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.

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/

"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).

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/

"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.)

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.

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/

On 23/11/2010 13:24, amogles wrote:
On 23 Nov., 13:00, 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.

From what I've seen of friends in (commercial) radio, it is one person
rushing round like mad. They probably wouldn't get away with dropping,
say, the sport or weather because they were too busy asking the railways
to double-check which TOCs run which services (which the punters
probably all just call "the overground" anyway...).

If the people doing the reports really had detailed knowledge of
everything they were talking about, they would be doing something other
than local media (AIUI in many cases, at least outside London, they may
not even be paid for doing it. Or maybe that was my mates trying to get
out of their rounds?).

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.

If you think any of this kind of stuff is merticulous and trustworthy,
e-mail me about an investment scheme my cousin is running in Lagos.

--
Arthur Figgis Surrey, UK

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)

"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!