willc,
I think it's readily apparent that you and I disagree on many (although perhaps not all) issues. Please understand that what I'm trying to do here is have a mature and robust debate, by critically evaluating a couple of articles in the Bristol local press. What I am
not doing is tarring all journalists with the same brush or attacking you personally. Whilst it's not my intention to cause further aggravation, there are a few things you have said in that last post of yours that I find somewhat unfair, and would like to respond to.
So you want positive, do you? Well here's positive, but I'm sure they are all far too grudging for you. What do you want? For them all to shower FGW▸ with unbridled praise? Unlikely, on the basis of those utterly valueless anecdotes.
<snip>
There's a very simple reason for there not being any positive comments - because two reporters, going out on different occasions, couldn't find anyone on those trains who felt in the slightest way positive about the service they have been getting.
No, of course I don't expect a story of that nature to be wholly positive; please don't assume things. If you read back over my original post, I acknowledged the possibility that all of the comments in the article were negative because no-one had a good thing to say about the service. However, without having been there when the passengers were interviewed, neither of us can be sure if the comments published were a representative selection or "cherry picked" to bolster a pre-conceived angle for the story.
We don't go looking for the negative but I'm sure you don't believe that, since I'm no doubt a lying untrustworthy journalist who does only look on the negative side of everything and relies on utterly unscientific, anecdotal evidence for my reports - and no wonder, I'm writing a news story, not a scientific paper.
I'm well aware that it's both lazy and plain wrong to dismiss all journalists as untrustworthy. Like I said, my comments are not a personal attack on you; please don't try and turn them into one. Further, please don't put words in my mouth. I have never suggested that you are either lying or untrustworthy; those are unnecessarily cheap shots. In my other life in the heritage railway sector I have met several local journalists who were interesting, interested, enthusiastic and well-informed. They went on to write some hugely positive, informative, supportive and often extensive articles that gave my organization valuable publicity and promotion, all free of charge. This included editorial coverage on several occasions.
The flip side of the coin, which I'm sure you can't deny, is that there
are journalists who love to put a negative spin on any rail-related story. Once more, to reiterate so that there's no danger of any misunderstanding, I'm not suggesting that you are one of them. Remember on the day of the electrification announcement when the
BBC» led with coverage about "years of disruption" whilst lines were wired rather than the enormous benefits this would bring? I recall an editorial in Rail where Nigel Harris had been asked by a BBC transport correspondent whether he could help them get some negativity into one of the recent good-news rail stories (I have a feeling it may have been the opening of High Speed 1 or St Pancras International). If this is happening in one of the most trusted journalistic organizations in the world you can bet your life it's happening elsewhere in the media as well.
And i know all about CLPG» passengers counts - been there, done them, probably not in a precise enough way to satisfy your scientific demands, but good enough to stand up the valueless anecdotal reports received by the CLPG about the 8.58's problems
Again, read my post. I was
praising the CLPG for taking this approach, one of several things that sets them head and shoulders above many other rail users' groups.
Finally, I stand by my point about fact versus anecdote without any apology. Put yourself in the position of the operators at FGW. You have an extra vehicle or two to allocate to commuter services. There are however several places across your network which see overcrowding during the peaks. Do you:
a) allocate those vehicles based on objective numerical data that show where they are needed most;
or
b) allocate them to wherever the "I think it's disgusting..." brigade are shouting loudest in the local press?
Surely the only sensible answer is (a) allocating the vehicles based on fact rather than opinion, hence my strong opinion that hard statistical data should be used in these situations instead of the complaints from commuters.
