Railway magazines, how unbiased are they ?

[Justin Smith]

How unbiased are railway magazines these days ?
How often do they say anything really controversial ?
Hardly ever.
A cynic like myself would say this is because they`re s**t scared of being blackballed by the TOCs or Network rail.
As an example I can remember writing a letter to a certain journal querying the fact they never mentioned the decrease in legroom of modern rolling stock. You know, the old thing, Great new refurbishment results in more seats !, but ignoring the down side that there`s less leg room..... The letter was never printed.

Furthermore I frequently wonder how many of the articles are "sponsored", directly or, more insidiously, indirectly. As an example I regularly get the local paper offering to do an in depth article on my business. I was flattered at first, until I realised they expected me to put an advert in as well. Once that happens how unbiased is any article going to be ?

Obviously the magazines want to be supportive to the rail industry, but surely not at the expense of balance or sycophancy.

 

[Metroland]

They obviously support the railways in general, as different magazines will support their respective interests.

I read most of the them, and have been reading Modern Railways and Rail since the mid 80s. I would politely suggest, just because your letter isn't published it doesn't mean they are biased, there is a whole host of reasons they don't get published.

But take Rail magazine this fortnight. There is a scathing editorial by Nigel Harris on bad PR from the rail industry, which tells them all to to wake up! Several articles very critical of the £1000 train ticket. Fairly balanced coverage of the High speed rail proposals, including a report done for the RAC, which as a special lobby group wants more money spent on roads. A critical look at rail re-openings. A series of letters, often criticising fares and and franchises. Christian Wolmar has another go at the Franchise system. An article in favour of abolishing return tickets, and finally a critique of SELTRAP.

Modern Railways, especially Roger Ford, is very critical of the TOCs and often makes the case for BR.

Indeed, part of the fascination for continued renationalisation is the opinions of some of the magazines. So I don't accept for one minute they are biased towards the current set up at all.

In fact I would say rail enthusiasts and enthusiast magazines are generally unique among transport enthusiasts (yes I know there is some overlap) for being quite skeptical and critical of their subject area. Indeed, I would say over negative at times.

 

[Domeyhead]

I agreefully, Metroland. I would have cited the same examples. There is just one area where I think the railway press are cautious - and that is where trade union activity is involved. Reporting on strikes and other action tends to be basic and factual (and amen to that!) but editorially there is less reaction. This may be quite simply that a large percentage of the readers are rail industry employees, but I think there are examples where the unions have clearly been in the right (often in issues of safety) and areas where they have been wrong (politically motivated action).
But yes in general I also take my hat off to Nigel Harris in particular, and of course the irrepressible Roger Ford.

 

[Justin Smith]

They obviously support the railways in general, as different magazines will support their respective interests.

I read most of the them, and have been reading Modern Railways and Rail since the mid 80s. I would politely suggest, just because your letter isn't published it doesn't mean they are biased, there is a whole host of reasons they don't get published.

But take Rail magazine this fortnight. There is a scathing editorial by Nigel Harris on bad PR from the rail industry, which tells them all to to wake up! Several articles very critical of the £1000 train ticket. Fairly balanced coverage of the High speed rail proposals, including a report done for the RAC, which as a special lobby group wants more money spent on roads. A critical look at rail re-openings. A series of letters, often criticising fares and and franchises. Christian Wolmar has another go at the Franchise system. An article in favour of abolishing return tickets, and finally a critique of SELTRAP.

Modern Railways, especially Roger Ford, is very critical of the TOCs and often makes the case for BR.

Indeed, part of the fascination for continued renationalisation is the opinions of some of the magazines. So I don't accept for one minute they are biased towards the current set up at all.

In fact I would say rail enthusiasts and enthusiast magazines are generally unique among transport enthusiasts (yes I know there is some overlap) for being quite skeptical and critical of their subject area. Indeed, I would say over negative at times.

A few points spring to mind.

I read Railway Magazine, and they`re never controversial, certainly not about much the railway industry would be concerned to read. I`m reluctant to change my subscription to another magazine because I`m building up a collection, from back to the 1940s so far. Also they cover steam/history and modern, which others do ?

About the unpublished letter, I actually phoned the editor to wonder why they never mention the reductions in legroom in their articles, but they still don`t mention them.

What about the direct/indirect sponsorship thing ?

 

[Lampshade]

They surely can't print every single letter they get hock:

I've found some magazines to be pretty scathing of some aspects of the railways, I wouldn't say biased, but fair.

 

[Metroland]

A few points spring to mind.

I read Railway Magazine, and they`re never controversial, certainly not about much the railway industry would be concerned to read. I`m reluctant to change my subscription to another magazine because I`m building up a collection, from back to the 1940s so far. Also they cover steam/history and modern, which others do ?

About the unpublished letter, I actually phoned the editor to wonder why they never mention the reductions in legroom in their articles, but they still don`t mention them.

What about the direct/indirect sponsorship thing ?

I read railway magazine as well, and for all intents and purposes it's a light read. Its never controversial, because that's not its market.

All magazines (nay media, apart from the BBC) get sponsorship and advertising, and that often doesn't stop them telling it like it is. But I would suggest it's nothing to do with bias, as I said there's 101 reasons why letters are not published. Try writing to other magazines perhaps? There's plenty of them out there! Though I'd suggest keep up your sub to railway magazine, its a good read.

 

[Old Timer]

Alan Williams in Modern Railways was always lambasting BR in the 70s, 80s, and 90s.

Always an enthusiastically awaited article when the magazine came out, but the criticisms just as much frustrating and cutting to highly committed people.

 

[Justin Smith]

I read railway magazine as well, and for all intents and purposes it's a light read. Its never controversial, because that's not its market.

All magazines (nay media, apart from the BBC) get sponsorship and advertising, and that often doesn't stop them telling it like it is. But I would suggest it's nothing to do with bias, as I said there's 101 reasons why letters are not published. Try writing to other magazines perhaps? There's plenty of them out there! Though I'd suggest keep up your sub to railway magazine, its a good read.

Maybe I just like to read the odd controversial article, so much of what one reads these days is so bleedin` anodyne. My website (about aerials) is pretty controversial, and we get 2 to 3 thousand on every day. It seems I`m not the only one who likes to hear it like it is !
I do sometimes wonder if Railway Magazine is getting a quid pro quo advert (or something similar) for some of their articles. One article this month even says to see the advert on page xx for more details.

 

[the sniper]

How unbiased are railway magazines these days ?
How often do they say anything really controversial ?
Hardly ever.
A cynic like myself would say this is because they`re s**t scared of being blackballed by the TOCs or Network rail.

Maybe I just like to read the odd controversial article, so much of what one reads these days is so bleedin` anodyne.

I'd fully recommend Rail if your looking for a magazine that tells it as it is and isn't afraid of taking on the TOC's, Network Rail or Daft in a war of words. Metroland has pointed out a number of examples from Rail already, but there have been quite a few more over the last 4 or 5 issues. They've given a real insight into how the PR departments and Bosses of these organisations react to their criticisms too, I've been surprised by how badly the industry deal with the specialist rail press!

 

[GNERman]

And finally a critique of SELTRAP.

1. You mean SELRAP

2. His article of the SELRAP conference was quite critical. I was at the conference as an Exec Member of SELRAP, and I didn't see him talking to anyone from SELRAP he was manly talking with Chltern's Adrian Shooer the whole time.

But this is constructive critisism and we will learn from it.