Mark-
Maybe it isn’t a “bad” paper, but this is not the New York Times I grew up to respect. While perhaps not yet in the “Mullet Wrapper” league I won’t be wasting my money on a subscription anytime soon…
LC
I think that one of the greatest problems here is that the author of these articles was awarded a Pulitzer some years back. What is happening with news reporters these last few years? Has dishonesty become the “Gold Standard”?
Mark, the Lakeland Ledger, Lakeland, Florida, a New York Times Regional Newspaper Group member, published this http://www.theledger.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041114/ZNYT02/411140443 .
I had to relate, to this, as I’ve heard repeatedly, on my scanner, of locomotives over the crossing, before the signals activated the lights, and gates.
Who, would trust their lives, and families, to the electric devices, designed to make motorists aware of a Danger?
This is the subject NY Times article, verbatim.
[soapbox]
We see references to all these problems, but nobody seems to say that “the Elm Street crossing has been observed X times when the locomotive was in the crossing before the gates went down.” I can’t deny the problems exist, but if an author is going to cite generalities and not specific problems, the credibility factor goes down.
I’m sure there are examples of situations where local authorities/residents have “fought” the RR, trying to get a crossing situation resolved. How about the articles cite some of them? The examples I see are usually presented as one-time events, “but there is a history of problems at the crossing.” Let’s hear the history!
[2c]
I have not put my two cents into this debate as of yet, as Mark’s comments and those of others have more than adequately expressed my opinions.
However, my annoyance is starting to take me down a path not mentioned by the forum. Although I agree with the characterization of Time’s reporting thus far, it really doesn’t bother me. Like it or not, sensationalism sells.
Rather, my annoyance with the Times is that they have failed to respond to Mark’s letters. Mark’s letters show that there is a genuine issue worthy of readers’ attention. Their failure to respond indicates to me not only that the Times is using sensationalism, but that the concept of objective journalism is a fleeting one.
My idea: How many people visit this forum in a given week, are familiar with the issue, and would concur to Mark’s judgment? The Times may be able to ignore just Mark, what if Mark would send his next letter with the e-signatures of all of us on it? I would have to think that a letter written to the Times with several signatures supporting it would be more likely to flush out a response.
Of course, there may be several problems with my solution, and it sounds a bit quixotic. But, I don’t think I am the only one who feels this way.
Gabe
Mark -
You mentioned that you didn’t recieve a response to your letter. Was it at least printed in the “Letters” section? I would expect the Times to print your response so as to give a somewhat balanced view of the issue.
Hawkeye
Mark, maybe you could re-write the series in your column. Just a thought….
The Times has fallen a few pegs, since I was a kid.
Good point, but it does have an impact on railroads and how the public views them or how the public is steered to view them.
Have you been reading the Tallahassee (FL) Democrat? “Mullet Wrapper” is what most of the locals call it.
I’m not a subscriber to the Times, so I don’t think I’ll influence any future editorial decisions, but if Gabe’s idea of many signatories on another letter helps, sign me up.
I went to my local library, and I read the October 14, 2004 New York Times. Unless I missed something, I did not find the article, “Amtrak Pays Millions For Others Fatal Errors” anywhere in that edition. Is that date correct?
Having spent a couple of my formative years in central Florida I recall that many of the local papers were referred to as “mullet wrapper” and deservedly so, as they were no good for anything else…
LC
Mark,
It’s the New York Times, after all, which has lost most if not all its credibility and sense of propriety. It’s no longer suprising that they do a hash job on any story. If facts clash with opinions in the news room, the facts disappear.
It might take a while, but one way to tell is to see how this topic is handled in future NY Times articles that cover this subject. Could this series of articles have already been “approved” well before publication, with the editors unwilling to make any adjustments?
That too would indicate bias in the NYT newsroom. Last-minute edits are made to stories, at least at publications where objectivity is held in high regard, in order to report new facts accurately and fairly. Those two words – accuracy and fairness – are, or rather were, the hallmarks of the newspaper profession, and the NYT once was the pantheon of the profession. Now it’s home for hacks.
Here is a recent Commentary from Business Week about “unbiased news reporting”; it addresses some of the issues about the press. Are we really in danger of losing ‘neutral’ news sources? Scary thought…
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/04_48/b3910102_mz016.htm
Anything is possible, but even if true it certainly reflects poorly on the judgement of the NYT editorial staff…
LC
Good moring Mark, and everyone.
I would vote to have this issue discussed in your (Mark’s) column in Trains. The railroad image in the public eye has tarnished to the point of decay and obscurity. The public knows what the commuter agency is, they know of Amtrak, the see freight trains. I feel there no longer is a connect between the public and their local railroad, and the attending problems, per se.
Mitch