|
BBC London News
On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended
between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. |
BBC London News
In message
MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Blame it on the idiots who put out the press releases. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
BBC London News
MIG wrote:
The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683786.html (150 222 at Cuddington, 28 Jun 2004) |
BBC London News
The British Broadcasting Society is controlled by analphabets who can
only just barely speak English. None of them can read, so you can't blame the man who wrote the press release. Broadcasting House is constructed from papier-mâché made from chewed- up diplomas in Art History, Marine Biology and Surf Studies. |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 9:08*am, Offramp wrote:
The British Broadcasting Society is controlled by analphabets who can only just barely speak English. None of them can read, so you can't blame the man who wrote the press release. Broadcasting House is constructed from papier-mâché made from chewed- up diplomas in Art History, Marine Biology and Surf Studies. So what are the Daily Mail or ITV made up of? Art History, Marine Biology and Surf Studies drop outs? AE |
BBC London News
Offramp wrote:
The British Broadcasting Society The what? is controlled by analphabets who can only just barely speak English. "only just barely"? Broadcasting House is constructed from papier-mâché made from chewed- up diplomas in Art History, Marine Biology and Surf Studies. Isn't that what *your* soapbox is made of? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632903.html (D7018 (Class 35) at Tyseley, 4 Oct 1987) |
BBC London News
"MIG" wrote in message ... On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. But it's not just BBC London and it's not just public transport related. I reckon the "best" reports are those on Radio 2 for roads. "Sally Traffic" and her colleagues cover the country from north to south to west and it doesn't matter if you're local to the area they are reporting on or a stranger you can get a reasonable idea of what's going on. They're not perfect by any means but I will admit to listening to R2 when driving purely for their reports. Things go downhill in two ways. Firstly when they start talking about PT. It doesn't matter if they're talking about the ash cloud or something wrong with the the trains they just spout what they're given. They are capable of questioning and interpreting road information so why not PT? Secondly don't get me going about BBC local radio when it cuts in. The traffic reports are all over the place and often meaningless to anyone who isn't a local. And as Graeme says they must be reading press releases for PT. Otherwise how can you justify reporting that Cross Country can't run between Basingstoke and Southampton on a weekend when the line through Micheldever is blocked and say nothing about SWT? Yes, SWT should send something out but then I would expect the reporter to put 2 and 2 together, report the line is blocked and then tell me what SWT are doing and then what XC are doing. I have complained to the BBC but all I got back was "thank you for your feedback". |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 8:06*am, MIG wrote:
On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. *The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. *You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Should of course be 'Southern services' suspended between The Bush and MK, a signal problem in the Watford Junction area was apparently the reason. |
BBC London News
On 2010-11-23 09:37:39 +0000, George said:
On Nov 23, 8:06*am, MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. *The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. *You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Should of course be 'Southern services' suspended between The Bush and MK, a signal problem in the Watford Junction area was apparently the reason. So, does anyone believe that the inaccuracy of the BBC report would have misled a single traveller? |
BBC London News
In article ,
Graham Harrison wrote: Otherwise how can you justify reporting that Cross Country can't run between Basingstoke and Southampton on a weekend when the line through Micheldever is blocked and say nothing about SWT? Yes, SWT should send something out but then I would expect the reporter to put 2 and 2 together, report the line is blocked and then tell me what SWT are doing and then what XC are doing. It seems to me that it should really be the job of the industry (via either ATOC or Network Rail) to put out a single coordinated press release with complete information, rather than individual TOCs providing information piecemeal to the media. -roy |
BBC London News
It seems to me that it should really be the job of the industry (via either ATOC or Network Rail) to put out a single coordinated press release with complete information, rather than individual TOCs providing information piecemeal to the media. * * -roy BBC East were reporting that there were "Operational problems at Watford Junction". Now if that isn't TOC speak, I don't know what is. Perhaps all those who slag of the BBC would be happier if the incident wasn't reported at all. |
BBC London News
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. (MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was BBC London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented, but the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're fairly on the ball, TBH.) If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. Not sure that merely saying that is going to quell those who post on usenet to sound off about something though - that's a long and well established tradition! Also, there's been the occasional suggestion that points made here can sometimes permeate their way into transport organisations more effectively than other methods, though I don't think the same really applies to gripes about media reportage. Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really all that heinous either! |
