On May 4 our museum hosted a stop on a bus tour ("fam tour") organized by our local visitor's bureau for the benefit of local hotels and tour planners. A reporter from the local news desk of the Wshington Post was in the group. He asked me several questions about the Museum and then asked if there was a nick-name for people interested in trolleys. Seeing my chance to start a trend, I offered up "trolley historian". The reporter asked if there was something catchier like "trolley nut" or "trolley fan". I replied that as a group in general we are interested in history, and that the "historian" label was the best description.

The story runs next Wednesday. I wonder what gets printed?

Wesley

Something about the "nut" who wanted to be called a "trolley historian", I'd wager.

Let us know how it comes out.

LOL.

Wesley

I had one of those. Went great, good inter view, great pictures. She even got most of the data correct. But the stinkin' headline over the picture of me running Ely-Thomas #6 (with fireman Gil Harris in the background) and the article itself was "He loves those trains!" in BIG letters.

Argh. I hate trains. And reporters.

J.R.

Last month I was interviewed for a "human interest" spot for the local TV station, concerning restoration of steam locomotive Georgia Northern 107 at Thronateeska Heritage Center. I sensed that the interviewer, who did his own videography, intros, editing, etc, was looking for the "train nut" or "big boys playing with big toys" angle.

After spending 4 hours on-site with him, emphasizing the work involved, the research necessary to do it right (or as much so as possible), I was pleased with the 1:44 spot that finally ran two days later. I feel he gave me more credit than I'm due...I've had lots of good folks involved with the project and I made sure the interviewer knew I wasn't doing it by myself.

Questions like "Will you be sad when the work is done?", "Are you sad you can't make it run again?" and "How does it make you feel to be involved in keeping it from being scrapped?" kept coming up. I think I did okay on most responses, and he at least was kind enough to send me the raw, unedited interview stuff to keep (and defend myself, if necessary!).

As a working journalist who grew up in a newspaper office and now writes for a variety of publications, let me present the other angle:

"Historian" has nine letters. "Fan" and "nut" both have three.

You can expound at length with excruciating clarity about the long history and mission statement of your institution and your projects at hand, and even if the reporter takes it all in stride, some editor who wasn't there is going to compress your classic streetcar into a four-foot cube and say "He talked about trolleys." Feature writers will all sympathize dearly with the essay question Peppermint Paty received on a test one time in the "Peanuts" comic strip: "Explain World War Two. Use both sides of the paper only if necessary."

I routinely tell my one client (a frequent visitor on this board, BTW) that I need to "buy a few verbs" to finish the article/column requests in the alloted space. There's an old adage that the first two years of an English/journalism curriculum is spent getting the writer to expand from 200-word essays to 15,000-word essays, and the last two are spent getting the writer to scale back to 500-word essays.

Having been on both sides of the clipboard, I also see nothing wrong with telling off a reporter who is obviously looking for the easy and cheap "big boys playing with big toys" angle or other frivolous quotes. You still want the story, but let them know you're not reading their cue cards. During the Howard Street Tunnel fire story in July 2001, I blew off numerous reporters who were all too obviously looking for a preconceived, throwaway quote, and instead spent my time working with the only two investigative reporters that wanted actual background and answers to serious questions.

The "railroader" who's been on television the most by far over the years in our area? The "conductor" who stands on the platform at the B&O Museum's train trip departure platform and does the utterly-stereotyped "A-A-A-A-a-a-a-a-a-l-l-l-l-l-l a-BO-O-O-O-O-A-A-A-R-R-R-D!!!!!!!!!!" for the cameras every time there's ANY excuse for a cameraman to walk on the property. Probably a worst cliche than the "boys with toys" one by far, along with "..... Back on Track".

Editors love brevity.

We also have to remember that these people (reporters) are making a "sell" to both their editors and their readers. If you're being interviewed by someone who knows nothing about what you do, you can expect the unexpected, to say the least. If you were being interviewed by a writer from the railroad/railfan field you will relatively feel safe. As someone mentioned, brevity is the key and the blue-pencil has a never-ending tip.

