BBC report on California HSR

[RedSquirrel]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19336815

 

[PerRock]

Interesting the BBC is usually quite careful to make sure their news reports are as unbiased as can be, however that one is pretty clear that they are in league with the NIMBYs.

peter

 

[Blackwolf]

This report does not come across as unbiased at all. It is pretty clear, for reasons not all that apparent, that the BBC would like its viewers to think HSR is impossible anywhere in the US. No matter what project there is, be it digging a water main to building a HSR system, there will always be people affected adversely. Do I feel badly for the dairy farmer? Perhaps, but no matter how much discomfort he and his family may have, he'll be sitting quite happily with the payout for his property.

And Portugal is not even in the same league as California.

 

[caravanman]

Hi,

I heard the audio version of this BBC report on the BBC radio here in the UK. I think the report over here was part of a programme about our economy, and whether "stimulus" money should be spent in the UK on big infrastructure projects, such as your Californian High Speed rail project. (Building something generates jobs, even if it is not that viable) I don't think it is biased as such, as it gives two points of view, and sets out the costs. Having one farmer give his negative opinion, and one guy explaining the advantages, infrastructure investment, etc, seems ok to me... The Beeb should not be seen to condemn nor promote.

When I visit the USA, I get the impression that the rest of the world does not exist, from the inward looking USA broadcast media that I see on TV. At least the BBC is taking an interest in Californian news!

Cheers,

Ed

 

[Devil's Advocate]

I don't think it is biased as such, as it gives two points of view, and sets out the costs. Having one farmer give his negative opinion, and one guy explaining the advantages, infrastructure investment, etc, seems ok to me... The Beeb should not be seen to condemn nor promote.

Why can't they simply promote the truth? Today's BBC seems little different from today's CNN. They both have a lazy habit of trying to make a truth cocktail from one part crazy and one part insane. All that does is get you drunk on stupidity. Rather than letting the partisans tell the story for them I believe the BBC should do their own research and provide us with what they've found. But I suppose that's expensive and timing consuming and what's left of the BBC's news bureau apparently isn't up to the challenge at this point. Which is a shame really, seeing as how some of the best investigative journalism I ever saw came from the BBC of yesteryear.

When I visit the USA, I get the impression that the rest of the world does not exist, from the inward looking USA broadcast media that I see on TV.

Oh, it's not just the news media that thinks like that. Since 2010 at least two dozen American states have proposed or passed laws instructing American judges to be sure they're actively ignoring the laws and rulings of foreign countries lest they risk becoming too worldly (and thus less American) in their views. No joke.

 

[George Harris]

When I visit the USA, I get the impression that the rest of the world does not exist, from the inward looking USA broadcast media that I see on TV.

Somewhat but not completely true if you are looking at the national news and not the local news.

Oh, it's not just the news media that thinks like that. Since 2010 at least two dozen American states have proposed or passed laws instructing American judges to be sure they're actively ignoring the laws and rulings of foreign countries lest they risk becoming too worldly (and thus less American) in their views. No joke.

Why shouldn't they? If I want to be governed by the laws of England/France/China/Saudi Arabia/Shaira's medieval concepts I will move to places where they apply. I was to be governed by teh laws of teh US and its appropriate subdivisions. If I don't like them there is a process to work toward change. Likewise if people who come to the US from those places where these various laws do apply don't like the laws here they can go back where they came from. By the way, when I was living and working in Taiwan I said exactly that to those that come in from the US or elsewhere that did not like the way things ran there. News flash: If you live in a country, unless you are shrouded in the diplomat exemptions, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and only their laws. You are not subject to the laws of the country you came from or any other country you might like to be subject to but to those of teh country where you are.

 

[RedSquirrel]

Thanks for your responses -- I deliberately posted the link without comment to see what other people would make of it.

My own feeling is that while the report isn't as biased as some that obviously partisan news broadcasters produce, it does depict HSR in an unfairly negative light. This effect is achieved by giving the last word to the farmer and the "no" camp. I agree that it's lazy journalism insofar as there's no attempt to research the statistics and facts provided by either the farmer or the promoter. Important questions go unexamined: is there a market for HSR? what strategic importance, if any, does it have for California's economic development? what are the environmental costs and benefits? how have other countries managed with HSR? While there is plenty of anecdotal evidence ("Portugal has high speed rail that's gathering dust"), the news report leaves these claims unexamined, neither proving them or disproving them. Good investigative journalism researches these questions and puts them into a broader context.

 

[sunnyside up...]

Why shouldn't they? If I want to be governed by the laws of England/France/China/Saudi Arabia/Shaira's medieval concepts I will move to places where they apply. I was to be governed by teh laws of teh US and its appropriate subdivisions. If I don't like them there is a process to work toward change. Likewise if people who come to the US from those places where these various laws do apply don't like the laws here they can go back where they came from. By the way, when I was living and working in Taiwan I said exactly that to those that come in from the US or elsewhere that did not like the way things ran there. News flash: If you live in a country, unless you are shrouded in the diplomat exemptions, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and only their laws. You are not subject to the laws of the country you came from or any other country you might like to be subject to but to those of teh country where you are.

Is anyone saying any differently? But what is wrong with looking at other places and seeing if things done elsewhere are maybe a better option? To do otherwise is probably quite narrow minded,and backs up the opinion of those that think the US is quite inward looking except when it comes to exporting its own brand of democracy to those it deems necessary to receive it (regardless of what the inhabitants think)

Now, wasn't there something about trains somewhere?

 

[George Harris]

Oh, it's not just the news media that thinks like that. Since 2010 at least two dozen American states have proposed or passed laws instructing American judges to be sure they're actively ignoring the laws and rulings of foreign countries lest they risk becoming too worldly (and thus less American) in their views. No joke.

Why shouldn't they? If I want to be governed by the laws of England/France/China/Saudi Arabia/Shaira's medieval concepts I will move to places where they apply. I was to be governed by teh laws of teh US and its appropriate subdivisions. If I don't like them there is a process to work toward change. Likewise if people who come to the US from those places where these various laws do apply don't like the laws here they can go back where they came from. By the way, when I was living and working in Taiwan I said exactly that to those that come in from the US or elsewhere that did not like the way things ran there. News flash: If you live in a country, unless you are shrouded in the diplomat exemptions, you are subject to the laws of the country you are in and only their laws. You are not subject to the laws of the country you came from or any other country you might like to be subject to but to those of teh country where you are.

Is anyone saying any differently? But what is wrong with looking at other places and seeing if things done elsewhere are maybe a better option? To do otherwise is probably quite narrow minded,and backs up the opinion of those that think the US is quite inward looking except when it comes to exporting its own brand of democracy to those it deems necessary to receive it (regardless of what the inhabitants think)

Yes they were saying differently which should have been obvious if you had included the statement that I was answering. I stuck it back in for those that missed it. The point was being made relevant to legal issues and processes, not to technical issues. I am all for looking at what is done elsewhere in the railroad and transportation world and using that which best fits conditions here, with "here" being the location where it is though it should be appliled.