, whether to broadcast or printed media, are full of pedants correcting things, so why pick on someone pointing out a rail-related error? If it had been football-related, the broadcaster would probably apologise for the mistake! Pete Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
trisonic Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 Perhaps we are approaching the time of Ragnarok, therefore we need our Anoraks. I see your point Simon but we still have to be the most critical of ourselves and retain a sense of humour. There is not much worse than a bunch of humourless fanatics. Best, Pete. PS Last time I owned an anorak was when I was 12, honest! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 Some good points Simon. I think it's ok to complain about minutiae in mainstream sport, as many of the people involved with that activity are role models to many. A few high profile sportsmen, singers etc (and we know they are out there) who put their tuppence in on behalf of railway modelling might dispel some of the "anorak" image. As a teacher, I was always upfront with my modelling. It was a bit of a joke for a few days, then achieved a cult following across students, staff and parents. similarly, I ran a Star Trek club for 15 years at school. It was highly publicised and went from a few "geeks" to over a hundred members - because people accepted it as mainstream and a worthwhile activity. We just need to get people involved with our "hobby" - but not get our knickers in a twist when we occasionally are ridiculed. I sometimes think the media are looking for that very reaction. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
37255 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I haven't watched the report myself, but, come to think of it, if the quote is, as stated above a "1970s Diesel Engine", is that actually wrong? They were, after all, in existence and in service in the 1970s. It does, I agree, tend to imply that they were built in the 70s, but as locos which were in service in the 70s and wholly representative of 70s trains from a layman's point of view, I suppose the description isn't especially misleading? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium Physicsman Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 Hardcore railway modelling? The mind boggles. A layout full of European HO people in dubious poses? Or modellers who spend all night "controlling" complex layouts to "strict" timetables? Media facilities for comment and response, whether to broadcast or printed media, are full of pedants correcting things, so why pick on someone pointing out a rail-related error? If it had been football-related, the broadcaster would probably apologise for the mistake! Pete Wow! Pete - where've you seen this. I want to join up right away! I can then be a member of the "dirty anorak brigade" , a higher (lower?) form of anorak!!! Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
PLD Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 I think it depends... If it is fundamental details of the core subject of the piece that are wrong (e.g. Simons example of the date in a piece about Hastings and Beast's of including Pele in a piece about English Footballers) then of course it should be corrected... If however, as in this case, the error is minor and incidental to the main focus of the story - it was a piece about the musicians not the train - the correction does come across as pedantic and anoraky... Omiting the date the locos were built would have had absolutely no impact on the story. Paul [Anorack donned and zipped] P.S. can one of our class 47 experts confirm when the 47/8 spec was introduced and when that particular loco was converted. Was that during 'the 1970s' by any chance?? Just maybe, that's the date the reporter was quoting and his research was rather better than 'William' and some posters in this thread give him credit for... [unzipped] Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
br2975 Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 In this instance one story (the band on tour) begets another potential story (anoraks). Food and drink for the media - they don't need to go looking for the next bit of human interest. And don't forget the first rule of (certain) journalism :- "never let the truth stand in the way of a good story". But then so many enthusiasts (from many hobbies) fall into the trap. How many of us have exhibited - and had the apparent 'know all' pontificate to other viewers about the shortcomings of our, or another layout on display ? Quite often, that 'know-all' IS wearing an anorak or similar attire that hasn't seen soap and water since he lifted it from a hanger in Primark fifteen years ago, probably in the same week he took his last shower ! Most other enthusiasts stand quietly watching the layout, without any comment, or invariablybreak the ice with a question e.g. ".... is that the new Parkside van ?" I've wandered a bit here - but as long as there are hobbies, there will be incidents such as this. Brian R Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RMweb Premium kevinlms Posted September 7, 2012 RMweb Premium Share Posted September 7, 2012 It's when Journalists get minor but easily checked things like this wrong, that you wonder how much else of what they are telling you is wrong or made up. How easy exactly is it to check up on the construction date of 47 805? Without knowing that 47 805 is a Class 47 locomotive, it isn't that easy. In Google.co.uk, entering "47 805 build date', gave nothing of any use in the first 10 pages, changing the search to "47805 build date" was successful as item 10, although that came up with an image of an older colour scheme, with NO information about its construction. http://www.railuk.info/diesel/getloco.php?item=%2047805 Yes, it was wrong to state that it was a 1970s train, but in context, the story is about musicians travelling around by train (for which they ought to be congratulated and the subject is a NOVELTY and thus the reason for the reporting). If the story had been about RAILWAY ENTHUSIASTS touring the country in the same train, then getting the information correct would be critical and doubtless any of the passengers would be capable of providing that info - or would they?. For music, if a reporter stated that The Beatles wrote & played their music (as a group) in the 1960s, that is technically wrong as they finished up in 1970, but arguably their most important music WAS written & performed in the 1960s. All about context I think & no wonder the presenter thought it amusing for the correction. Some things are best left as a knowing nod, if choosing the wrong decade of construction has ruined the clip for anyone, then they have a severe problem, IMO. PS Has has anyone checked up on whether the MK1 BG depicted ever carried chocolate & cream livery? At least it wasn't passed off as a GWR vehicle. PPS That is one of the first BBC clips I've been able to view in Australia. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karhedron Posted September 7, 2012 Share Posted September 7, 2012 In any hobby there will usually be a small but extreme group who's actions are used stereotype the moderate majority and we are no exception. Football "hooligans" Trainspotting "anoracks" Sci-fi "nerds" In such situations I find the words of Simon Pegg extremely profound. He is talking about being a sci-fi geek but ti could apply to any hobby. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.