BBC London News
"Ken Wheatley" wrote: On 2010-11-23 09:37:39 +0000, George said: On Nov 23, 8:06 am, MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. [snip] Should of course be 'Southern services' suspended between The Bush and MK, a signal problem in the Watford Junction area was apparently the reason. So, does anyone believe that the inaccuracy of the BBC report would have misled a single traveller? That was my immediate take on it - though I suppose it's possible that someone might have thought 'well I'm ok, I'm catching a Southern train not a Southeastern one' - or at least the lack of clarity might have created some confusion in their mind. Must admit I didn't immediately spot the problem when I read MIG's post. |
BBC London News
"Graeme" wrote: MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Blame it on the idiots who put out the press releases. Such things are not normally communicated by press release - certainly not 'live' travel updates. However one only needs to look at some of the examples of future engineering works information on TOC posters and websites and the NRE site to see what a mangled mess can be made of communicating such information - and likewise, the NRE current disruptions page can read rather cryptically too (same can apply to some extent to the 'live' info coming from the TOCs). |
BBC London News
Mizter T wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m and how should it be achieved? Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all bonuses.) (MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was BBC London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented, but the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're fairly on the ball, TBH.) If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really all that heinous either! Me neither. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683717.html (55032 (Class 121) at Gloucester Central, Jun 1985) |
BBC London News
Graham Harrison wrote:
Otherwise how can you justify reporting that Cross Country can't run between Basingstoke and Southampton on a weekend when the line through Micheldever is blocked and say nothing about SWT? Local radio reporting takes a local focus. A Yorkshire-based station will only report about CC because only CC trains pass through their area. It is, of course, short-sighted - but if every local bulletin included all possible ramifications, there wouldn't be any time to broadcast anything non-news. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683782.html (150 142 at Manchester Piccadilly, 7 Sep 2001) |
BBC London News
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m and how should it be achieved? Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all bonuses.) (MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was BBC London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented, but the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're fairly on the ball, TBH.) If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really all that heinous either! Me neither. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683717.html (55032 (Class 121) at Gloucester Central, Jun 1985) |
BBC London News
In message
"Mizter T" wrote: "Graeme" wrote: MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Blame it on the idiots who put out the press releases. Such things are not normally communicated by press release - certainly not 'live' travel updates. I was using the term 'press release' in it's widest sense, ie information released to the press/media. However one only needs to look at some of the examples of future engineering works information on TOC posters and websites and the NRE site to see what a mangled mess can be made of communicating such information - and likewise, the NRE current disruptions page can read rather cryptically too (same can apply to some extent to the 'live' info coming from the TOCs). And that's what the broadcasters generally have to work from. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
BBC London News
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote in message .. . Graham Harrison wrote: Otherwise how can you justify reporting that Cross Country can't run between Basingstoke and Southampton on a weekend when the line through Micheldever is blocked and say nothing about SWT? Local radio reporting takes a local focus. A Yorkshire-based station will only report about CC because only CC trains pass through their area. It is, of course, short-sighted - but if every local bulletin included all possible ramifications, there wouldn't be any time to broadcast anything non-news. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683782.html (150 142 at Manchester Piccadilly, 7 Sep 2001) Yes, but this was on Radio Solent so both TOCs operate in "their" area. |
BBC London News
"MIG" wrote in message ... On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. There is another point that I think we may all be missing here. Radio London is aimed at Londoners. But it's heard by a much wider range of people, particularly the travel news because of RDS. Thus it needs to ensure that any data it puts out be it about road or PT has to be understandable to non-Londoners as well as Londoners. I lived in and around London for many years before I moved to Somerset yet I have no idea where "Charlie Browns Roundabout" that I heard referred to recently is. |
BBC London News
