Ten years ago today, I was watching Good Morning America, from my home at the time in the Midwest, thinking about getting ready to go to my office when Diane Sawyer and Charlie Gibson began reporting on the events which were beginning to unfold in New York. As more and more became known, and then other tragic events occurred, I was glued to the TV. There was no point in trying to be on time going into my office. I doubted anyone in America was in theirs to be calling me.
As time passed that morning, I began to think about what I should do. Was there really any point in publishing Cruise News Daily that day? Who in their right mind was going to be interested in reading about a cruise line's new itinerary or some other now-insignificant event in the cruise industry? I finally decided that it was my job to go to the office sometime that day and put out an issue. I concluded the right thing for me to do - for everyone to do - was try to make life again as normal as possible.
I still subscribe to that theory, and each time I talk about it, I'm still a little unsettled. By making things "normal" I don't want anyone to think I'm saying we should try to forget what happened on that day, but neither do I want to dwell on it. Life and the world moves on, but we shouldn't forget the past either. It's a delicate balance.
This week, in a report for ABC News about a 9-year-old boy - who wasn't even born yet on 9-11 but is one of the people most touched by the violence - Bill Weir got it exactly right, when he said, "It is possible to never forget as life goes on." And this almost-10-year-old shows us how.
(Please excuse the ad which plays prior to the piece. Even on 9-11 ABC has to pay the bills. The story itself is worth the wait of a few seconds. If you'd like to see it without the ad, it is available on YouTube, but embedding was disabled.)
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Sunday, September 11, 2011
Thursday, June 11, 2009
Do You Know Who's Cruising with You?
Albuquerque TV station KOB's website is carrying a story about a convicted sex offender from their area, apparently out on bond from another crime, who turned up on a cruise ship.
No one is alleging any wrongdoing on the part of the unnamed cruise line, because they aren't required to do a background check on their passengers. But there are two interesting aspects to this case.
The first is that man was discovered and arrested when he returned to Florida, apparently thanks to a Department of Homeland Security regulation that cruise lines submit their manifests (and identifying information about the names) to the department. As we've reported in the past, this program is regularly responsible for identifying passengers who have outstanding warrants for their arrest and routinely arresting them as the disembark their cruises at a US port. This was the case with this man who allegedly did not have permission from the courts for this trip.
The other interesting aspect of this item is a matter of journalist ethics. The lead in the article on KOB's website says the man "wound up on a Mexican cruise surrounded by children." The trouble with this is the aspect about the children seems to have been inserted just to add drama to the story. Nowhere else in the article does it mention anything about children being involved on the cruise. The only mention is in the embedded video piece from the station where the detective says he [the detective] has "been on several cruises and there's a lot of young kids there." It doesn't appear the man was "surrounded by children" any more than if he had gone shopping at the local shopping mall.
In any case, the man was arrested on several charges when he returned to Florida, including for leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and is awaiting extradition. There is no allegation that the man did anything improper while on the cruise ship. Nonetheless, it does give you a creepy feeling because you don't know what the people sitting next to you at the show in the theater may have done. Of course you don't know what the people sitting in the next booth at your local fast food restaurant may have been convicted of either.
No one is alleging any wrongdoing on the part of the unnamed cruise line, because they aren't required to do a background check on their passengers. But there are two interesting aspects to this case.
The first is that man was discovered and arrested when he returned to Florida, apparently thanks to a Department of Homeland Security regulation that cruise lines submit their manifests (and identifying information about the names) to the department. As we've reported in the past, this program is regularly responsible for identifying passengers who have outstanding warrants for their arrest and routinely arresting them as the disembark their cruises at a US port. This was the case with this man who allegedly did not have permission from the courts for this trip.
The other interesting aspect of this item is a matter of journalist ethics. The lead in the article on KOB's website says the man "wound up on a Mexican cruise surrounded by children." The trouble with this is the aspect about the children seems to have been inserted just to add drama to the story. Nowhere else in the article does it mention anything about children being involved on the cruise. The only mention is in the embedded video piece from the station where the detective says he [the detective] has "been on several cruises and there's a lot of young kids there." It doesn't appear the man was "surrounded by children" any more than if he had gone shopping at the local shopping mall.
In any case, the man was arrested on several charges when he returned to Florida, including for leaving the jurisdiction without permission, and is awaiting extradition. There is no allegation that the man did anything improper while on the cruise ship. Nonetheless, it does give you a creepy feeling because you don't know what the people sitting next to you at the show in the theater may have done. Of course you don't know what the people sitting in the next booth at your local fast food restaurant may have been convicted of either.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
And why is this news?