Also, make sure that the person being interviewed is actually someone you actually want to be put in that situation. Officers and Trustees from my group used to literally cringe when one of our more "camera-oriented" members would literally volunteer his socks off to be interviewed. The end result once was an article that ridiculed the purpose of the event being held, and made a humorous reference to the Mayor of the town it was held in. We then resorted to assigning someone to handle this type of task to head of future embarassment.

Almost like a buyer-beware situation.

I once ran in to a reporter at a steam and gas show. At the time I was firing a boiler in a stationary steam shed and she started talking to me about the display. I notice her glaze over when I started using words like "history", "display", "exhibit", and I think I even threw in "artifact".
At this point I started asking her about the paper she wrote for etc.
She told me, and told me the theme of her article was "boy with thier big toys" and then walked off sort of disappointed looking....

Remember that the reporter, copy reader, editor, page composer, photographer, caption writer, and especially the headline writer may all be different people. This is why a fine article may have a "train nut" headline. Unless you're in a real small town paper where not only are they the same person, but he or she is also the typesetter and ad salesman.

As a working reporter, I can attest that quite often, we are looking for a hook, and in the case of railway preservation activities, big boys/big toys is the easiest way to do it. We reporters are not experts on everything -- we're generalists by definition -- and we have to do what works. In addition, once we hit the "send" key and the piece goes to an editor or the copy desk, it's essentially out of our control. We don't write the headlines, and copy editors are often pressed for time and don't read more than the first graph or two of the story, so what we write as a hook may end up as part of the headline, even though it may not be the most important part of the story.

Just as a for instance, I might lead with something about how railway preservation is not just big boys with big toys. I would then go on to write about the research, hard work and expense involved in restoring a piece of equipment to its original condition, thereby proving my point. The copy editor, however, may not read beyond the lead graph or two and totally miss the point of the story.

So don't be so hard on us print people. We do the best with what we have to work with, but as I said, once we hit "send," it's gone.

How about "Trolley Pro"?

I suppose there is some merit in the old P.T. Barnum adage "Say anything you want about me but make sure you spell my name right." You never know, there may be one person reading the story who is in a position to extend favorable influence toward your interests.

Years ago I was interviewed by the Wall Street Journal. The reporter specialized in transportation topics but was up front in admitting that he was writing a feature about running a short line railroad and that his target audience was desk-bound Wall Street types who daydreamed about doing crazy things . . . like running a short line railroad.

I believe the interview was quietly arranged behind the scenes by our trade association with a target audience of one in mind: our local congressman, who had recently ascended to a position of considerable power and authority in transportation matters.

The WSJ editors had a specific story they wanted and it went back to the reporter several times for rewrite, which resulted in several "how 'bout we phrase it this way. . " conversations. The end result was a harmless little feature that at least made Mom and Dad proud.

Interestingly, not long after, the London Financial Times decided to do a "me too" piece, so I went through the drill again. There was a lot less editorial intervention and I was pleased with the end result, albeit with charming British references such as our locomotive picking up and dropping off "wagons."

Alan Maples
Everett Railroad

Here's the result:



Well, I'm not quoted as a "rail buff" or a historian. And I'm not sure when the "cheap thrill" comment was made. At least I was smiling.

Here's the link to the full article:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/05/10/AR2006051001132.html?referrer=emailarticle

Wesley

Having done countless print,radio and tv interviews over the years I've learned that you never know how the story is going to end up 'till you see it in print or on the screen. Some that I thought went extremely well turned out not so hot and others that I sensed didn't go especially well turned out very well. I also learned to bridge a reporters question(s) so that I was able to get in the points I wanted to emphasize regardless of his leads. Sometimes it works(always does on live TV or live Radio) sometimes it doesn't.
I can understand the aversion of the preservationists to the "big boys-big toys" tag-however any decent media exposure I would argue helps in the long run?
Ross Rowland