BBC Radio Leeds will sometimes come out with some good ones , for example the 0905 from Leeds to London is cancelled and so is the 0916 from Wakefield Westgate to London, Of course it's the same train. They will also describe a train as running from say York to Blackpool as a Leeds to Halifax service. They aren't actually that good with road numbers either and last year when the weather was bad spent hours reading out lists of closed schools and directed anyone wanting to know about bus services to Metro's website, which isn't much good if you don't have a computer at home. |
BBC London News
[Sorry, ineptly managed to post this reply before I'd finished it - here's the whole thing] "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m and how should it be achieved? Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too - it's unclear whether he's actually trying to suggest that corrections to a script should be made on the fly, which does seems like a bit of a potential recipe for disaster (that said, I think just that does occur a little in these days of rolling news - one of the benefits of having journalists as opposed to mere newsreaders doing the job). However the bracketed comments in my earlier reply were actually quite relevant - the travel news reports on BBC London radio are read out by a member of the travel team who is actually involved in compiling said reports, they are not just a newsreader (though again, see above - many of those reading the news on television these days are 'proper' journalists, not just readers of scripts). Therefore they may actually have been responsible for compiling the report themselves, or else one of their colleagues may have done so - so one could argue that they should be able to spot mistakes and correct them in later broadcasts. I hardly ever watch breakfast television (too preoccupied coming to terms with consciousness!), but racking my brains I do now seem to recall that on the local London inserts on the Beeb they do use (or at least have used) members of their London travel team to present the travel segment - so again whilst correcting something on the fly is going to be a bit of a stretch, they could get it right next time round. Also, if there are other members of the travel staff around who were able to monitor the output (whether on radio or tv), then again corrections could be made. Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all bonuses.) See all my comments above about the decline of 'pure' newsreaders - BBC television news now has its programmes presented by journalists not newsreaders (see the case of Moira Stuart); Eddie Mair on PM is a journalist; the various presenters on Radio 5 are generally journalists, at least w.r.t. the news orientated output (not necessarily saying some of them are any good though!); and I think on BBC London local radio and television the presenters are often journalists too (FWIW, 'BBC London' is a so-called 'tri-media' operation - tv, radio, online). That said newsreaders of the more traditional mould do live on in radio at least, e.g. on Radio 4 - and they're not just script readers either as they partake in the process of compiling the script - indeed some of them have come from a journalistic background (and arguably they are by their nature journalists - cue debate on the definition of journalism!) (MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was BBC London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented, but the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're fairly on the ball, TBH.) If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really all that heinous either! Me neither. |
BBC London News
"Graeme" wrote: "Mizter T" wrote: "Graeme" wrote: MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Blame it on the idiots who put out the press releases. Such things are not normally communicated by press release - certainly not 'live' travel updates. I was using the term 'press release' in it's widest sense, ie information released to the press/media. Understood. However one only needs to look at some of the examples of future engineering works information on TOC posters and websites and the NRE site to see what a mangled mess can be made of communicating such information - and likewise, the NRE current disruptions page can read rather cryptically too (same can apply to some extent to the 'live' info coming from the TOCs). And that's what the broadcasters generally have to work from. Indeed - when it's unclear as to whether the person who wrote the source material understood what they were on about, it's hardly surprising that follow-up confusion can arise. (Some of the stuff I've read is both genuinely pathetic and also infuriating.) |
BBC London News
On 2010\11\23 11:18, Mizter T wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better. |
BBC London News
"Graham Harrison" wrote: "MIG" wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. There is another point that I think we may all be missing here. Radio London is aimed at Londoners. But it's heard by a much wider range of people, particularly the travel news because of RDS. Thus it needs to ensure that any data it puts out be it about road or PT has to be understandable to non-Londoners as well as Londoners. [...] I think they're well aware of the reach of their signal, particularly w.r.t. travel news (for general news it's not unreasonable to expect that listeners would turn to their local, home counties station - of course there's always going to be grey areas on the fringes) - the BBC London's radio travel reports seem to take in much of what's within (as well as on) the M25, and will mention things further afield if they're likely to cause issues for travel from London (e.g. disruption on the Brighton main line, Operation Stack on the M20 etc). [...] I lived in and around London for many years before I moved to Somerset yet I have no idea where "Charlie Browns Roundabout" that I heard referred to recently is. I suppose that's just a shorthand which regular road commuters would pick up on immediately - explaining that it's the roundabout on the NCR underneath the terminus of the M11 each and every time might be a bit of a mouthful (so it's kind of 'need to know' - if you don't need to know, then you can discard it, if you might need to know but don't know where Charlie Brown's is... er, well tough!). Oh, a little history for you: http://www.britannia.com/travel/london/cockney/cbrown.html |