Carnival Fantasy returned to New Orleans yesterday as scheduled. Is that news? A lot of news outlets think it is, because the wire service story got carried by hundreds of outlets.
The reason for the report ostensibly is that it was the end of the cruise from which a 18-year-old went overboard and died while celebrating his graduation from high school. But the article that ran all these places did nothing to update the story. It did not have any new information; it did not have any comments by friends or family disembarking from the ship.
So what was the reason for running the story? Didn't they expect the ship to return? Or was it just to generate some more readership based on a very sad event that is causing misery for the boy's family and friends?
The reason for the report ostensibly is that it was the end of the cruise from which a 18-year-old went overboard and died while celebrating his graduation from high school. But the article that ran all these places did nothing to update the story. It did not have any new information; it did not have any comments by friends or family disembarking from the ship.
So what was the reason for running the story? Didn't they expect the ship to return? Or was it just to generate some more readership based on a very sad event that is causing misery for the boy's family and friends?
Sunday, May 3, 2009
The Other Side of the Equation
We are seeing a lot of articles, mostly from local news outlets on the West Coast, which are reporting the sudden windfall by their local port of cruise ships diverted from Mexican ports.
Most are reporting the reason is that the US Government has warned against nonessential travel to Mexico due to the H1N1 virus (that most regular people are still calling swine flu), and that the cruise lines have heeded that warning. Most of them are also reporting, most of them excitedly (many gleefully), the sizable economic benefits of having a large cruise ship call for a day. Even major cities like San Diego and San Francisco are having their civic heads turned by these ships bringing an expected million dollars to their communities. Not only are the cruise lines paying the ports for being there, but local merchants are also poised for a major unexpected windfall.
The sad part is that almost none of them, if any, acknowledge (let alone empathize) that for every one of those dollars coming into their city, it's a dollar not going into a Mexican port, most of whom have almost their entire economies based on tourism.
The cruise lines have done the right thing by suspending their calls in Mexico. The cross section of the population which takes cruises could easily and rapidly spread the influenza virus far and wide.
We're just saying that there needs to be some recognition that the good fortune on one side of the border is resulting in misery on the other.
Most are reporting the reason is that the US Government has warned against nonessential travel to Mexico due to the H1N1 virus (that most regular people are still calling swine flu), and that the cruise lines have heeded that warning. Most of them are also reporting, most of them excitedly (many gleefully), the sizable economic benefits of having a large cruise ship call for a day. Even major cities like San Diego and San Francisco are having their civic heads turned by these ships bringing an expected million dollars to their communities. Not only are the cruise lines paying the ports for being there, but local merchants are also poised for a major unexpected windfall.
The sad part is that almost none of them, if any, acknowledge (let alone empathize) that for every one of those dollars coming into their city, it's a dollar not going into a Mexican port, most of whom have almost their entire economies based on tourism.
The cruise lines have done the right thing by suspending their calls in Mexico. The cross section of the population which takes cruises could easily and rapidly spread the influenza virus far and wide.
We're just saying that there needs to be some recognition that the good fortune on one side of the border is resulting in misery on the other.
Thursday, April 9, 2009
What's Wrong with Alaska's Thinking
Earlier this week, the Anchorage Daily News published an editorial that, while it's a valid opinion, it also shows the wrong thinking in Alaska that's threatening to destroy their entire tourism industry as they now know it.
The situation the opinion piece addresses is the legislature trying to set the standards for cruise ships' waste water emissions. More strict standards were mandated in the 2006 citizens' initiative (which also added the infamous $50 tax among numerous other taxes and fees), but like everything else in the measure, it was left to the legislature to actually write the law (including the exact specifications) and implement it. According to the cruise lines, equipment with the technology to meet the standards that the state wants to set isn't even on the market yet, and once it is, it will take a couple of years to obtain it and get it installed.
The cruise lines have been working with the legislature to reach some sort of compromise and set some standards under which they can continue to operate. The mechanism the legislature seems to be now leaning toward is creating a panel which would study the ability of the cruise lines to meet the standards and the economic feasibility of it and have the panel report back in 2012 and 2014. Those dates seem to be in line with when the industry says the equipment will come onto the market and when they can get it installed.
The newspaper seems to be assuming that referring the issue to the panel for further study equates to the death of the idea. In the opinion piece, they say they want absolute deadlines set for those dates.
We see this as an example of the mindset in Alaska which could in the end destroy one of the state's most profitable sources of income and employment.
The major assumption this thinking has is that the state holds all the cards and the cruise industry will ultimately accept whatever conditions are placed upon their operation there. It is true that the state can dictate the conditions for cruise lines to operate there, but the fallacious part of the assumption is that the cruise industry will do whatever they need to do to continue to operate cruises to Alaska. If the state sets standards unreasonably high that it will be impossible or very difficult for the cruise industry to meet, they are a very mobile industry which can disappear almost overnight if necessary.
