If you read the story linked in today's flimsies you will learn that CPR #2816 is one of only 48 steam locomotives in existance in all of North America. It is amazing how much you learn from the media.

Tom Gears

> If you read the story linked in today's
> flimsies you will learn that CPR #2816 is
> one of only 48 steam locomotives in
> existance in all of North America. It is
> amazing how much you learn from the media.

> Tom Gears

Wow! I must really have it wrong. I show 2053 among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico. Oh...wait. I count compressed air locomotives. Does that then mean that 2005 of the ones I list are compressed air? That must be it. Sheesh.

Doug

P.S. Correct link to Jeff Terry's column about Death Valley RR No. 5 is below


Death Valley No. 5
dougb@sunserver.com

Back in 1990 when I was working on 765, I was interviewed by a reporter from the Lima, Ohio newspaper. He quoted me (incorrectly) as saying that the 765 was the only mainline steam locomotive running in the U.S. today. At that time the list of "mainline operating" locomotives was quite larger than just 765. It makes you wonder if anything they say is true!

> Wow! I must really have it wrong. I show
> 2053 among Canada, the U.S. and Mexico.
> Oh...wait. I count compressed air
> locomotives. Does that then mean that 2005
> of the ones I list are compressed air? That
> must be it. Sheesh.

> Doug

> P.S. Correct link to Jeff Terry's column
> about Death Valley RR No. 5 is below


wallis@netdoor.com

> Back in 1990 when I was working on 765, I
> was interviewed by a reporter from the Lima,
> Ohio newspaper. He quoted me (incorrectly)
> as saying that the 765 was the only mainline
> steam locomotive running in the U.S. today.
> At that time the list of "mainline
> operating" locomotives was quite larger
> than just 765. It makes you wonder if
> anything they say is true!

One of the things that I learned as a senior military officer in dealing with the press is that they want fifteen to twenty second "sound bytes" for the TV news. So if you to be accurately quoted and not have the editor take you out of context, write your text in "sound bytes" all strung together. If you let them hash the news broadcast on their own, they demonstrate how little they really know . Press reporters are more dangerous because they have write their own copy and your information is in the hands of the fates when they put fingers to keyboard.

Ed


ff1044@aol.com

Gentlemen,

In defense of my humble profession of the last 21 years, allow me to share this:

Until the first robot journalist is completed, mistakes will happen. Nobody, not you or anybody in the business, likes for them to happen, and no body 'tries to get it wrong.' But they still happen.
At my company, factual errors are treated seriously with required corrections, forms to explain how the error happened (aimed not so much at punishing the person but to try to help them understand how the error happened and give others of us a big of knowledge so we don't fall into the same hole).
I see errors of fact happening at papers large and small but I see a great deal of quality of companies like mine, where folks are paid a decent salary, encouraged and trained regularly to do good work, and there is a high standard.
What to do?
My advice to my friends in railway preservation is this: Explain things in a way the general public will understand them, ie, cut out the jargon, the acronyms, and the blather; slow down and ask the folks interviewing you if what you're telling them is clear; review major points; have yourself a written statement BEFORE you go out with your steam engine that's clear and concise (1 page max doublespaced); make sure you've got some contact data (cell phones and emails) so you can be reached AFTER the journalist leaves--a good one will call you back or email you and ask some follow up questions or doublecheck those picky facts about how many mainline steam engines are left. Jim


http://nctrans.org
Wrinnbo@aol.com

I've found it also helps to speak very slowly and use simple, one or two syllable words.

I don't know if it is the advent of technology (spellcheck and the like), the dumbing down of the media in general (what grade level are newspapers written for?) or time and space constraint, but the journalist who is truly capable of understanding nuances and how small things combine into a larger picture seem to be fewer and further between.

Jim is fortunate if he is working with highly literate, consumate professionals. In my experience it isn't a reliable universal standard.

If Woodward and Bernstein were average J school grads today, how would Watergate have been covered? Could a Mencken come up through the ranks in 2004?

dave

irondave@bellsouth.net

> I've found it also helps to speak very
> slowly and use simple, one or two syllable
> words.

This topic seems to be one of the ones that crops up regularly here. I've said this before, but I'll say it again: if there is a way to screw up the facts, a news reporter will find it. Not on purpose, simply out of ignorance of the subject. This should always be kept in mind when dealing with the media. The simple way to put it is to always remember that news reporters haven't got a clue what you're doing or why.

