There is a very good, well-written article in the Flimsies section, from the Contra Costa Times, explaining the recent historic equipment moves between museums in Northern California. It explains the process to the (non-railroader) readers very well, compliments the UP for helping facilitate the whole thing, mentions why the stuff is important to history, and generally made me think, "This reporter deserves an A+ for this article." Having had dealings with the press, and the (condesending) spin some reporters can put on this subject, I thought this was a great job.

Then, I read the quote from the volunteer--- along the lines of "big boys and their big toy trains"....ARRGH!!! Please, tell your people NO!! Don't use those phrases!! Or anything like it....it seems harmless, but when , for example, some political support might be needed, or a grant application is written, do you think the "big boys and their big toys" will be taken seriously?

Have some good lines for the reporters and practice them...and perhaps not everyone needs to speak with the media....

Or am I just too sensitive about this?

I seen nothing further to be gained by this thread of "he said-" and "Oh yeah?" exchanges. Time to lock the thread.

No, you're not being too sensitive about it, and no, there is no reason to lock this thread; it's not about who said what, it's about managing public perception of our field by managing statements made to the press. Some of this is a lost cause; if the reporter really wants a stupid statement for his story, all he has to do is look around his audience for the guy with the propeller on his beanie and he's sure to get it, but that doesn't mean that museum groups, which are businesses, shouldn't have an official policy of referring all questions to some officially designated spokesperson.

This is common in industry. Back when I was employed by the Chicago Transit Authority, we had a rule in our employee handbook that stated that employees were not to make statements to anyone, and all inquiries were to be directed to the Information Office downtown. My wife, who works for a large corporate owner of child care facilities, has basically the same rule in her employee handbook today. It makes sense; how do you know that the friendly inquisitive visitor isn't an investigator for the plaintiff in a pending lawsuit, looking to dig up instances of lax procedures or whatever. Admittedly, part of our mission is to educate the public about the history of our artifacts and their operation and this includes answering questions, bit that shouldn't extend to the comment that "ol' No. 4 derails on the house lead at least twice a week, and one of these days we'n gonna fix her."

Even humorous statements can take on a very different color when quoted out of context. Back when I worked for CTA, they happened to dump four cars off a curve on the Loop L structure, the first time since the 1890's that a car actually fell to the ground. Late that night, even though there was nothing more to say, the TV news just wouldn't let it go, and the TV screens in Chicago were filled with talking heads chattering nonsense in front of live footage of the cars laying in the street, when an ancient crane truck crept into view. I recognized it as the Ironworkers yard truck, but the reporters were on it like a flash; the CTA is moving a "big crane" into position. The reporter on the scene asked the driver what was going on, and he explained quite honestly that they were just moving blocking to be used in righting the cars the next day. Asked if it was going to be a difficult job, he replied, "Naw, we do this every day."

Need I say more?

If I ever become the Almighty Media Mogul, my first command will be to end the hopelessly trite headline cliche "... on track" or "chugging along".

I think an in-depth perusal of our "Flimsies" section should be mandatory for anyone considering media relations for any rail-themed operation. It highlights (well, would if it had a deeper archive) examples of almost everything that can go wrong in media coverage, as well as a few good examples.

When I was covering Baltimore's Howard Street Tunnel fire in 1991, I had almost all the local TV crews circling me for sound bites. I told them point-blank that I was NOT going to give them sound bites, but would respond sensibly to in-depth background interviews on the subjects, and I refused to let them put me on camera as suggesting--only as open-minded speculation--that the derailment could have been caused by the same water main break that the city was blaming the railroad for. Only one reporter bothered following up on me and talking for background. You should have seen the jaws drop and heads turn towards me the next day as the NTSB spokesman announced the investigation of the water-main theory.

Perhaps I placed my request for a moratorium under the wrong thread. I was referring to the idiotic turn in the Steamtown discussion.

I believe the Baltimore Howard Street tunnel derailment and fire occured in 2001, not 1991. -- Ray

Yeah, right, sorry, brain f*rt, not getting enough sleep around here ( and I got reasons, thank you).

Hey, be glad I even got the millennium right.

Oh, wait...............

Here's the opening sentence from an article about our Museum



It's the "buffs" thing that stood out this time. Perhaps we can start insisting when ever possible that the media starts using the word historians to describe our colleagues?

Fortunately, the article that followed was fine. (see flimsies)

Wesley