Great Western Coffee Shop

Link below:

http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=238259&in_page_id=34&in_a_source= (http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=238259&in_page_id=34&in_a_source=)

What's sad about this is the standard of journalism. The headline and the first sentence are wrong, as the article later makes clear. But then you wouldn't have article and the cheap jibe.

It's not only the Metro. I was disappointed to see the Daily Torygraph's account of the Quantas flight. It talked about the plane "descending out of control" and "the pilots fought for control of the plane" when it was clear that the pilots did a very controlled and very rapid descent - which was exactly what was needed. Again, later in the same article they admit that the pilots always had control of the plane, but hey, why spoil a dramatic story by stating the rather more mundane truth up front.

Cheap amateurish journalism from a 'produced on the very cheap' free newspaper. They've had to find new ways of having a cheap (and usually innacurate) pop at the railway industry now that the British Rail sandwich is no more...  ;)

A similar exaggeration in terms of railway disasters was the reports on Lambrigg. "where the driver steered the train to safety"  That quote being fueled by the beared knight's comments.

The driver at Lambrigg and the Quantas pilots all did a thorughly professional job, but then that's not a news story.

We should, I suppose, be grateful that they had the competence to actually show the correct type of train. Normally they type 'train' into a Google Image post and use whatever turns up first. Even if it's a Canadian Pacific...

If the government wants to improve things such as transport, they wouldn't go far wrong with banning media reports such as this - but then that encroaches on freedom of speech. Shame - would love to see this waste of space wiped from the face of the planet  ;D

Clearly this was not journalism's finest hour but as a journalist can I ask whether you really want politicians to decide what we can report on?

These are the people who constantly deny that FGW's problems over rolling stock and timetabling are anything to do with decisions they and their civil servants have made, so they might find it convenient to stop us discussing that, for example. And maybe we should have been stopped from reporting the shambles FGW's services had descended into at the turn of the year, as that was embarrassing for First Group and the government?

I just can't see what censoring the press has to do with improving transport.

And remember that the original incident here wasn't FGW's finest hour either. As Industry Insider noted in Turbos again, there is a fuel gauge on the side of the tanks that drivers can check - and while humour can sometimes be used to defuse a tricky situation, I'm not sure the reported announcement here would have gone down well with any of us when being turfed off a train. I'm all for getting away from a robotic style of announcement but there are times when it is best to play it straight. This looks like one of them.

A rushed post from me previously.

I have no desire whatsoever to see the press censored in anyway shape or form. I just have an inner longing for the media to show a greater degree of intelligence rather than sensationalising stories for the sake of sales. Of course, I would like to see the reports place the blame firmly where it lies and also report the other side of the story when services improve - it doesn't however often happen this way.

I've seen reports from "journalists" in local press that people have then quoted at me as "fact" (and I use the word "fact" in the loosest sense of the term possible). I will never forget a report slamming FGW because an old lady found it incredibly difficult to negotiate London form Paddington to Charing X when SWT were perfect as they went to Waterloo and she could walk across the bridge to Waterloo East.

The benefit of stopping reports like this? Well, people just might be forced to form their own opinion rather than being swooned by the excess, spin and twist of certain journalists. I would never however condone it and would argue and protest to protect freedom of speech and the freedom of the media. People should use their own intelligence to determine the fact hidden in the story and remove the "spicing up". However, it is this spicing up that people like to read.

Sensationalism sells. These stories are here to stay.

That Metro story wasn't sensationalist, just badly written and edited, so it contradicted itself. They should have done better.

The facts remain that the passengers were told last Friday that the train had run out of fuel and that the said 'amusing' announcement of this was apparently made. If I had been writing the story I would have gone straight in on the choo-choo line - no ifs, no buts - because that announcement and the delay are what every passenger on that train will remember and tell people about - or are they being sensationalist too?

Perhaps if someone had played it straight on the PA and the focus had been on sorting out the replacement train asap, or checking the external fuel gauges, Mr Hannah might not have been so hacked off and wouldn't have contacted the papers and the BBC.

It's getting the details right, whether reporting the news, or running the railway, that makes the difference. And both FGW and Metro would appear to have something to learn here.

And there's nothing stopping anyone either posting a comment beneath the story on Metro's website, or emailing the paper or the reporter to let them know your feelings.

That's quite correct, Will - it's amazing how using a bit of tact and professionalism can smooth over a cock-up (which will always happen from time-to-time), and also amazing how a flippant remark can inflame a situation beyond belief. Some (by no means all) on-train staff have a huge amount to learn regarding this, and they can actually make their job easier by applying it when things go wrong. Hopefully the staff in question will have learned their lessons?

As for sensationalism in the article - no there wasn't any, but phrases used to make the story sound worse that it is - "limped into Oxford an hour into the journey" and "passengers had to board a much smaller, slower train" cast a shadow on the reputation of the newspaper and the reporter concerned - but hey if it makes a few commuters on their way to work smile and think FGW are still idiots then more copies will be dished out...