The thinking in Alaska that the ADN represents, forgets that cruise lines exist only to make money for their investors, and times have changed both in the cruise industry and in Alaska. Pricing for cruises is currently down, and the state has already added tremendously to the cost side of the equation in the Alaska market. As a result, there are now other markets where it's more profitable to operate cruises than in Alaska, and there are more opening all the time.
Yes, the cruise lines have assets on land in Alaska that they don't have elsewhere, but the cruise lines are demonstrating their willingness to walk away from those. Next year they are intentionally planning to operate them below capacity as they shrink the supply of cruise berths in the market in an effort to increase pricing. It's much easier today to envision the cruise industry leaving Alaska than it has ever been in the past.
The other part of the mindset that's wrong in Alaska is to not consider a certain degree of pollution by the cruise industry acceptable. It's great to aspire to zero pollution, but in reality Alaskans are already compromising those ideals for themselves. Alaskans are driving cars that are polluting the air, and their cities are putting waste into the water that are nowhere close to the standards they want to require of cruise ships because they know it's economically unfeasible to suddenly require their cars and cities to meet the same air and water standards.
With that in mind, they need to start thinking about there being some middle ground between the ideal they want and what's realistic for the cruise industry to meet at a cost they can afford and that the consumer will be willing to pay to come to Alaska. If Alaskans adhere to the ideal, instead of reality, that's OK, but they must also recognize that it seems they will also be facing a future without a cruise industry - and the economic benefits and jobs it brings to their state.
You can read the Anchorage Daily News editorial on the ADN site, but you will have to scroll down after you click on the link.
This article originally appeared in the April 9, 2009, edition of Cruise News Daily.
The situation the opinion piece addresses is the legislature trying to set the standards for cruise ships' waste water emissions. More strict standards were mandated in the 2006 citizens' initiative (which also added the infamous $50 tax among numerous other taxes and fees), but like everything else in the measure, it was left to the legislature to actually write the law (including the exact specifications) and implement it. According to the cruise lines, equipment with the technology to meet the standards that the state wants to set isn't even on the market yet, and once it is, it will take a couple of years to obtain it and get it installed.
The cruise lines have been working with the legislature to reach some sort of compromise and set some standards under which they can continue to operate. The mechanism the legislature seems to be now leaning toward is creating a panel which would study the ability of the cruise lines to meet the standards and the economic feasibility of it and have the panel report back in 2012 and 2014. Those dates seem to be in line with when the industry says the equipment will come onto the market and when they can get it installed.
The newspaper seems to be assuming that referring the issue to the panel for further study equates to the death of the idea. In the opinion piece, they say they want absolute deadlines set for those dates.
We see this as an example of the mindset in Alaska which could in the end destroy one of the state's most profitable sources of income and employment.
The major assumption this thinking has is that the state holds all the cards and the cruise industry will ultimately accept whatever conditions are placed upon their operation there. It is true that the state can dictate the conditions for cruise lines to operate there, but the fallacious part of the assumption is that the cruise industry will do whatever they need to do to continue to operate cruises to Alaska. If the state sets standards unreasonably high that it will be impossible or very difficult for the cruise industry to meet, they are a very mobile industry which can disappear almost overnight if necessary.
The thinking in Alaska that the ADN represents, forgets that cruise lines exist only to make money for their investors, and times have changed both in the cruise industry and in Alaska. Pricing for cruises is currently down, and the state has already added tremendously to the cost side of the equation in the Alaska market. As a result, there are now other markets where it's more profitable to operate cruises than in Alaska, and there are more opening all the time.
Yes, the cruise lines have assets on land in Alaska that they don't have elsewhere, but the cruise lines are demonstrating their willingness to walk away from those. Next year they are intentionally planning to operate them below capacity as they shrink the supply of cruise berths in the market in an effort to increase pricing. It's much easier today to envision the cruise industry leaving Alaska than it has ever been in the past.
The other part of the mindset that's wrong in Alaska is to not consider a certain degree of pollution by the cruise industry acceptable. It's great to aspire to zero pollution, but in reality Alaskans are already compromising those ideals for themselves. Alaskans are driving cars that are polluting the air, and their cities are putting waste into the water that are nowhere close to the standards they want to require of cruise ships because they know it's economically unfeasible to suddenly require their cars and cities to meet the same air and water standards.