Try writing an intelligent news story in one day or less on some subject you're not familiar with and have minimal interest in. Quilting, for example, or fabric window treatments, or maybe bird watching. Then have someone who IS knowledgeable in that field evaluate your story for accuracy. I'll bet they find a bunch of misleading statements, oversimplifications, and possibly even downright incorrect facts, just like we find in news stories about trains.

It's not that news reporters are dumb. We just have to crank out story after story on all sorts of different subjects about which we know very little, and often care very little about. "Feature" stories -- in the business known as "soft news" -- are where you'll usually find such errors. Your typical murder, robbery, car wreck, house fire, etc. -- "hard news" -- are usually pretty accurate because, unfortunately, most reporter get familiar with such stories rather quickly.

The South Carolina Railroad Museum
mconrad@msmgmt.com

As an underpaid and overworked member of the fourth estate (by my own choice, I might add), I work hard to make my stories accurate. I note that the above-mentioned report was from a television reporter, which is a totally different animal from a print reporter. They don't necessarily have to be correct, since the picture is the important part of their reporting, and what they say on-screen today will be forgotten in 15 minutes. Print, on the other hand, is forever, even if today's newspaper is tomorrow's fishwrap.

And I don't care whether I'm writing about quilting or railroading or a crime scene or what, I take pride in my work. I would bet my Kromer cap that if you took six people and put them at an event, you would get six completely different stories with varying levels of accuracy and objectivity. It's just human nature, and as my good buddy Jim says above, until someone invents a robot reporter, that's the way it will be. I've often covered local meetings, sitting next to a reporter from another paper, and when I look at his story, I wonder if we were at the same meeting. Happens the same way with just regular folks, too.

K4s1361@hotmail.com

It refers to 48 CPR steam locomotives. Simple misquote of some sort.

> If you read the story linked in today's
> flimsies you will learn that CPR #2816 is
> one of only 48 steam locomotives in
> existance in all of North America. It is
> amazing how much you learn from the media.

> Tom Gears

As a former daily print reporter, I can vouch for everything that Jim, Wayne, and Matt have said. They're good and honest laborers in the often-unpredictable and certainly unappreciated vineyards of daily journalism.

Unfortunately, much of the corporate media focus today, especially in broadcasting, is concerned with what I call focus-group journalism. That is, making news judgments based on things like -- in no particular order -- food/fashion, sex, health/medicine tips, and blood (fires, accidents, crime). Once they've filled the space or air time with these, there's not a lot left over intellectually or any other way for the likes of railroading, railroad preservation or, shoot, let's just say transportation generally.

How to counter this? Here are some ideas:

-- Treat a reporter as a professional, regardless of your opinion of how he or she comports himself/herself. Some, particularly in TV, are rude and demanding. Try to display some sympathy with the person's lack of knowledge and, rather than come off as condescending, try to meet that vacuum head-on. "I know this can be confusing, but Part 230 is a federal regulation -- really, a law -- that means that we have to ..."

-- As Jim mentioned, have something in writing that is clear and brief to hand out. The cynical would say that we're doing the reporter's work for him. The practical side is that no reporter has the time and fewer yet have the inclination to look up all the info you can list on an 8-1/2x11 sheet. Keep things concise. Consider preparing a separate background sheet for each theme or project (for example, one each on your steam-engine project, organization or museum, and current promotional event. One group I know prints several such backgrounders with the same letterhead but on different colored paper for each aspect--stick with light pastels, no dayglow--so they are visually distinct and won't be confused with each other in the crowded shuffle atop a newsroom desk.).

-- As another poster mentioned, drop the jargon. This requires a deliberate effort. But using jargon puts a reporter on the defensive by unintentionally insisting that he learn our language before we treat him as a peer. While we all know terms like BNSF, 4-6-2, Form 4, EMD, and even gauge, we'll only put off the media by throwing such language in their faces. The ironclad rule of thumb in journalism is that no reporter can explain a story to his or her readers until he or she understands it first. If we help with the latter, the former is more likely to be successful.