BBC London News
On 23 Nov., 13:00, Graeme wrote:
And that's what the broadcasters generally have to work from. However, if information is cryptic and unclear, the least they can do is grab the phone and clarify. But because the people who parrot the information don't actually understand it, they don't notice how potentially confusing or misleading it can be. And it all gives an insight into how meticulous and trustworthy these folks will be in their other reporting. |
BBC London News
Mizter T wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I know. I can't see what your problem is with what I asked. Did you miss the question mark between the "Why" and the "Do", thus misreading the question? -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632886.html (33 111 at Weymouth Town, May 1985) |
BBC London News
"Graham Harrison" wrote:
"Bruce" wrote I think Chris was suggesting that no reporting would be better than inaccurate and misleading reporting. He does have a point. This is true. Let's face it when some of us were younger we just headed off and hoped. On the other hand we are where we are. Where we are? You mean with TOCs who care to varying degrees, or not at all, whether information disseminated to their customers by the media is correct? Look at what happened to Rolls Royce recently, the Trent on the Qantas Airbus blows. RR put their head down to identify the problem and say nothing in the meantime. What happens? Armchair experts and "the markets" all panic and the share price drops. That's just an example of how we all react these days. Bottom line seems to be that these days we assume no news is BAD news. I think the statements that spooked the markets came from a forthright and particularly well-informed senior manager of QANTAS. |
BBC London News
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I know. I can't see what your problem is with what I asked. Did you miss the question mark between the "Why" and the "Do", thus misreading the question? Why did you introduce the Londoners concept? The way you worded your question implied that that's what MIG either said or thinks (a little akin to 'How often do you beat you wife?', though hardly of the same league). FWIW, I'd certainly think - indeed expect - that a "London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London" - I'm not sure that's so contentious a point. His preceding sentence about "newsreaders [who] just keep on dumbly reading it out" does complicate his point a bit, as we've discussed. |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 12:58*pm, Basil Jet wrote:
Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better.. I only make it one per sentence; perhaps I should listen more closely. I think BBS Radio 4 is excellent, The TV News from the BBS is truly illiterate - the whole Society is run by analphabets, as I pointed out earlier - but on the radio there are still some well-educated individuals. |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 8:06*am, MIG wrote:
On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. If you will indulge me, I will rewind a bit back to the beginning. In a building there is a Control room. On a Sunday night the Network Rail duty manager and his team of train running controllers and infrastructure controllers take duty alongside the TOC duty manager and Controllers, which may include fleet staff, will include area controllers (with different names across the industry) and will also include a Customer Information controller/manager as well as CIS operators and CCTV, but the latter staff may be located separately, it depends on the TOC. Once on duty the mundane jobs are done. It is a night shift so will include balancing stock for the morning peak (TOC) , creating the previous days log for distribution (TOC/NR) and monitoring of possessions (NR, but TOCs obviously showing an interest). As it is autumn there is the RHTT’s to monitor (again NR with TOC watchfulness). Take a way’s may be delivered and certainly plenty of tea and coffee will be consumed. At an unspecified time (we will use 05.00) a call will come in to say that there has been a failure of the signalling equipment has occurred at Dingily Dell and the information flow will start through the office. Obviously this could be a unit failure a line side fire, wires down, Ice on the 3rd rail, possession over running – you get the point. So, at the moment the extent of the problem will not be immediately apparent so there will be deployment of resources, on call management to site if need be or advised at least. So to get back to the original topic a message will – if relevant at this time – be sent to staff pagers (a bit old fashioned now) more likely staff Blackberries will be emailed, stations receive faxes, or direct massages on read only Tyrell(*) terminals, normal emails and there are other methods of receiving. Public facing recipients will be the TOC’s website, NRES and a number of designated recipients and as Dingily Dell is a South East location the information will go to London Traffic Link and a smattering of local radio stations. Customers / passengers who have