With that in mind, they need to start thinking about there being some middle ground between the ideal they want and what's realistic for the cruise industry to meet at a cost they can afford and that the consumer will be willing to pay to come to Alaska. If Alaskans adhere to the ideal, instead of reality, that's OK, but they must also recognize that it seems they will also be facing a future without a cruise industry - and the economic benefits and jobs it brings to their state.
You can read the Anchorage Daily News editorial on the ADN site, but you will have to scroll down after you click on the link.
This article originally appeared in the April 9, 2009, edition of Cruise News Daily.
Monday, April 6, 2009
Will You Be Cruising to Cuba Anytime Soon?
Will your cruise ship sailing out of Miami be adding a call at a Cuban port anytime soon? No.
The US news media is reporting that the Obama administration will be relaxing travel restrictions on US citizens traveling to Cuba. Most are barely mentioning that this applies only to people traveling to visit relatives in Cuba, and virtually none are mentioning that the US trade embargo will remain unaffected.
Still travel websites are excitedly discussing the possibilities.
As long as the trade embargo remains in effect the cruise lines can't do business with Cuban businesses, so they won't be calling at any Cuban ports unless the trade embargo is abolished.
Aside from that, there are other issues that have always been there. Cruise lines have commitments to call at ports specified numbers of times in a year, and to suddenly substitute some calls at Cuban ports for even a few ships would have to cause major reshuffling within the fleets. Once Cuban calls are possible, it will have to be a process.
Beyond that, there's a political aspect that's not apparent if you are somewhere outside South Florida. There are a lot of Cuban-Americans in South Florida, many working for the cruise lines in their home offices. The Cuban-American community is about evenly divided on the issue of doing business with Cuba, and both sides are very passionate in their views. With that in mind, until the trade embargo is lifted, the cruise lines would prefer not to even address the issue, because no matter which way they would be leaning, it would be very hurtful to many of their employees.
The US news media is reporting that the Obama administration will be relaxing travel restrictions on US citizens traveling to Cuba. Most are barely mentioning that this applies only to people traveling to visit relatives in Cuba, and virtually none are mentioning that the US trade embargo will remain unaffected.
Still travel websites are excitedly discussing the possibilities.
As long as the trade embargo remains in effect the cruise lines can't do business with Cuban businesses, so they won't be calling at any Cuban ports unless the trade embargo is abolished.
Aside from that, there are other issues that have always been there. Cruise lines have commitments to call at ports specified numbers of times in a year, and to suddenly substitute some calls at Cuban ports for even a few ships would have to cause major reshuffling within the fleets. Once Cuban calls are possible, it will have to be a process.
Beyond that, there's a political aspect that's not apparent if you are somewhere outside South Florida. There are a lot of Cuban-Americans in South Florida, many working for the cruise lines in their home offices. The Cuban-American community is about evenly divided on the issue of doing business with Cuba, and both sides are very passionate in their views. With that in mind, until the trade embargo is lifted, the cruise lines would prefer not to even address the issue, because no matter which way they would be leaning, it would be very hurtful to many of their employees.
Friday, February 27, 2009
Missing the Bigger Picture
There are two types of articles being written about the cruise industry lately. One is consumer-oriented and talks about what good deals there are on cruises at the moment. The others have more of a business orientation and talk about how times are bad for the cruise industry.
The consumer-oriented articles point out how the good value of a cruise has become even better with lower prices being offered. But then they take a slightly darker turn when the writer interviews some other travel writer and that "expert" says how the prices are down because the business is down and indicates how "desperate" the cruise lines are to fill their cabins. That's usually followed by another article by the second writer who interviews the first writer, and that's how these articles proliferate.
The business-oriented articles are usually written by someone who really doesn't know much about the cruise industry. They take some piece of financial information they have picked up and for some authoritative-sounding quote, they go to one of the people who have been quoted in one of the consumer pieces, giving them some title like "industry-watcher." In the end, the article comes off talking about how cruise lines are "scrambling" to fill empty space and indicate that it's a tough time for the cruise industry.
Is it really that bad?
Not really. Yes, the articles are right that prices are generally way down, and there are excellent bargains for the consumer. Those prices do result in lower profits for cruise lines; that's only logical, but there are two important points that those articles are missing, if they'd only step back and look at the big picture.
One is that the lower prices are resulting in LOWER profits, not LOSSES. Sure it's disappointing for investors to be looking at profits that are a fraction of what they were a year earlier, but you don't have to look far to find other businesses - even in the travel industry - that are reporting huge losses.
The other thing that should be noticed is that while the prices are reduced, cruise ships are still being consistently filled. That can't be said for other segments of the hospitality industry.
