“Sensationalist” headlines on MBR…….

Looks like MBR are employing journos from the Sun…….

That’s not going to do CYB trails, bike shop or any of the surrounding businesses any good at all.

If anything shouldn’t the mountain bike press be encouraging more people to go??

Shocking piece of clickbait journalism at it’s finest.

Crap article. CyB isn’t closing to mountain biking, the VC is. CyB is more than it’s VC. The outcomes of these budget cuts are nuanced, and some uncertain, but they don’t add up to what the headline says.

Anyway, MBR now seems to be mainly articles with titles like ‘I’ve reviewed 1000s of socks in the past 20 years, but these are the best.” so i’m not surprised this kind of headline came about.

Did you e-mail the MBR editor to get them to correct it?

Who still reads MBR?

I’m willing to bet money that the person who wrote the article didn’t write the headline. And given that you’ve clicked on the headline kinda proves the point about why articles like that, on sites like that, use headlines like that. Blame the algorithm rather than the people

As an aside; I know a fella who runs a military history channel on YouTube, on purpose he always includes an incorrect ‘fact’ in every video he makes. He does this as it generates comments, and comments below the video are partly what promotes his videos and drives traffic to his channel.

Did you e-mail the MBR editor to get them to correct it?

For once, yes.

Laughably, the contact page on their website was last updated in 2006 and is as false and misleading as that headline. Amateurs.

@tthew
Did you e-mail the MBR editor to get them to correct it?

Yes I did, and for anyone else who fancies doing the same details are below:

mbr@futurenet.com  – FAO Danny Milner (Editor)

Looks like MBR are employing journos from the Sun…….

To be fair, The Sun would have a headline that read more like

Taffs Terminate Trail Riders!

Trails doomed as Welsh forestry bureaucrats declare war on woke beardy mountain bikers with much-loved cycling centre to be turned into timber. 

I don’t honestly think the MBR headline is particularly dire. Mostly their subs come up with inspired stuff like: ‘I’ve been riding mountain bikes in all weathers for over 150 years and these are the best socks I’ve ever used!’ so I reckon we’ve got off lightly.

There’s probably an alternative with Taffs and Caffs figuring in it, but I can’t really be bothered to think through that as well.

Headline has been changed now it seems:

The revised version is one from the Daily Mail “tell the whole story in the headline” school of journalism, eh?

Do we think MBR have subs anyway? Possibly an online editor, but the contributor probably wrote the headline and clicked publish without it going past any more eyes.

I know I used to do the same on much bigger and better resourced mainstream media websites.

To be fair I had read various headlines (including threads here) that had me thinking it was all closing .

Glad it’s not!

Yes, STW have run some misleading headlines on this NRW story as well.

Their last one had “trails” in the headline, when this is specifically NOT about the trails.

Incompetence rather than malice though, TBF

Do we think MBR have subs anyway? Possibly an online editor,

They probably have an SEO person who is focussed entirely on traffic and doesn’t really care whether the headline is an accurate reflection of the story or not. They do clearly have, at least, some sort of house style when it comes to headlines, which usually revolves around the whole ‘I have tested a zillion widgets, but this may be the absolute greatest widget ever’ formula or something about how their ‘favourite ever widget is now reduced by 50% on Black Amazon Prime Friday Day’.

I still think we were lucky do to dodge ‘I’ve ridden millions of trail centres over the years, but Coed y Brenin was the best sock I have ever used and now you can buy it for 50% less with this amazing Black Friday offer’.

Anyway…

Still not a great headline – makes it sound like the visitors centre is only closed to Mountain Bikers……

Do any media outlets employ people with a basic grasp of the English language anymore? The spelling, punctuation and basic grammar in the local paper are shocking….

…is shocking

basic grasp of English and all that.

I think the reporting may have upset a few people e.g. this Facebook post that popped up in my feed

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18sKrkYbud/

@nickc DOH!

But in my defence I didn’t pass GCSE English Language lol And I’m not a journalist either….

Had this back from MBR today:

Nice to see they’ve actually spoken to the folks at CyB before publishing their article…….

Classic annoying apology:

assume that the complainant is confused or misunderstood

qualified apology using “if” or “any”

apologising for what happened rather than what they did

not admitting to doing anything wrong

claiming have “changed” or “revised” something rather than fixing it

The term “visitor’s centre” doesn’t help here. Saying “the visitor’s centre is closing” is completely accurate but inevitably people will think that means the whole thing.

