After having an off-line conversation with a couple of friends, I decided to clarify some of my earlier statements.
Otto Vondrak wrote:Agreed, and I like Fred Frailey's writing. I felt there was some "whitewash" to the story, but you also have to wonder what the editors in Waukesha took out before the article hit print. Remember, you're not reading what the author wants you to see, you're reading what the editor put together.
So I made it sound like the editors took out any inflammatory statements against the railroad. I don't think I really believe that. But I do not that editors will edit for content and style, and occasionally re-write a story if what the writer supplied is not what was required. Did that happen with Fred Frailey's story? Most likely not. Not when you're the former editor of
Kiplinger's. I still wonder if some trimming of the story was done for space constraints, but I doubt we lost any juicy morsels.
I liked Fred's story. He told a good story. He made the history of the railroad approachable for anyone not from the area and not familiar with the Guilford/Pan Am legacy. But I guess I wanted to learn more about the uneasy labor issues that plagued the railroad. And I would have liked to hear more about the NS deal. And maybe approach the topic of Pan Am's reputation. I felt like we were just getting into the good stuff when the article came to a close.
Anyone remember the last article, "Guilford: New England's reticent regional" in the October 1998 Trains? There were no surprises in that article, either. Full of Fink's "Fine, fine, everything's fine." Written by someone I never heard of (it wasn't Hartley or Nelligan).
This comment was not directed at the editors so much as whomever wrote that 1998 article... Fink gave him an interview, and he wrote his story based on that experience. I think as railfans, we demonize Guilford/Pan Am, and we are always expecting professional writers to do the same. We're waiting for that bombshell article to come out that will confirm that all of our bellyaching was correct!
Otto Vondrak wrote:...and speaking as a writer for Trains, let me tell you, interviews are NOT easy to get!
Like I said before, being a writer ain't easy. Attempting to be a writer for Trains is even more difficult.
So Trains publishes another in a long line of "safe" industry profiles with this recent feature on Pan Am Railways. Long gone are the days of John Kneiling and others openly criticizing the industry (for better or for worse). No one was going to air dirty laundry in this one.
Did I think the story could have gone a little more in depth in some areas? Sure. I have no idea what the editor-writer conference was like and what the goals of the project were. Was the story "safe?" It was what Frailey wrote based on the information he gathered. Was it "sanitized" by the editors? Highly unlikely. Though my "safe" comment comes from a bad experience at a lifestyle mag where editors told me, "Take that out, it makes our advertisers look bad. As for John Kneiling, he was a great intelligent critic of his time period. And there probably wont be anyone like him to follow. Yes, there are critics today, but Kneiling style was one of a kind, in the context of his time. So, yes, indeed, gone are those days.
Whitewash? I just wish the Pan Am story went on a couple more pages, and perhaps I need to find a better way to vent my frustrations.
Off to take up knitting,
-otto-
----------------------------------------------
Moderator: New York State Railfan :: New York Central :: Toy Trains
NYW&B Fan Site ::
A Magazine I Read Often ::
A Museum I Volunteer At