The time to worry would be if cruise lines CAN'T fill those cabins no matter how low the pricing goes. But not only aren't we there yet, cruise lines have several things, other than price, in their arsenal that can stimulate sales. One is something that the rest of the hospitality industry can't do: relocate their inventory. If a ship isn't selling well one place, it can be moved to a destination people do want to buy.
Moving a ship to a different homeport can also create an "instant discount" of hundreds of dollars in a market for millions of potential customers, by eliminating their need for travel expenses (air fares). The best part for the cruise line is that "discount" on the total price doesn't really cost them anything.
Even when they pick up on one of these concepts, such as moving a ship's homeport to eliminate transportation costs for consumers, many of the writers of these articles are also missing the "big picture" concept. They don't seem to realize that cruise companies today are global operations, sourcing customers from all over the world. They often write about "pulling ships back from Europe," which they see as an expensive destination, but it escapes them that most of the passengers boarding a Southampton-based ship, for example, may be from the UK and have chosen that cruise because it is "local" to them and they can save transportation cost by driving to it.
Another "big picture" concept being missed is that not everyone is out of a job or worried that they may lose theirs tomorrow. Even if the jobless rate were to climb to 10%, it still means 90% of the population has jobs and it's business as normal in their households. The surveys continue to say people who have jobs still want to go on vacation, but they want to spend less doing it. And positioned to fill that desire is the cruise industry, ready with shorter cruises and their bargain rates that are such good values. How are so many of the "industry-watchers" missing this?
It's almost like they are rooting for the cruise industry to have trouble so it will make dramatic headlines for them. A few days ago Royal Caribbean filed a routine form with the SEC about their outlook for this year. In it they discussed how the credit market has changed and how they, when credit was easier to obtain, originally believed they had all their financing in place for Oasis of the Seas. They stated they are now faced with having ongoing negotiations to obtain all the financing they need. It was a routine statement of the situation, but many of the "industry-watchers" excerpted that portion of the lengthy report and created articles talking about how Oasis may be "sunk." With the ship on schedule for handover in November, and whatever economic impact it will have, either delivered or not, do any of these people really believe there is really much of a possibility it will come down to November and Royal Caribbean will just tell STX, "Sorry, we can't pay for it?" Yet there were at least a half dozen articles written with headlines implying that lack of financing could cancel the project.
Anyone who has sold anything for a living knows there are up cycles and down cycles, and good days and bad days. Cruise lines know better days will come. They are not canceling orders for new ships, and those in the pipeline are being built because they know that profit margins will again rise, and they want to be ready when they do.
In the meantime, continue to read the articles by the "industry-watchers," but just be sure when you finish, you step back and see the real picture.
Originally published in Cruise News Daily February 27, 2009. Copyright CND, all rights reserved. This article may not be legally posted elsewhere.
The consumer-oriented articles point out how the good value of a cruise has become even better with lower prices being offered. But then they take a slightly darker turn when the writer interviews some other travel writer and that "expert" says how the prices are down because the business is down and indicates how "desperate" the cruise lines are to fill their cabins. That's usually followed by another article by the second writer who interviews the first writer, and that's how these articles proliferate.
The business-oriented articles are usually written by someone who really doesn't know much about the cruise industry. They take some piece of financial information they have picked up and for some authoritative-sounding quote, they go to one of the people who have been quoted in one of the consumer pieces, giving them some title like "industry-watcher." In the end, the article comes off talking about how cruise lines are "scrambling" to fill empty space and indicate that it's a tough time for the cruise industry.
Is it really that bad?
Not really. Yes, the articles are right that prices are generally way down, and there are excellent bargains for the consumer. Those prices do result in lower profits for cruise lines; that's only logical, but there are two important points that those articles are missing, if they'd only step back and look at the big picture.
One is that the lower prices are resulting in LOWER profits, not LOSSES. Sure it's disappointing for investors to be looking at profits that are a fraction of what they were a year earlier, but you don't have to look far to find other businesses - even in the travel industry - that are reporting huge losses.
The other thing that should be noticed is that while the prices are reduced, cruise ships are still being consistently filled. That can't be said for other segments of the hospitality industry.
The time to worry would be if cruise lines CAN'T fill those cabins no matter how low the pricing goes. But not only aren't we there yet, cruise lines have several things, other than price, in their arsenal that can stimulate sales. One is something that the rest of the hospitality industry can't do: relocate their inventory. If a ship isn't selling well one place, it can be moved to a destination people do want to buy.
Moving a ship to a different homeport can also create an "instant discount" of hundreds of dollars in a market for millions of potential customers, by eliminating their need for travel expenses (air fares). The best part for the cruise line is that "discount" on the total price doesn't really cost them anything.