-- Related to the above, look for word pictures and phrases that illustrate what you mean without oversimplifying. Bill Withuhn once was trying to explain the 1401 to a Smithsonian visitor. When the visitor couldn't understand what was the big deal, Bill suddenly came up with this: "It was the 747 of its generation." "Oh." Light went on, visitor understood. Once, a wire-service reporter interviewed me about the vanishing caboose. As we talked, I fumbled around trying to figure out a way to express what I was thinking, and finally hit on something like this: "It's to a freight train what an exclamation point is at the end of a sentence." The quote made it onto the wires.

-- Watch out for what I call the Lionel question and be prepared to politely deflect or even passively ignore it. "How did you get interested in this--did you play with toy trains as a kid?" Nothing trivializes railroad preservation more quickly than this. Be prepared in advance to talk instead about, for example, the heritage of the people who built and ran this engine, the way the railroads stitched together a nation, the honest dignity of hard work done well in pursuit of a larger goal, or the incredible teamwork it took and takes to run a railroad. If you have a railroad family connection, that's often a good place to start. My grandfather and great-grandfather were railroaders (PRR, GM&O) and my dad worked for a subsidiary of Baldwin, so I frequently use that as a talking point.

-- Avoid any temptation to negotiate or do battle via press release. If you've got a squabble with your Class 1 over moving a piece of equipment, don't bash the Class 1 in the press unless you and your group have exhausted all diplomatic channels and have concluded -- as a group -- that you have no other recourse. Generally speaking, it's unprofessional, and unresolved conflicts can tend to draw unwanted and unhelpful media attention.

-- As noted, make yourself available via phone, cell phone, e-mail, whatever, for follow-up questions. Sincere reporters who start putting together their stories (on an approaching deadline, of course) and realize they're in over their heads will welcome your availability to bail them out with a quick answer or explanation. In my former life as a reporter, I've called back sources three, four, five times. They may have gotten tired of hearing from me, but I got the story right.

-- Finally, don't beat around the bush. There's a temptation to be flattered that a reporter has shown up and demonstrated interest in your project. Many folks in preservation will then chatter endlessly, hopeful for more coverage. The opposite is true. Your goal is to get to the point and answer the single most important question for the reporter and his/her readers/viewers: "So what?"

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.


cupper@att.net

Dan,
Well said! As a daily print editor myself, I am often dismayed by both preservation groups (for their lack of understanding/ griping about the media) and journalists (for their carelessness in preservation/transportation stories in general).
Your comments on jargon are particularly important. Years ago, as a board member for a Canadian railway museum group, I wrote a press release detailing the move of a significant passenger car. Rather than highlighting what only rail buffs would understand (and “burying the lead”), the release focussed on the car’s contribution to the opening of the Canadian north. As a result, the move received a terrific amount of coverage — and all of it, from what I remember, was accurate and engaging without being patronizing.
Kevin

> As a former daily print reporter, I can
> vouch for everything that Jim, Wayne, and
> Matt have said. They're good and honest
> laborers in the often-unpredictable and
> certainly unappreciated vineyards of daily
> journalism.

> Unfortunately, much of the corporate media
> focus today, especially in broadcasting, is
> concerned with what I call focus-group
> journalism. That is, making news judgments
> based on things like -- in no particular
> order -- food/fashion, sex, health/medicine
> tips, and blood (fires, accidents, crime).
> Once they've filled the space or air time
> with these, there's not a lot left over
> intellectually or any other way for the
> likes of railroading, railroad preservation
> or, shoot, let's just say transportation
> generally.

> How to counter this? Here are some ideas:

> -- Treat a reporter as a professional,
> regardless of your opinion of how he or she
> comports himself/herself. Some, particularly
> in TV, are rude and demanding. Try to
> display some sympathy with the person's lack
> of knowledge and, rather than come off as
> condescending, try to meet that vacuum
> head-on. "I know this can be confusing,
> but Part 230 is a federal regulation --
> really, a law -- that means that we have to
> ..."

> -- As Jim mentioned, have something in
> writing that is clear and brief to hand out.
> The cynical would say that we're doing the
> reporter's work for him. The practical side
> is that no reporter has the time and fewer
> yet have the inclination to look up all the
> info you can list on an 8-1/2x11 sheet. Keep
> things concise. Consider preparing a
> separate background sheet for each theme or
> project (for example, one each on your
> steam-engine project, organization or
> museum, and current promotional event. One
> group I know prints several such
> backgrounders with the same letterhead but
> on different colored paper for each
> aspect--stick with light pastels, no
> dayglow--so they are visually distinct and
> won't be confused with each other in the
> crowded shuffle atop a newsroom desk.).

