Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. A phone that grows with your child.

Meet the Other Phone.
A phone that grows with your child.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Original poster

AIBU to think the Southern Rail strike is not National News?

179 replies

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/12/2016 13:16

Watching the BBC news at lunchtime. Tiny snippet of news about Aleppo and now massive in-depth coverage of the Southern Rail strike include homevideos of commuters journeys etc.

I understand this is an important issue for those who live within the small area covered by Southern Rail - but does it really merit coverage on the National News - surely should be a local news story?

OP posts:
HermioneWeasley · 13/12/2016 13:19

Agree. Southern based media massively overestimate everyone's interest in this stuff. I don't remember the northern rail strikes making the national news.

Footinmouthasusual · 13/12/2016 13:21

just feel sorry for those commuters it's a ridiculous impass.

Dh commutes by chilltern line brum to London and the service is generally very good.

To me it's a national story though I do see your point op

RebeccaWithTheGoodHair · 13/12/2016 13:22

Not sure I agree, this is really an out of the ordinary strike. It is having a huge effect and it's been going on so long.

Additionally the issues it's covering will affect other areas of the country - basically the other operators are sitting it out to let Southern/DfT force ASLEF into agreement so they too can move to DOO.

SaucyJack · 13/12/2016 13:24

It's only a small area geographically.

Hundreds of thousands of people are potentially (depending on their personal travel arrangements) affected by this.

scottishdiem · 13/12/2016 13:26

Agreed. In Scotland we get an awful lot of coverage of issues affecting the south of England.

ShotsFired · 13/12/2016 13:27

What is it you want on the national news then?
(Aleppo, being abroad, surely doesn't qualify either?)

I am not directly affected by the strikes, but the repercussions - financial, practical, psychological - are far greater than just the network area that individual train co serves (which is pretty substantial), not to mention the wider issues of whether strikes are a suitable method of resolving grievances. You can bet your bottom dollar local news is all over it too.

So back to the question - what is it you deem acceptable for the national news if not a topic that is having a direct impact on thousands of people and businesses?

DEMum101 · 13/12/2016 13:27

I also see your point, but in this case, the whole Southern Rail debacle has being going on so long and caused so much misery to those it does affect that I think it probably does justify wider coverage then usual.

There have been reports about people losing their jobs because they have been unable to get to work reliably and of people failing to get jobs as soon as employers see that they live in an area which will require them to commute on Southern. If that is true, then it is causing wider ramifications than most rail strikes.

Losgunna · 13/12/2016 13:27

I agree op. Yes it's a big strike and has been going on a long time but it doesn't affect everyone, or even most people.

Just the south.

Londoncentric media bias is part of the reason why I stopped watching the news at all. It's all bloody bollocks. Anywhere north of Leeds apparently doesn't count.

OnionKnight · 13/12/2016 13:30

The strike affects hundreds of thousands of people, if that doesn't make it headline news I'm not sure what does.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/12/2016 13:30

what is it you deem acceptable for the national news if not a topic that is having a direct impact on thousands of people and businesses?

Important international news so Aleppo, Russia, US etc + National News ie news that will impact the vast majority of the country eg local rail operator strike not national, post office strike national news.

OP posts:
YelloDraw · 13/12/2016 13:32

I understand this is an important issue for those who live within the small area covered by Southern Rail - but does it really merit coverage on the National News - surely should be a local news story?

Yeah but like 99% of the jornos live in the southern rail area ;-)

GiddyOnZackHunt · 13/12/2016 13:33

It's affecting a lot of people although it's a geographically limited area. In general I agree the the media is biased towards the SE of England.
Removing the right to strike from groups of unionised workers in the private sector as has been suggested by Chris Grayling could quickly escalate this into a national problem.

SmilingButClueless · 13/12/2016 13:36

The coverage has been a bit excessive - and I say that as someone who lives & works in the affected area.

However, I disagree that things like this should be relegated to the local news. A strike affecting hundreds of thousands of people should be of wider interest nationally, surely? I think the issue is more that things from north of London are under-reported.

Liiinoo · 13/12/2016 13:38

It could have a serious knock on effect for the whole country My DH and DD both work in the city and have to travel by Southern so, I hear every day how bad it is, how often they are late (and I mean proper 60-90 minutes late not 5 minutes) after a journey that should have taken 40 minutes including the walk at either end. If you extrapolate that amount of working time across the all the commuters affected, the strike is costing the national economy millions of working hours. Not to mention the toll on health. The trains are so overcrowded DD has fainted several times over the last 4 months. So that needs an extra visit to the GP to ensure she isn't anaemic. (She wasn't , it was just the inhuman conditions).

Sirzy · 13/12/2016 13:38

I am in the north west but can still see why it's national news. What they are wanting to implement could easily have a negative impact on train services nationally so it is important

Liiinoo · 13/12/2016 13:39

And BBC news is in Salford now - hardly the SE.

MLGs · 13/12/2016 13:42

I am biased because I am directly affected by it (massively) but I think it is important to the whole country because, as sirzy says, the issue is relevant to all other train networks. And the fact that privatising the trains was a rubbish idea to start with.

wasonthelist · 13/12/2016 13:43

Londoncentric media bias is part of the reason why I stopped watching the news at all. It's all bloody bollocks. Anywhere north of Leeds apparently doesn't count.

^this

coffeetasteslikeshit · 13/12/2016 13:47

I think it should be national news, although I don't live in the south-east, but I think they should have saved the home videos for the local news. I did roll my eyes at those.

Original poster
ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 13/12/2016 13:48

I understand this

What they are wanting to implement could easily have a negative impact on train services nationally

And this

Removing the right to strike from groups of unionised workers in the private sector as has been suggested by Chris Grayling could quickly escalate this into a national problem.

And yes they could merit a national news spot, but those issues were barely covered in the news items - the focus was on the disruption and on the commuters, not on the potential wider ramifications.

OP posts:
icy121 · 13/12/2016 13:48

Media reporting is very london centric

However

Half a million people are being affected by this, half a million people who work in the most economically efficient part of the country and I dare say a lot of them are very high taxpayers too. So it is important. Half of my team (2 people) between them pay more than £100k a year in taxes and will spend this week unable to come in. So yes I think that is of national interest.

Notonthestairs · 13/12/2016 13:48

I thought it was national news because the government were losing millions of pounds in money - so no matter where you live we're all paying for it?
But I do agree the news is ridiculously SE centric (I'm in that SE and often don't bother with my local news as a result). I'd like to think that if the same happened elsewhere in the country it would get the same coverage but I am not 100% convinced it would.

SaucyJack · 13/12/2016 13:48

It's not just London meedja types who are affected.

All local services are off here. Lots of perfectly ordinary people who do perfectly ordinary jobs are being massively affected if they rely on the trains to go about their perfectly ordinary lives.

You wait until it hits you.

Crowdblundering · 13/12/2016 13:51

Ah - I dared to express sympathy for the commutors (I live in South) on my FB (did not suggest this was the only thing happening in the news) and got vitriolic slating by a FB friend about "first world problems and what's going on in Aleppo).

Erm - the two things aren't related - I was just passing observational comment.

SkafaceClaw · 13/12/2016 13:52

Because it's not just about getting to work. It's the fact that this company are not being made accountable.

The tax payer is taking the hit - not the company. I am fed up of paying huge ticket prices for a dreadful service (even without the strikes) when they are getting bailouts and are still allowed to run the line.

Where I work children are unable to get to school because of it.

Why are the government allowing this to continue?