BBC Radio Leeds will sometimes come out with some good ones , for example
the 0905 from Leeds to London is cancelled and so is the 0916 from Wakefield
Westgate to London, Of course it's the same train.

They will also describe a train as running from say York to Blackpool as a
Leeds to Halifax service.

They aren't actually that good with road numbers either and last year when
the weather was bad spent hours reading out lists of closed schools and
directed anyone wanting to know about bus services to Metro's website, which
isn't much good if you don't have a computer at home.

[Sorry, ineptly managed to post this reply before I'd finished it - here's
the whole thing]

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

"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.

What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said.

He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be
one.


I don't think it's unreasonable that BBC *London* should strive for
accuracy when it comes to reporting London travel news.

All right, same question to you then, but unpacked. The implication
behind your (and MIG's) comment seems to be that staff whose job it is
to *read* the news ("newsreaders" above) on Radio Xtown should have some
intrinsic knowledge about Xtown so that they can correct the news in
real time if it is not correct on their script. Why should this be so,m
and how should it be achieved?

Well, in relation to MIG's comments it'd be useful if he unpacked them too -
it's unclear whether he's actually trying to suggest that corrections to a
script should be made on the fly, which does seems like a bit of a potential
recipe for disaster (that said, I think just that does occur a little in
these days of rolling news - one of the benefits of having journalists as
opposed to mere newsreaders doing the job).

However the bracketed comments in my earlier reply were actually quite
relevant - the travel news reports on BBC London radio are read out by a
member of the travel team who is actually involved in compiling said
reports, they are not just a newsreader (though again, see above - many of
those reading the news on television these days are 'proper' journalists,
not just readers of scripts). Therefore they may actually have been
responsible for compiling the report themselves, or else one of their
colleagues may have done so - so one could argue that they should be able to
spot mistakes and correct them in later broadcasts.

I hardly ever watch breakfast television (too preoccupied coming to terms
with consciousness!), but racking my brains I do now seem to recall that on
the local London inserts on the Beeb they do use (or at least have used)
members of their London travel team to present the travel segment - so again
whilst correcting something on the fly is going to be a bit of a stretch,
they could get it right next time round. Also, if there are other members of
the travel staff around who were able to monitor the output (whether on
radio or tv), then again corrections could be made.


Should newsreaders be employed on the basis of what they know, or the
quality of their vocal projection? My view is that presenters on radio
should be employed on the basis of their ability to speak so as not to
be misunderstood by listeners. Anything else (e.g. unscripted banter
e.g. Eddie Mair, interesting regional accents e.g. Ian MacMillan, or the
propensity to dissolve in fits of giggles e.g. Brian Johnston, are all
bonuses.)

See all my comments above about the decline of 'pure' newsreaders - BBC
television news now has its programmes presented by journalists not
newsreaders (see the case of Moira Stuart); Eddie Mair on PM is a
journalist; the various presenters on Radio 5 are generally journalists, at
least w.r.t. the news orientated output (not necessarily saying some of them
are any good though!); and I think on BBC London local radio and television
the presenters are often journalists too (FWIW, 'BBC London' is a so-called
'tri-media' operation - tv, radio, online).

That said newsreaders of the more traditional mould do live on in radio at
least, e.g. on Radio 4 - and they're not just script readers either as they
partake in the process of compiling the script - indeed some of them have
come from a journalistic background (and arguably they are by their nature
journalists - cue debate on the definition of journalism!)


(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.

Plus, I don't think the inaccuracy that prompted MIG's post was really
all
that heinous either!

Me neither.

"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 2010\11\23 11:18, Mizter T wrote:

"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.

Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per
sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better.

"Graham Harrison" 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.

There is another point that I think we may all be missing here. Radio
London is aimed at Londoners. But it's heard by a much wider range of
people, particularly the travel news because of RDS. Thus it needs to
ensure that any data it puts out be it about road or PT has to be
understandable to non-Londoners as well as Londoners. [...]

I think they're well aware of the reach of their signal, particularly w.r.t.
travel news (for general news it's not unreasonable to expect that listeners
would turn to their local, home counties station - of course there's always
going to be grey areas on the fringes) - the BBC London's radio travel
reports seem to take in much of what's within (as well as on) the M25, and
will mention things further afield if they're likely to cause issues for
travel from London (e.g. disruption on the Brighton main line, Operation
Stack on the M20 etc).


[...] I lived in and around London for many years before I moved to
Somerset yet I have no idea where "Charlie Browns Roundabout" that I heard
referred to recently is.

I suppose that's just a shorthand which regular road commuters would pick up
on immediately - explaining that it's the roundabout on the NCR underneath
the terminus of the M11 each and every time might be a bit of a mouthful (so
it's kind of 'need to know' - if you don't need to know, then you can
discard it, if you might need to know but don't know where Charlie Brown's
is... er, well tough!).

Oh, a little history for you:
http://www.britannia.com/travel/london/cockney/cbrown.html

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.

Mizter T wrote:

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

"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.

What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said.

He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to be
one.

I know. I can't see what your problem is with what I asked. Did you miss
the question mark between the "Why" and the "Do", thus misreading the
question?

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p9632886.html
(33 111 at Weymouth Town, May 1985)

"Graham Harrison" wrote:


"Bruce" wrote
I think Chris was suggesting that no reporting would be better than
inaccurate and misleading reporting. He does have a point.


This is true. Let's face it when some of us were younger we just headed
off and hoped. On the other hand we are where we are.


Where we are? You mean with TOCs who care to varying degrees, or not
at all, whether information disseminated to their customers by the
media is correct?


Look at what
happened to Rolls Royce recently, the Trent on the Qantas Airbus blows. RR
put their head down to identify the problem and say nothing in the meantime.
What happens? Armchair experts and "the markets" all panic and the share
price drops. That's just an example of how we all react these days.
Bottom line seems to be that these days we assume no news is BAD news.


I think the statements that spooked the markets came from a forthright
and particularly well-informed senior manager of QANTAS.

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

"Chris Tolley" (ukonline really) wrote:

Mizter T wrote:

"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.

What isn't? I'm asking questions which are clearly about what MIG said.

He didn't mention anything about Londoners, let alone any requirement to
be
one.

I know. I can't see what your problem is with what I asked. Did you miss
the question mark between the "Why" and the "Do", thus misreading the
question?


Why did you introduce the Londoners concept? The way you worded your
question implied that that's what MIG either said or thinks (a little akin
to 'How often do you beat you wife?', though hardly of the same league).

FWIW, I'd certainly think - indeed expect - that a "London travel newsroom
would have some vague idea about transport in London" - I'm not sure that's
so contentious a point. His preceding sentence about "newsreaders [who] just
keep on dumbly reading it out" does complicate his point a bit, as we've
discussed.

On Nov 23, 12:58*pm, Basil Jet wrote:

Why? IME BBC News contains an average of one and a half errors per
sentence, so I don't know why you expect the travel news to be any better..

I only make it one per sentence; perhaps I should listen more closely.
I think BBS Radio 4 is excellent, The TV News from the BBS is truly
illiterate - the whole Society is run by analphabets, as I pointed out
earlier - but on the radio there are still some well-educated
individuals.