chosen to receive alerts may at this stage also receive a text or email alert, but that really depends on how much information is initially known at this stage. Now once the extent of the problem unravels (sometimes it is obvious, other times it needs time to assess) it may be necessary for a telephone conference between site on staff and representatives from the Control (at all levels) with senior management staff also if required. So we now learn that the Dingily Dell incident is now going to be a bit of a biggie, with very restrictive signalling available. A train plan is hatched. The Network Rail infrastructure controller is allocating resources to go to site and fix the problem; the NR train running controller is liaising with signallers and inputting schedules or cancelling schedules and of course liaising with the TOCs controllers. The TOC Controller is sorting out the train crews and in turn liaising with the fleet controller (he/she may be in the Control or the depot, it depends on which control you are in) as to what units should stay tucked up in the depot and the most important link in the chain is that the information controller / manager will now update the information already sent out with a more informed update and details of the service plan. All of the original recipients of the first message will receive this information in the form of an “updated “message. Individual trains will then be shown as cancelled, delayed or altered and each of these alterations will also go to the same recipients with clever stuff now being done with text alerts filtering out the unwanted bits so that those who receive text alerts get the right information. The CIS will now be updated. Live departure boards will also be updated, either by the information input by the Customer Information Controller / Manager on his Tyrell terminal or by input into CIS. Some systems allow the CIS to be updated by Tyrell cutting out a link in the chain and also illuminating any differences, such as reasons being manually input differently. Thus the man at Dingily Dell local radio receives an updated message at 06.00 advising that TOC “A” (local trains) is affected by the signalling problem, as well as a message from TOC “B” (Inter city) who are located in a different control room but have sent out a very similar message. TOC “C” only run a few trains so have been told to stay away altogether please, so the junior reporter working at Dingily Dell radio pulls off all of these messages and gives them to Tim, nice but dim, who is on the breakfast show. Tim tells all of the morning commuters the tale of woe. Now if you move the dial over a bit (press a preset button etc) a larger commercial radio station has a traffic report coming up. The traffic news is being read by an independent organisation who has received the same information from the different TOCs. Prior to reading out the local news that affects the whole of London; the reporter has just finished a slot on Birmingham’s commercial radio and prior to that, Manchester. In between these broadcasts they are getting updates from the highways agency and many other TOC’s and LUL. They will be back in half an hour with another update. So now you turn on the BBC news on the TV and after the local weather the traffic will be read by the newsreader from a script prepared by information gleaned from Traffic Link (mentioned earlier and quite probably the same source for the commercial radio show). Turn over again (in my opinion at your peril, but that is my opinion only) and you will find the ITV version of breakfast news. They will advise you of the same problems having got the information in the same way. (*) Tyrell is a system used by MOST railway control offices to disseminate information and is provided / hosted by Nexus Alpha (I will leave the sci-fi buffs to work out the connection). It has been mentioned a few times on here before and their website is at http://www.nexusalpha.com/ I appreciate that the chain can become broken, but hope this helps explain why it can be broken. I would not say that I spend all of my spare time monitoring the airwaves and TV for inaccuracies, but when I see them or hear them, if I can, I will go via the most direct route I can to get things corrected. When not at work this can be via a radio station direct or via email to other outlets including NRES (whose staff is very good and very well informed). I hope this is of some interest Richard |
BBC London News
I think the statements that spooked the markets came from a forthright and particularly well-informed senior manager of QANTAS. Didn't help I agree although whether he was as well informed as he thought he was is another matter. |
BBC London News
On 2010\11\23 14:55, Offramp wrote:
On Nov 23, 12:58 pm, Basil wrote: Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better. I only make it one per sentence; perhaps I should listen more closely. I think BBS Radio 4 is excellent, The TV News from the BBS is truly illiterate - the whole Society is run by analphabets, as I pointed out earlier - but on the radio there are still some well-educated individuals. Analphabets? BBC News seems to be full of people who have English degrees but can't change a fuse. |
BBC London News
In message
amogles wrote: On 23 Nov., 13:00, Graeme wrote: And that's what the broadcasters generally have to work from. However, if information is cryptic and unclear, the least they can do is grab the phone and clarify. And just who do they phone? And when? But because the people who parrot the information don't actually understand it, they don't notice how potentially confusing or misleading it can be. And it all gives an insight into how meticulous and trustworthy these folks will be in their other reporting. You mean you believe what you read in the papers? -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