Even when they pick up on one of these concepts, such as moving a ship's homeport to eliminate transportation costs for consumers, many of the writers of these articles are also missing the "big picture" concept. They don't seem to realize that cruise companies today are global operations, sourcing customers from all over the world. They often write about "pulling ships back from Europe," which they see as an expensive destination, but it escapes them that most of the passengers boarding a Southampton-based ship, for example, may be from the UK and have chosen that cruise because it is "local" to them and they can save transportation cost by driving to it.
Another "big picture" concept being missed is that not everyone is out of a job or worried that they may lose theirs tomorrow. Even if the jobless rate were to climb to 10%, it still means 90% of the population has jobs and it's business as normal in their households. The surveys continue to say people who have jobs still want to go on vacation, but they want to spend less doing it. And positioned to fill that desire is the cruise industry, ready with shorter cruises and their bargain rates that are such good values. How are so many of the "industry-watchers" missing this?
It's almost like they are rooting for the cruise industry to have trouble so it will make dramatic headlines for them. A few days ago Royal Caribbean filed a routine form with the SEC about their outlook for this year. In it they discussed how the credit market has changed and how they, when credit was easier to obtain, originally believed they had all their financing in place for Oasis of the Seas. They stated they are now faced with having ongoing negotiations to obtain all the financing they need. It was a routine statement of the situation, but many of the "industry-watchers" excerpted that portion of the lengthy report and created articles talking about how Oasis may be "sunk." With the ship on schedule for handover in November, and whatever economic impact it will have, either delivered or not, do any of these people really believe there is really much of a possibility it will come down to November and Royal Caribbean will just tell STX, "Sorry, we can't pay for it?" Yet there were at least a half dozen articles written with headlines implying that lack of financing could cancel the project.
Anyone who has sold anything for a living knows there are up cycles and down cycles, and good days and bad days. Cruise lines know better days will come. They are not canceling orders for new ships, and those in the pipeline are being built because they know that profit margins will again rise, and they want to be ready when they do.
In the meantime, continue to read the articles by the "industry-watchers," but just be sure when you finish, you step back and see the real picture.
Originally published in Cruise News Daily February 27, 2009. Copyright CND, all rights reserved. This article may not be legally posted elsewhere.
Thursday, October 30, 2008
From the don't believe everything you read department
It seems that lately there have been several articles published by various media outlets that are either basically untrue or the headline and lead seem designed to seriously mislead the reader.
Here are the entries in our hall of shame:
The Mirror published an article that says a crew member aboard Queen Mary 2 murdered his girlfriend who was also his supervisor while the ship was in dry dock in Hamburg. It even goes on to say an autopsy will be held. The problem here is that the story is almost completely false. The altercation basically came down to a scuffle, according to Cunard. The man was taken into custody by police who took him in for questioning and later released him. The woman is still quite alive.
The Telegraph carried an article yesterday headlined, "Cruise passengers tossed into sea in high winds off northern Spain." That calls up visions of passengers on deck being blown off the deck into the ocean while the ship is at sea. Not exactly. The passengers were boarding the ship while strong winds were moving it, and the gangway which they were using fell into the water. While it's certainly a serious situation, it's not really the one the headline leads you to believe "off northern Spain." It happened right in port on the Spanish mainland.
And then there was the article entitled "Holidaymakers stranded in Liverpool dock after cruise is cancelled," which ran in the Mail, as well as similarly titled articles in other newspapers. That evokes images of passengers being in a strange city on their own with no way to leave or get home. Not exactly. It seems their short cruise, which embarked at Liverpool, was canceled due to bad weather just off shore. Instead of sailing the cruise line operated everything aboard the ship just as if they were at sea. Since it was a weather-related reason for the cancellation, the line was unwilling to provide a cash refund but did offer credits toward a future cruise. They even provided local sightseeing. Granted, there is a story in the customer service aspect, the passengers were hardly "stranded" as the title says.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Here are the entries in our hall of shame:
The Mirror published an article that says a crew member aboard Queen Mary 2 murdered his girlfriend who was also his supervisor while the ship was in dry dock in Hamburg. It even goes on to say an autopsy will be held. The problem here is that the story is almost completely false. The altercation basically came down to a scuffle, according to Cunard. The man was taken into custody by police who took him in for questioning and later released him. The woman is still quite alive.
The Telegraph carried an article yesterday headlined, "Cruise passengers tossed into sea in high winds off northern Spain." That calls up visions of passengers on deck being blown off the deck into the ocean while the ship is at sea. Not exactly. The passengers were boarding the ship while strong winds were moving it, and the gangway which they were using fell into the water. While it's certainly a serious situation, it's not really the one the headline leads you to believe "off northern Spain." It happened right in port on the Spanish mainland.
