Fake news on NBW

[dor]

Surprise surprise, NBW get it wrong again.

 

They are reporting that the Shroppie is closed for six weeks: 

"THE Shropshire Union Canal is to be closed for six weeks starting on the 5th November to allow contractors to clean a railway bridge.

This is Bridge 89A, the railway bridge below Nantwich, and will of course have an effect on people taking late narrowboat holidays from below the bridge hoping to reach such as the Llangollen Canal.

No apology

Such as those from Cheshire Cat Narrowboat Holidays at Overwater Marina, near Audlem, with Linda Andrews telling us that though Canal & River Trust have apologised 'for any inconvenience this may cause our towpath users', not a word about inconvenience to canal users!"

 

But in fact, only the towpath is closed, as detailed in the CRT notice:

 

"Network Rail Contractors, Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd, will be carrying out works to clean the steel work, undertake repairs and re-paint the bridge.

 

Please be aware, for safety reasons, it will be necessary to close the towpath during the period of the works.  Diversion routes are available via the local public footpaths."

[nicknorman]

The notice originally said “Navigation : Closed. towpath: Closed”. Maybe they’ve now revised it but the original notice did say this in the title without mentioning it in the body of the text.

[dor]

15 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The notice originally said “Navigation : Closed. towpath: Closed”. Maybe they’ve now revised it but the original notice did say this in the title without mentioning it in the body of the text.

Hmmm.  Yes, it does list the stoppage on the CRT stoppages list.  Was this on the original planned stoppage list? 

[Robbo]

32 minutes ago, nicknorman said:

The notice originally said “Navigation : Closed. towpath: Closed”. Maybe they’ve now revised it but the original notice did say this in the title without mentioning it in the body of the text.

A decent newspaper would do some research first and enquire if the notice was accurate before publicising.   This just goes to show that no research is done on any of the articles so confirms it's not a trustworthy source of news.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Robbo

[Athy]

To call it "fake news" is perhaps unkind, as that implies intention. "Inaccurate news" would be nearer the mark.

[nicknorman]

1 minute ago, Athy said:

To call it "fake news" is perhaps unkind, as that implies intention. "Inaccurate news" would be nearer the mark.

“Fake news” is any news you don’t like. Well, according to Donald Trump anyway!

[Athy]

1 minute ago, nicknorman said:

“Fake news” is any news you don’t like. Well, according to Donald Trump anyway!

No, that's bad news (the story, not Mr. Trump. I mean....oh, come to think of it...)

[Robbo]

6 minutes ago, Athy said:

To call it "fake news" is perhaps unkind, as that implies intention. "Inaccurate news" would be nearer the mark.

It fake as any dum f***** reading the original notification would have spotted that something was amiss if CRT only apologised to "towpath customers" and it was only published because NBW like to hit on CRT.

Edited October 25, 2018 by Robbo

[Athy]

1 minute ago, Robbo said:

It fake as any dum f***** reading the original notification would have spotted that something was amiss if CRT only apologised to "towpath customers".

You feel, then, that it was fabricated on purpose? If not, as I have explained, it was incorrect rather than fake.

[Robbo]

Just now, Athy said:

You feel, then, that it was fabricated on purpose? If not, as I have explained, it was incorrect rather than fake.

It was fabricated as any newspaper worth their salt would have contacted CRT to confirm if the notice was indeed accurate as it was glaring obvious something was a miss.

[Athy]

6 minutes ago, Robbo said:

It was fabricated as any newspaper worth their salt would have contacted CRT to confirm if the notice was indeed accurate as it was glaring obvious something was a miss.

It sounds to me like a sin of omission rather than one of commission. In addition, Narrow Boat World (which I don't think I have ever read) is surely an internet forum, not a newspaper.

[Robbo]

Just now, Athy said:

It sounds to me like a sin of omission rather than one of commission. In addition, Narrow Boat World (which I don't think I have ever read) is surely an internet forum, not a newspaper.

NBW say they are a newspaper with influence...

 

The site narrowboatworld is a waterways newspaper on the Web, and since 2000 when it was first introduced, has remained the most read and regarded as the most influential of any waterways publication, it of course being so well established.

 

[Athy]

Just now, Robbo said:

NBW say they are a newspaper with influence...

 

 

 

 

Fair enough, I had not realised that they held that status.

[Arthur Marshall]

20 minutes ago, Robbo said:

NBW say they are a newspaper with influence...

I've been under the influence myself once or twice.  But surely one of the operative parts of the word "newspaper" is "paper"?

[NB Esk]

53 minutes ago, Athy said:

No, that's bad news (the story, not Mr. Trump. I mean....oh, come to think of it...)

?.........✅ virtual greenie 

[Midnight Rider]

14 minutes ago, Arthur Marshall said:

I've been under the influence myself once or twice.  But surely one of the operative parts of the word "newspaper" is "paper"?

Not my daily paper. I just have the online version.

[BruceinSanity]

7 hours ago, Athy said:

Fair enough, I had not realised that they held claimed that status.

Edited that for you ?.

[mayalld]

7 hours ago, Robbo said:

NBW say they are a newspaper with influence...

 

 

 

 

How many wrong things can they get in so few words?

 

News? I think not. More like vitriolic opinion.

Paper? Not that I have seen.

Influence? About the extent of their influence is their ability to delude themselves that they have influence.

 

[AndrewIC]

That's not the only stoppage planned in that area for that period. I doubt a crane is being provided at Audlem just so these hypothetical holiday makers can be inconvenienced by the rail bridge stoppage.

[StephenA]

I don't like to support that site but the email C&RT sent out stated:

 

Email Subject :	Navigation closure notice: Shropshire Union Canal, Navigation: Closed, Towpath: Closed
Email Date :	2018/10/24 11:41:34
Navigation :	Shropshire Union Canal
Navigation Status :	Closed
Towpath Status :	Closed
Start Date :	2018/11/05 08:00:00
End Date :	2018/12/14 16:00:00
Starts At :	Railway Bridge 89A
Ends At :	Railway Bridge 89A
Upstream Winding :	Poole Hill, south of Bridge 96, Shropshire Union Canal
Downstream Winding :	Hack Green, Lock 2, Shropshire Union Canal

Edited October 26, 2018 by StephenA

[dor]

1 hour ago, StephenA said:

I don't like to support that site but the email C&RT sent out stated:

 

Email Subject :	Navigation closure notice: Shropshire Union Canal, Navigation: Closed, Towpath: Closed
Email Date :	2018/10/24 11:41:34
Navigation :	Shropshire Union Canal
Navigation Status :	Closed
Towpath Status :	Closed
Start Date :	2018/11/05 08:00:00
End Date :	2018/12/14 16:00:00
Starts At :	Railway Bridge 89A
Ends At :	Railway Bridge 89A
Upstream Winding :	Poole Hill, south of Bridge 96, Shropshire Union Canal
Downstream Winding :	Hack Green, Lock 2, Shropshire Union Canal

I have seen this email forwarded to me. However the email I received from CRT stated:

 

Type: Navigation Closure
Reason: 3rd Party Works

Update on 24/10/2018:

Network Rail Contractors, Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd, will be carrying out works to clean the steel work, undertake repairs and re-paint the bridge.

 

Please be aware, for safety reasons, it will be necessary to close the towpath during the period of the works.  Diversion routes are available via the local public footpaths.

 

We apologise for any inconvenience this may cause our towpath users.

Original message:

Network Rail Contractors Alun Griffiths (Contractors) Ltd will be carrying out works to clean the steel work, undertake repairs and re-paint the bridge.

This is why it is not so clear whether the canal is closed as well as the towpath.  It does say "update", but I receive CRT emails and didn't receive any earlier email about this closure.   Knowing the amount of mis-information sent out in CRT emails, I'm not surprised people do wonder what the exact situation is.  It wouldn't be the first time CRT have referred to "navigation closure" when in fact it was either only the towpath being closed, or that contractors might ask you to wait a short while before passing an obstruction.

On reflection I can understand why NBW should have reported it as they did, however they do have a reputation for reporting incidents without checking first!

[StephenA]

2 minutes ago, dor said:

I have seen this email forwarded to me. However the email I received from CRT stated:

 

Type: Navigation Closure
Reason: 3rd Party Works

 

 

This is why it is not so clear whether the canal is closed as well as the towpath.  It does say "update", but I receive CRT emails and didn't receive any earlier email about this closure.   Knowing the amount of mis-information sent out in CRT emails, I'm not surprised people do wonder what the exact situation is.  It wouldn't be the first time CRT have referred to "navigation closure" when in fact it was either only the towpath being closed, or that contractors might ask you to wait a short while before passing an obstruction.

On reflection I can understand why NBW should have reported it as they did, however they do have a reputation for reporting incidents without checking first!

 

It does say Type : Navigation Closure - which means canal only, with the towpath open.

[dor]

9 hours ago, StephenA said:

 

It does say Type : Navigation Closure - which means canal only, with the towpath open.

In normal circumstances I agree.  But the notification is to say the towpath is closed.  And as I pointed out above, it is not unknown for them to say navigation closed when only the towpath is closed.

[Robbo]

12 hours ago, StephenA said:

I don't like to support that site but the email C&RT sent out stated:

And it was clearly inaccurate as the body of the email only stated the towpath and no mention of the canal, so either NBW either deliberately fabricated the story as it was obvious something was amiss, or they only saw what they wanted to see to hit on CRT, either way it’s poor journalism and shows that the “paper” just has a objective to hit on CRT rather than be “news of the waterways”.

[Allan(nb Albert)]

For what it is worth, I have a program that scans C&RT's stoppages database and calculates the number days lost to unplanned (i.e. emergency) and planned navigational closures between two given dates. (It was developed when I noted a mismatch between the number of 'days lost' reported by C&RT and the number showing on its database for any particular day.) 

Run on 24/10/2018 this programs diagnostic output shows that this notice type was planned navigation closure. 
Run today, the this stoppage is just a towpath closure notice/ advice notice so ignored by my program.

Having checked through my emails, the one I received says 'Navigation closure notice: Shropshire Union Canal, Navigation: Closed, Towpath: Closed' on the subject line and 'Navigation Closure' in the body.

Looking at the record now there is a mismatch between the closure type as found by an enquiry and what is returned. Put another way, if you use the stoppage webpage to find navigation closures, this stoppage is not returned. If you search for towpath closures then the record is returned but says Type: Navigation Closure.