Nothing But The Truth?

How do we differentiate fact from fiction? More specifically, how do we decide what we are prepared to accept as being factual in terms of popular media? Do we simply take, say, newspaper stories at face value, assuming that the people who write them are honest and informed? It's quite surprising he extent to which we actually do take media reports at face value. The problem, of course, is that none of us are experts on everything. Indeed, few of us are experts on anything in particular. If we're lucky, we might be well informed on three or four areas of expertise, which might allow us to critically evaluate newspaper stories or TV programmes on these subjects, thereby enabling us to make an informed judgement as to their veracity. However, the media relies upon the fact that most of the time, most of us won't be able to make such a judgement, instead simply presenting their theories as if they actually are fact, secure in the knowledge that they are unlikely to be challenged.

But when they do cover a subject I actually know something about, I'm frequently disturbed by how inaccurate the media can be, with an attitude towards facts and logic that is best described as cavalier. For them, the theory definitely comes first, with the facts selected to fit it. The other day, for instance, I started watching a supposed documentary about the last days of steam traction on British Railways. Except that it wasn't really. It opened with the thesis that, in the post-war period, Britain was flying in the face of conventional wisdom by continuing to build steam locomotives. The rest of the railway world, it claimed were focusing on diesel and electric traction, and phasing out steam as rapidly as possible. An interesting thesis, but one which is completely at odds with the facts. Other countries' railways also continued to build new steam locomotives in the post war period. Indeed, despite a rapid electrification programme, France's SNCF didn't phase out steam traction until 1971. British Railway's last steam hauled services ceased in 1968, despite our alleged 'backwardness'.

The reality is that in the UK there had been large scale modernisation programmes since at least the 1930s - the Southern Railway's scheme to electrify its commuter routes out of London, for instance. Nevertheless, there was nothing Quixotic about the adherence to steam in the UK in the 1950s - it was a tried and tested technology with a huge support infrastructure already in place, not to mention abundant supplies of coal to fuel it. Britain's railways had also survived the war more or less intact. Those in countries like Germany had been badly damaged, the need to rebuild them quickly made diesel traction an attractive option - diesel locomotives are quicker to build and less labour-intensive to run than steam. But none of that made as good a story as the programme makers were trying to peddle. Indeed, I'm sure their thesis seemed quite plausible to casual viewers who didn't have any knowledge of transport history. But to me, it was another case of theory being presented as fact.