And then there was the article entitled "Holidaymakers stranded in Liverpool dock after cruise is cancelled," which ran in the Mail, as well as similarly titled articles in other newspapers. That evokes images of passengers being in a strange city on their own with no way to leave or get home. Not exactly. It seems their short cruise, which embarked at Liverpool, was canceled due to bad weather just off shore. Instead of sailing the cruise line operated everything aboard the ship just as if they were at sea. Since it was a weather-related reason for the cancellation, the line was unwilling to provide a cash refund but did offer credits toward a future cruise. They even provided local sightseeing. Granted, there is a story in the customer service aspect, the passengers were hardly "stranded" as the title says.
Never let the facts get in the way of a good story.
Monday, December 31, 2007
From the isn't this silly department
A bunch of newspapers are reporting that there have been about 80 cases of norovirus aboard Queen Victoria's second cruise.
As we've discussed in the past, that's silly enough. They don't report it when a number of people at a local school or manufacturing plant infect each other with cases of flu - or norovirus - so why do they do it when it's on a cruise ship, especially in this case where the percentages are so small? But that's another story.
In this case what's really silly is that some of newspapers - especially in the UK - seem to be trying to create a link in readers' minds to the "bad luck" that superstitiously goes along with the bottle not breaking on the first try when the the Duchess of Cornwall named the ship a couple of weeks ago. You can check examples in The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, This is London (calling it "the curse of Camilla), and as far away as in Australia's The Age.
Much of their coverage of the ship's entry into service earlier this month centered on that bottle not breaking. Sure it's an interesting sidelight, but it's certainly not unique. It's not worthy of being the headline or the focus of the story, especially compared to the real story of the size of Carnival's investment in the British cruise industry and the number of additional berths Cunard will have.
Granted, the Duchess of Cornwall is not one of the more popular Royals in the UK, but three weeks ago she pushed a button and a piece of glass doesn't break on queue, and now trying to link that event to people getting norovirus this week is just silly. Every time a passenger has a bit of bad luck aboard the ship, such as losing in the casino, will these papers attribute that to the Duchess, too? Leave the woman alone.
Note: Links are valid at the time of posting.
As we've discussed in the past, that's silly enough. They don't report it when a number of people at a local school or manufacturing plant infect each other with cases of flu - or norovirus - so why do they do it when it's on a cruise ship, especially in this case where the percentages are so small? But that's another story.
In this case what's really silly is that some of newspapers - especially in the UK - seem to be trying to create a link in readers' minds to the "bad luck" that superstitiously goes along with the bottle not breaking on the first try when the the Duchess of Cornwall named the ship a couple of weeks ago. You can check examples in The Times, The Guardian, The Telegraph, This is London (calling it "the curse of Camilla), and as far away as in Australia's The Age.
Much of their coverage of the ship's entry into service earlier this month centered on that bottle not breaking. Sure it's an interesting sidelight, but it's certainly not unique. It's not worthy of being the headline or the focus of the story, especially compared to the real story of the size of Carnival's investment in the British cruise industry and the number of additional berths Cunard will have.
Granted, the Duchess of Cornwall is not one of the more popular Royals in the UK, but three weeks ago she pushed a button and a piece of glass doesn't break on queue, and now trying to link that event to people getting norovirus this week is just silly. Every time a passenger has a bit of bad luck aboard the ship, such as losing in the casino, will these papers attribute that to the Duchess, too? Leave the woman alone.
Note: Links are valid at the time of posting.
Friday, December 14, 2007
* From the Credibility Department:
Last Monday, I was fortunate to be invited by Cunard to attend the naming ceremony for Queen Victoria. I'm sure you've read accounts of the ceremony itself.
It was stupendous. Cunard spent gobs of money on the event - even building an auditorium for it on the pier. They brought forty-some journalists from the US to cover it. They were primarily from publications (print or web-based) that cover the cruise industry. There wasn't a chance to spend a cent out of your own pocket during the two-day stay. Cunard asked nothing of us, other than the implied expectation that we would actually run articles about the ship.
There was one thing they asked. On the itinerary we received before we left home, and again on the updated one we received in Southampton, it said that photography and video recording was not allowed during the ceremony. Again at the beginning of the event, they made the announcement that Cunard respectfully requests that there be no photography or video recording during the ceremony.
I have to admit I was tempted to sneak a couple photos, but then wondered, "Why should I?" Cunard had professional videographers recording the event from several angles, and they had a bevy of professional photographers positioned in a press area, who had been briefed on when they could move and where they could go to get the best shots. Nothing any of us would take could in any way be considered exclusive, and certainly wouldn't be of the quality coming from the super-expensive equipment of the pros. And our angles wouldn't be anywhere nearly as good as the shots from the photographers who would be positioned at the edge of the stage at the time when the Duchess actually named the ship.