BBC London News
In message
Offramp wrote: On Nov 23, 12:58*pm, Basil Jet wrote: Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better. I only make it one per sentence; perhaps I should listen more closely. I think BBS Radio 4 is excellent, The TV News from the BBS is truly illiterate - the whole Society is run by analphabets, as I pointed out earlier - but on the radio there are still some well-educated individuals. What is this society you apparently listen to? Can't say I've ever come across it. -- Graeme Wall This address not read, substitute trains for rail Transport Miscellany at www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail Photo galleries at http://graeme-wall.fotopic.net/ |
BBC London News
Mizter T wrote:
"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I know. I can't see what your problem is with what I asked. Did you miss the question mark between the "Why" and the "Do", thus misreading the question? Why did you introduce the Londoners concept? The way you worded your question implied that that's what MIG either said or thinks (a little akin to 'How often do you beat you wife?', though hardly of the same league). For exactly the same reason that I speculated about what was causing you the difficulty in my question above. To me that and the question posed to MIG are functionally and structurally equivalent. As I said, I can't see why you seized on it, especially as you took my second question in your stride. I suppose that in both cases, they are just me confiding the impression that has been created for me by the thing that I am asking about. FWIW, I'd certainly think - indeed expect - that a "London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London" - I'm not sure that's so contentious a point. His preceding sentence about "newsreaders [who] just keep on dumbly reading it out" does complicate his point a bit, as we've discussed. That was the whole of it for me. I read what MIG wrote as suggesting the final responsibility for accuracy of the broadcast news lay with the newsreaders. -- http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9683620.html (A class 101 set led by 50315 about to leave Stratford-upon-Avon, 1982) |
BBC London News
"Graham Harrison" wrote:
I think the statements that spooked the markets came from a forthright and particularly well-informed senior manager of QANTAS. Didn't help I agree although whether he was as well informed as he thought he was is another matter. Well, at the start, he called it right. The as the story unfolded, he called it right. The eventual solution? He called that right too. From the beginning to the end (today's announcement of a limited return to traffic) he called it right. He was either particularly well-informed or spectacularly lucky. Personally, I don't think luck came into it. Perhaps you felt he came across as a little arrogant, but I think it was the mark of a man who knew his subject inside out and wasn't afraid to speak his mind. So he upset a few people at RR? Strikes me that they needed a kick up the backside. But I'm not a Little Englander who objects when someone well-informed from a former British colony fearlessly speaks their mind ... I admired him for what he did in defence of his employer, the international airline with the best reputation for safety of any in the world. |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 3:21*pm, Fat richard wrote:
On Nov 23, 8:06*am, MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. If you will indulge me, I will rewind a bit back to the beginning. snip interesting explanation of how the chain becomes broken just to stop this being too long I was in a hurry, but to put it into context ... I was listening to a news report (TV in fact) and I heard "Major disruption ... South Eastern ..." I was already cursing before I cottoned on that this was, in fact, a story about disruption on the WCML (or perhaps that's not a story any more). I was not taking the PIS out of them getting the TOC wrong, because I'm all in favour of not even advertising the TOC. And I'm not criticising those in the chain that got broken. I am critisicing people in a local newsroom who seem to have bugger all to do except read out sixty seconds of the same script every half hour and don't seem to give a sh*t that the script is nonsense with respect to a local area that they are supposed to know about. This time, I think they started getting the TOC right after an hour and a half, but still didn't bill it as a story about the WCML. |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 12:48*pm, "Mizter T" wrote:
[Sorry, ineptly managed to post this reply before I'd finished it - here's the whole thing] "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: Mizter T wrote: "Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote: MIG wrote: The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. Would you? Why? Do you think it is a requirement for people who mention London in the things they read out to be Londoners? Except that's not what MIG said. What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said. He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be one. I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news. All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m and how should it be achieved? Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too - it's unclear whether he's actually trying to suggest that corrections to a script should be made on the fly, which does seems like a bit of a potential recipe for disaster (that said, I think just that does occur a little in these days of rolling news - one of the benefits of having journalists as opposed to mere newsreaders doing the job). However the bracketed comments in my earlier reply were actually quite relevant - the travel news reports on BBC London radio are read out by a member of the travel team who is actually involved in compiling said reports, they are not just a newsreader (though again, see above - many of those reading the news on television these days are 'proper' journalists, not just readers of scripts). Therefore they may actually have been responsible for compiling the report themselves, or else one of their colleagues may have done so - so one could argue that they should be able to spot mistakes and correct them in later broadcasts. I hardly ever watch breakfast television (too preoccupied coming to terms with consciousness!), but racking my brains I do now seem to recall that on the local London inserts on the Beeb they do use (or at least have used) members of their London travel team to present the travel segment - so again whilst correcting something on the fly is going to be a bit of a stretch, they could get it right next time round. Also, if there are other members of the travel staff around who were able to monitor the output (whether on radio or tv), then again corrections could be made. Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all bonuses.) See all my comments above about the decline of 'pure' newsreaders - BBC television news now has its programmes presented by journalists not newsreaders (see the case of Moira Stuart); Eddie Mair on PM is a journalist; the various presenters on Radio 5 are generally journalists, at least w.r.t. the news orientated output (not necessarily saying some of them are any good though!); and I think on BBC London local radio and television the presenters are often journalists too (FWIW, 'BBC London' is a so-called 'tri-media' operation - tv, radio, online). That said newsreaders of the more traditional mould do live on in radio at least, e.g. on Radio 4 - and they're not just script readers either as they partake in the process of compiling the script - indeed some of them have come from a journalistic background (and arguably they are by their nature journalists - cue debate on the definition of journalism!) (MIG doesn't however state which outlet this was - i.e. whether it was BBC London radio, or the local London inserts on BBC Breakfast television programme - I never watch the latter so don't know how it's presented, but the former are read out on air by members of BBC London's travel team who are also involved in compiling the information - they also 'tweet' here http://twitter.com/bbctravelalert - my impression is that they're fairly on the ball, TBH.) If you *know* the BBC is broadcasting something that is inaccurate, then wouldn't it be constructive for you to contact them directly to correct it? Complaining about it here won't achieve anything. Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really all that heinous either! Me neither. Coming back into this rather late, I wasn't particularly interested in taking the PIS out of them getting the TOC wrong, and I certainly didn't have time to be phoning the BBC or looking up the London news email address (it was TV news, by the way). Getting the TOC wrong is not so terrible, given that I don't think TOCs are worth mentioning anyway. In this case, I heard "Major discruption ... South Eastern ..." and began to curse before cottoning on that this was a story about disruption on the WCML. Is there no human being in a London newsroom capable of recognising that it was a WCML problem and that a more significant bunch of services were affected than those from Shepherds Bush, which ought to have got first billing? |
BBC London News
On Nov 23, 6:06*pm, Paul Corfield wrote:
On Tue, 23 Nov 2010 00:06:38 -0800 (PST), MIG wrote: On good form today with reports of South Eastern services suspended between Shepherds Bush and Milton Keynes. Their willingness to repeat nonsense for bulletin after bulletin is often less obviously workable out than that one, like the time that they kept announcing that services on the "Lewisham line" were being diverted, when they meant that services between Dartford and Lewisham via Bexleyheath were being diverted via Sidcup (rather important for punters to know that they were NOT going via Bexleyheath, but WERE going via Lewisham). They do this sort of thing over and over. *The newsreaders just keep on dumbly reading it out every half hour. *You'd think that the London travel newsroom would have some vague idea about transport in London. While I understand the point you make I think you have unrealistic expectations. I think, but am happy to be corrected, that the BBC simply gets a feed from the respective websites for NR and TfL plus whatever is reported for roads. The terminology that they use is just about identical to whatever is shown on digital teletext which usually aligns with web info. *If the source info is poorly described in terms of location, impact and expected duration then that will simply be repeated. I don't think television news broadcasters are expected to add anything to "official" information. I would imagine their response to you would be - "we get the info from an official source. Surely it is their responsibility to provide accurate and coherent info to the public? They *do* *know* what is going on on their railway or road don't they?" Not ideal I accept but would you really want artistic licence sprinkled on top of your morning transport information? -- Paul C No, but maybe someone in the newsroom on seeing that the bulletin was nonsense might have made the odd phone call or something to find out what was really happening. Or if they really can't even do that, why bother at all? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 01:56 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk