Odd unfavorable article about Amtrak

Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Joined
Dec 18, 2007
Messages
1,201
Location
suburban Chicago (Deerfield)
Article by Baltimore Sun via Yahoo. "10 Civil War-era piers in Susquehanna River demolished by Amtrak, despite opposition over historical value."

The article asserts that the 1866 bridge (mind that date!) has "historical proximity to the Underground Railroad" so 10 bridge piers should be kept intact in the river, and removing them would be "wasteful spending."

Doesn't sound good for Amtrak, right? But then the article mentions that the opposition is led by Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail, a "rail startup with ambitious plans to privatize Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor,"

The article acknowledges "the rail bridge opening after Maryland abolished slavery and the end of the Civil War," and a historic review found little to preserve as the actual bridge was removed decades ago. Oh, by the way, "Public input during Amtrak’s review process favored clearing the piers from the landscape."

The article goes on to reveal Spencer's goal: he wanted to build a new bridge for AmeriStarRail instead of Amtrak's new bridge. And the article parrots Spencer's cheap shot at Amtrak: "He said money spent on demolition could have gone to critical infrastructure like securing tracks to avoid train fatalities like two seen last week."

I can't say the article as a whole is false, as the relevant facts are included. But it seems like a misleading hatchet job by the Sun for Spencer, with a tone at points unduly favorable to his position in light of (1) the clear post-Civil-War and post-Underground Railroad origin of the bridge, and (2) Spencer's position as a would-be competitor for Amtrak. It sounds like someone decided to print a Spencer press release as news, or to make the Sun Spencer's cats-paw, but someone else with journalistic integrity decided to include counter-balancing facts without changing the tone of the press-release/gullible parts. Why even print such an article when the facts included as a caveat to the apparent thesis eat the thesis? :rolleyes: It doesn't make me think well of Spencer/AmeriStarRail, and now it doesn't make me think too well of the Baltimore Sun either.
 
Article by Baltimore Sun via Yahoo. "10 Civil War-era piers in Susquehanna River demolished by Amtrak, despite opposition over historical value."

The article asserts that the 1866 bridge (mind that date!) has "historical proximity to the Underground Railroad" so 10 bridge piers should be kept intact in the river, and removing them would be "wasteful spending."

Doesn't sound good for Amtrak, right? But then the article mentions that the opposition is led by Scott Spencer of AmeriStarRail, a "rail startup with ambitious plans to privatize Amtrak’s busy Northeast Corridor,"

The article acknowledges "the rail bridge opening after Maryland abolished slavery and the end of the Civil War," and a historic review found little to preserve as the actual bridge was removed decades ago. Oh, by the way, "Public input during Amtrak’s review process favored clearing the piers from the landscape."

The article goes on to reveal Spencer's goal: he wanted to build a new bridge for AmeriStarRail instead of Amtrak's new bridge. And the article parrots Spencer's cheap shot at Amtrak: "He said money spent on demolition could have gone to critical infrastructure like securing tracks to avoid train fatalities like two seen last week."

I can't say the article as a whole is false, as the relevant facts are included. But it seems like a misleading hatchet job by the Sun for Spencer, with a tone at points unduly favorable to his position in light of (1) the clear post-Civil-War and post-Underground Railroad origin of the bridge, and (2) Spencer's position as a would-be competitor for Amtrak. It sounds like someone decided to print a Spencer press release as news, or to make the Sun Spencer's cats-paw, but someone else with journalistic integrity decided to include counter-balancing facts without changing the tone of the press-release/gullible parts. Why even print such an article when the facts included as a caveat to the apparent thesis eat the thesis? :rolleyes: It doesn't make me think well of Spencer/AmeriStarRail, and now it doesn't make me think too well of the Baltimore Sun either.
The Sun used to be a respected Newspaper, but as Corporate ownership became so prevelant in Media, like most other papers, became a " for sale" vehicle as ad revenue declined drastically!

Just like the internet, what you read in the paper may not be true, or as the late Paul Harvey used to say, contain " ..the rest of the story!"🥺
 
Back
Top