I wouldn’t expect anything better from mbr. An ex magazine that gives bikes bad reviews because they gave it to a tester that doesn’t like the sort of riding appropriate for the bike. Also a magazine who’s writers were digging jump lines in the Surrey Hills that wouldn’t look out of place in a Brandon Semenuk video.

Had this back from MBR today:

It loses points for using the phrase “reach out”.

They can’t just ‘contact’ the bike shop. Maybe ‘phone’ the bike shop. Oh no..

/rolls eyes

Classic annoying apology:

assume that the complainant is confused or misunderstood

qualified apology using “if” or “any”

apologising for what happened rather than what they did

not admitting to doing anything wrong

claiming have “changed” or “revised” something rather than fixing it

It seems like a fair response to be honest. It acknowledges that the headline was misleading, apologises for it and says they’re going to dig deeper into the story. People presumably want something along the lines of: ‘What we published was entirely unacceptable, we’ve sacked the writer/sub concerned, here’s a cheque to compensate you for the indescribable suffering you’ve gone through…’ You seem keen on being offended.

I think, arguably, the more interesting story here is whether visitor centres are really huge loss-makers, if so, why? And what could be done to change that situation. I’m not a regular trail centre visitor – once every few years I guess – but I’m always struck by the way people on here seem hacked off by car parking charges and seem to think that buying a slice of cake and a coffee post-ride is going to pay for all the infrastructure and boost the local economy, the one they mostly drive past.

Bike Parks seem culturally distinct as places people will pay to ride – is that because they’re uplifted – but maybe if we expect decent facilities at places like CyB, we need to ask ourselves how they can be financed?

It loses points for using the phrase “reach out”.

Yes, that’s the one totally unacceptable aspect of the apology, but then Surrey is pretty much a suburb of New Hampshire, no? 🙂

. It acknowledges that the headline was misleading, apologises for it

As I said, it does neither.

You seem keen on being offended.

Not really just a bugbear thing that’s becoming more and more common, and we’re already taking a critical view of them here.

I’m always struck by the way people on here seem hacked off by car parking charges and seem to think that buying a slice of cake and a coffee post-ride is going to pay for all the infrastructure and boost the local economy, the one they mostly drive past.

The flipside of that argument is:

I’m always struck by the way a trail centre thinks that offering a bit of parking and some average coffee and cake is going to pay for all the infrastructure.

I note the article doesn’t mention anything about *when* this visitor centre is supposed to be closing… ?

If I go there this weekend, will I be able to get coffee and cake?! They’re almost creating the reason to close it by announcing it’ll close and everyone goes “oh OK, we’ll go to Llandegla instead” at which point CyB can say “see, no-one is coming here, we’re closing the cafe”.

Well, if we’re sticking the boot into MBR, then I’ll add my tuppence worth.

Over the years of reading it (a print subscription that I just didn’t get around to cancelling until I finally did) I built up an impression that you could pretty much guess how many of the enormous number of adverts were for each brand by the ratings their bikes got in reviews. I may be wrong, but there you are. There were certain brands where I saw one of their bikes being reviewed and I thought “No more than 7/10” – flick to the review… 7/10 every time.

Let’s just say that when Martin Maes started winning EWS rounds on a GT, I imagine there was some dismay amongst the editorial team.

As I said, it does neither.

I’m sorry you were offended by MBR’s apology 🙂

I’m always struck by the way a trail centre thinks that offering a bit of parking and some average coffee and cake is going to pay for all the infrastructure.

I don’t know if trail centres ‘think’ let alone think that. Wasn’t the historical argument always that the influx of mountain bikers visiting the trail centre meant that spending cascaded outwards into the local economy via accommodation, hospitality, people buying pasties from the local bakery etc rather than the trail centre itself being self-sustaining as a unit?

I have no idea if that still holds good – or if it ever did. Has the pattern of trail centre use changed? Are there fewer visitors? Do they drive in, ride, drink a coffee and go with little benefit to the local economy beyond that? Have the sort of mountain bike tourists who used to come for the weekend and spend time and money in the local town decamped to BPW or Dyfi instead?

