Great Western Coffee Shop

From This is Money (https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-9033895/Stagecoach-sees-profits-drop-90-Britons-use-cars.html#comments), a financial report on Stagecoach - longish piece; so much to learn about "Joe Public"'s view in the comments.


Here are the comments - starting with those given the most thumbs ups

It's cheaper to drive than take the bus or coach.

Come 2030, only new electric cars will be sold. By 2040 only the rich will be driving and the rest of us will be stuck at home in virtual worlds. I wonder if public transport will exist by then, probably not

I'm not surprised. The bus fares here are ridiculous.

Not surprised I was on a bus just before the November lockdown, by the time it was half way through its journey the driver wouldnt let any more people on because of the restrictions

What's a bus? We don't have them in the countryside.

Being forced to wear a face nappy on public transport is hardly going to encourage people to take the bus or train. I'm not sure how this rule squares with Carrie's eco-loon agenda. By all means wear a mask if you're sick. It should not be inflicted on healthy people.

- and those given the most thumbs downs

Good. The smelly bloody things clog our roads and only serve city elites and c#@v$.

If Stagecoach were to ban dogs on buses then they might get more passengers. Notwithstanding the fact that dogs are a very effective vehicle for transmitting the coronavirus via their fur and the accessories they wear, so many people with respiratory problems have allergies to dogs or more accurately the dander that comes from a dog. Aside from guide dogs, dogs do not need to be on public transport.

Just to be clear, the comments are not part of the report - they are 'This is Money' readers' reactions to it.

While it would be wrong to dismiss them out of hand, I do wonder how representative they are. The bottom half of the internet is a murky place.

Some of the top half isnt much to write home about either...

Thanks for that further clarification - yes, put views written by a self-sampling mix of people with very mixed background, knowledge, and in some cases abilities to apply logic.  You ask "how representative" and there the thumbs ups and downs to give us a clue as to whether other share the view or feel the commenters have it wrong. Still not a scientific analysis, but an indication of sentiment perhaps.

"Cheaper to drive" has 72 people clicking to support, and 10 people clicking to mark it down
"What's a bus in the countryside" has 46 people clicking to support, and just 3 people clicking to mark it down
"Facemask puts me off" [paraphrased] has 59 people clicking to support, and 12 people clicking to mark it down

and addressing that sentiment might - just might - provide an indicator of why some people aren't keen on using the buses.

Not sure what you mean by the "bottom half of the internet" in this context?

I suspect that the respondents are mainly people bothered/affected enough to comment? At least that's what they sound like.

I very much doubt that people who never need/want to travel by bus would take the time to read the article, much less comment on it, it's a pretty niche subject, so you're likely to have a similarly niche cohort of responses.

Mail Online - of which This is Money is part of - is read by....well, go read some of the comments in other 'news' items on there & you'll understand, I guess.

Christopher Hitchens once upbraided someone with words to the effect of: 'You give me the impression that you've never tried listening to anyone who doesn't agree with you'.

We shouldn't dismiss anyone's view out of hand, and in these times we live in it is more important than ever to try to understand why people disagree with us. We have more in common than that which divides us. But I struggle with the bottom half of the internet - by which I mean the 'comments' section we often see below news stories. There are real people who spend much of their day reacting to news stories in this way. But there are also sockpuppets, trolls and bots who devalue the efforts of those who use this medium to try to express real opinions.

The beauty of this forum is that, thanks almost entirely to grahame's tireless efforts, we have a civilised space where real people express real opinions. I'm not at all sure the same could be said of the comments section of publications in the DMG Media or Local World stables.

Up to a point you're right, especially re: Graham, but I do find the standard issue sneer at the Mail and by implication its readers a little tiresome - it's often to be found within this esteemed forum and comes across as a default cop out and a bit lazy to be honest (and no, I'm not a Mail reader)

Just my (real) opinion  ;)

I don't have a problem with the opinions expressed in the Mail and other so called Newspapers. It is when they misrepresent the facts that I have a problem. I once knew a labour voter who read the Telegraph for the sport and the fact that (at the time) it clearly separated the news from the opinions meant he could ignore the opinions. There was once a Brussels Correspondent of a paper who made up stories about the European Commission. That was misrepresenting the facts! Whatever happened to him?

Noting "just my opinion" - thank you for adding that.

If talking about and promoting (in this instance) travel by bus, your most valued inputs should be bus users, wannabe bus users, and potential bus users.  A further important set of groups are the bus providers, the road and city planners, those with wider direct interests such as noise, congestion, pollution, businesses served by the buses, and so on.  This group goes wider as you look at just how much society is linked - the taxpayer who's concerned about how much he as a car driver is subsidising the local bus (38 pounds per person per annum but that INCLUDES senior bus passes which make up just under half of the amount).  Less valued input - but still listened to - is the group that doesn't and can't envisage using the buses but enjoys reading and commenting, with comments tending towards the destructive (and easy to write with little data) rather than the constructive. And it's much easier for such inputs to be made as a quick comment - with the cloak of an alias and the assurance of no responsibility for the effect thereof - to be made on news stories.    I don't see any "standard issue sneer" and none of us (I have spoken with other moderators) intend to do such ... but I have and will give more credence to people who use the buses, ask about using them, suggest how they can be better, than those who "wouldn't be seen dead" on a bus.   The very fact that I quoted these people at the start or the thread and others are all discussing them rather give lie to laziness  :D

Now ... just remind me ... which newspaper was this gentleman working for at that time ?     I do hope it was one that "clearly separated the news from the opinions"  ;) ;)