> -- As another poster mentioned, drop the
> jargon. This requires a deliberate effort.
> But using jargon puts a reporter on the
> defensive by unintentionally insisting that
> he learn our language before we treat him as
> a peer. While we all know terms like BNSF,
> 4-6-2, Form 4, EMD, and even gauge, we'll
> only put off the media by throwing such
> language in their faces. The ironclad rule
> of thumb in journalism is that no reporter
> can explain a story to his or her readers
> until he or she understands it first. If we
> help with the latter, the former is more
> likely to be successful.

> -- Related to the above, look for word
> pictures and phrases that illustrate what
> you mean without oversimplifying. Bill
> Withuhn once was trying to explain the 1401
> to a Smithsonian visitor. When the visitor
> couldn't understand what was the big deal,
> Bill suddenly came up with this: "It
> was the 747 of its generation."
> "Oh." Light went on, visitor
> understood. Once, a wire-service reporter
> interviewed me about the vanishing caboose.
> As we talked, I fumbled around trying to
> figure out a way to express what I was
> thinking, and finally hit on something like
> this: "It's to a freight train what an
> exclamation point is at the end of a
> sentence." The quote made it onto the
> wires.

> -- Watch out for what I call the Lionel
> question and be prepared to politely deflect
> or even passively ignore it. "How did
> you get interested in this--did you play
> with toy trains as a kid?" Nothing
> trivializes railroad preservation more
> quickly than this. Be prepared in advance to
> talk instead about, for example, the
> heritage of the people who built and ran
> this engine, the way the railroads stitched
> together a nation, the honest dignity of
> hard work done well in pursuit of a larger
> goal, or the incredible teamwork it took and
> takes to run a railroad. If you have a
> railroad family connection, that's often a
> good place to start. My grandfather and
> great-grandfather were railroaders (PRR,
> GM&O) and my dad worked for a subsidiary
> of Baldwin, so I frequently use that as a
> talking point.

> -- Avoid any temptation to negotiate or do
> battle via press release. If you've got a
> squabble with your Class 1 over moving a
> piece of equipment, don't bash the Class 1
> in the press unless you and your group have
> exhausted all diplomatic channels and have
> concluded -- as a group -- that you have no
> other recourse. Generally speaking, it's
> unprofessional, and unresolved conflicts can
> tend to draw unwanted and unhelpful media
> attention.

> -- As noted, make yourself available via
> phone, cell phone, e-mail, whatever, for
> follow-up questions. Sincere reporters who
> start putting together their stories (on an
> approaching deadline, of course) and realize
> they're in over their heads will welcome
> your availability to bail them out with a
> quick answer or explanation. In my former
> life as a reporter, I've called back sources
> three, four, five times. They may have
> gotten tired of hearing from me, but I got
> the story right.

> -- Finally, don't beat around the bush.
> There's a temptation to be flattered that a
> reporter has shown up and demonstrated
> interest in your project. Many folks in
> preservation will then chatter endlessly,
> hopeful for more coverage. The opposite is
> true. Your goal is to get to the point and
> answer the single most important question
> for the reporter and his/her
> readers/viewers: "So what?"

> Dan Cupper
> Harrisburg, Pa.

> Years ago, as a board member for
> a Canadian railway museum group, I wrote a
> press release detailing the move of a
> significant passenger car. Rather than
> highlighting what only rail buffs would
> understand (and “burying the lead”), the
> release focussed on the carÂ’s contribution
> to the opening of the Canadian north. As a
> result, the move received a terrific amount
> of coverage — and all of it, from what I
> remember, was accurate and engaging without
> being patronizing.

Greetings to Kevin and the List:

Excellent, that's exactly the way to do it.

It's so important to find these wider connections that tie railroading and railroad history to the rest of life and use them to -- shamelessly -- leverage interest in, and coverage of, one's project.

These connections explain *why* people should care. Those of us in preservation already know that and usually wrongly assume that others do. Not so.

Dan Cupper
Harrisburg, Pa.


cupper@att.net