I don’t know the answer to any of that, but there’s a central question there about funding the ongoing maintenance and facilities at trail centres and whether, if you close visitor centres / cafes – are they the same thing? – shops there, it creates a downward spiral in visitor numbers as a result or will people still ride, but use cafes in the local area post-ride instead?

Well done dirkpitt, I think it reads much better now, within the limitations of a headline.

Amd bikesandboots, I don’t agree with you. If it was one of those non-apologies it would say ‘…we are sorry you were confused…’ For the confusion is a common phase interpret as we confused a group of people. If they were being passive aggressive the headline wouldn’t have changed.

I’d say that’s quite reasonable from MBR.

I’ve just checked and STW’s story still has the headline: “Funding Cuts To Welsh Trails Confirmed”

Dunno if it’s sensationalist, but it’s certainly misleading IMO.

And why oh why are they still using title case for headlines? It’s **** awful.

Not too worried about grading the apology, but it kinda shows the whole article was rushed and poorly done. They didn’t even contact Beics Brenin, which is run by someone who’s been in the industry a long time and should be well known to MBR and STW (same guy who runs Summit Cycles in Aber, previously organised Dyfi Enduro). I know someone who works there and it’s a pretty nervy time and a risk for the business.

On the discussion about it being self-sustaining and car park costs, buying coffee etc., I think that’s missing the point entirely. Let’s not forget that this crisis is down to government funding cuts over the past decade and more. NRW probably hate being in this position, but they are unable to meet some of their statuary functions of providing leisure and access to the countryside. That’s where my beef lies. I’m more than happy for a small amount of tax £s to be spent on providing these facilities for all to use, for free. Economic benefits stem from that, but it shouldn’t be for NRW to make it economically self-sustaining, otherwise they’d just charge entry like a private bike park; and more to the point, the notion that services should pay for themselves is some of the worst of neoliberal thinking. I’m most annoyed at this aspect of the problem, that what should be provided to us is being eroded, and that the poverty of argument surrounding this is down to how inoculated we have become to the destruction of public services and public benefit that should be afforded to us.

Let’s not forget that this crisis is down to government funding cuts over the past decade and more. NRW probably hate being in this position

I don’t doubt that both of those things are true. I think what’s confusing most folks is that there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who’ve asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say “There’s nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we’ll just have to close the lot” for probably internal reasons that we’re not aware of.

there is a group of local businesses and volunteers who’ve asked to help and are willing to step in almost straight away, and come up with a plan, but have been ignored (it looks like on purpose) so that NRW can basically say “There’s nothing to be done, and no-one who can help, we’ll just have to close the lot” for probably internal reasons that we’re not aware of.

TBF to NRW, they are dealing with people’s jobs here so they have a defined process to follow – and after that the community group may be able to get involved.

But no media seem to have followed up with the group to get their take on this and to find out if they’ve had any luck with NRW in the mean time.

And so the group wander away to help elsewhere and so aren’t available when it is discovered that they are required here…

I wouldn’t be surprised if they simply just didn’t have the bandwidth to deal with the volunteer group side of things, with all of the job losses and reorganisation (or the motivation, given what is happening). I understand some frustration that there are people willing to help but they are not being engaged with, it’s probably part of the vicious cycle of the above, and this is one issue among many they probably don’t have capacity for. A crappy situation all round.

There’s an interview with the UK Trail Alliance on this subject on the bikeradar podcast for those interested.

NRW can’t just ‘let’ volunteers maintain trails etc – training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and ‘just helping out’ – it’s not that simple

They’ve been trying, but it takes a long time (like years in some cases…). And, the people they deal with at NRW are/have lost their jobs… Doesn’t exactly help matters.

NRW can’t just ‘let’ volunteers maintain trails etc – training, time, resources, H&S, regulations are all blocking people turning up and ‘just helping out’ – it’s not that simple

Yep, had a feeling there’d be something of that nature in the background. Not surprising (and actually entirely correct for it to be “a thing”).

It’d be a nightmare of liability if some volunteers turned up, picked up some of the NRW-owned trail maintenance equipment and had an accident – or built a feature which caused an accident for a member of the public. It’s difficult to “employ” volunteers too cos it starts impacting on all sorts of tax and minimum wage legislation.