Cunard promised us electronic versions of some of the still photos and clips of the video would be available to us within minutes of the end of the event. More photos would be available later, and a recording of the complete ceremony would be issued later. Knowing how this works, there would probably be hundreds of other photos available if you have some specific need.
So why would anyone want to take their own pictures? Refraining from taking pictures is the only thing our host had asked of us. Sure there was a chance that the Duchess of Cornwall would step off the stage and fall in the orchestra pit, or that Prince Charles' pants would fall down. I'm sure pictures of that wouldn't be made available, but chances of either of those photo ops seemed astronomically slim. So like most of my colleagues, I just sat back and enjoyed a magnificent event.
When I returned to the ship, I wrote about the event for CND, and as promised, photos were already available to us, and I used one with the story.
When I returned home, I was surprised that so many of my colleagues from other publications had their own photos on their websites. None of them were from good camera angles. Most of them were poor-quality photos besides. At least one person took crappy-quality video clips and posted them.
The point of all this is that if they can't refrain from breaking the rules here, it indicates a lack of integrity. To me it also speaks to their credibility. In the future, whenever I read anything written by those people who have the "illegal" photos or video on their websites, I'm going to wonder what other ethics they've ignored. Have they plagiarized? Have they made up "facts" or "quotes?" Or is this the time they are operating within the rules of journalistic ethics?
It was stupendous. Cunard spent gobs of money on the event - even building an auditorium for it on the pier. They brought forty-some journalists from the US to cover it. They were primarily from publications (print or web-based) that cover the cruise industry. There wasn't a chance to spend a cent out of your own pocket during the two-day stay. Cunard asked nothing of us, other than the implied expectation that we would actually run articles about the ship.
There was one thing they asked. On the itinerary we received before we left home, and again on the updated one we received in Southampton, it said that photography and video recording was not allowed during the ceremony. Again at the beginning of the event, they made the announcement that Cunard respectfully requests that there be no photography or video recording during the ceremony.
I have to admit I was tempted to sneak a couple photos, but then wondered, "Why should I?" Cunard had professional videographers recording the event from several angles, and they had a bevy of professional photographers positioned in a press area, who had been briefed on when they could move and where they could go to get the best shots. Nothing any of us would take could in any way be considered exclusive, and certainly wouldn't be of the quality coming from the super-expensive equipment of the pros. And our angles wouldn't be anywhere nearly as good as the shots from the photographers who would be positioned at the edge of the stage at the time when the Duchess actually named the ship.
Cunard promised us electronic versions of some of the still photos and clips of the video would be available to us within minutes of the end of the event. More photos would be available later, and a recording of the complete ceremony would be issued later. Knowing how this works, there would probably be hundreds of other photos available if you have some specific need.
So why would anyone want to take their own pictures? Refraining from taking pictures is the only thing our host had asked of us. Sure there was a chance that the Duchess of Cornwall would step off the stage and fall in the orchestra pit, or that Prince Charles' pants would fall down. I'm sure pictures of that wouldn't be made available, but chances of either of those photo ops seemed astronomically slim. So like most of my colleagues, I just sat back and enjoyed a magnificent event.
When I returned to the ship, I wrote about the event for CND, and as promised, photos were already available to us, and I used one with the story.
When I returned home, I was surprised that so many of my colleagues from other publications had their own photos on their websites. None of them were from good camera angles. Most of them were poor-quality photos besides. At least one person took crappy-quality video clips and posted them.
The point of all this is that if they can't refrain from breaking the rules here, it indicates a lack of integrity. To me it also speaks to their credibility. In the future, whenever I read anything written by those people who have the "illegal" photos or video on their websites, I'm going to wonder what other ethics they've ignored. Have they plagiarized? Have they made up "facts" or "quotes?" Or is this the time they are operating within the rules of journalistic ethics?
Wednesday, December 5, 2007
From the cruises for everyone department:
An clever journalist in the UK (and probably one who dreams of going on a cruise) has looked at what it costs to jail criminals in the UK annually, compared that to the per diem on a P&O world cruise, multiplied it by 365 and realized it would be cheaper to send the criminals on a year-long world cruise.
The article appears in London's Daily Mail.
If they switch to the "alternative system," expect a rise in the crime rate.
The article appears in London's Daily Mail.
If they switch to the "alternative system," expect a rise in the crime rate.
Monday, December 3, 2007
From the nice little story department:
At this time of year, when you hear "Santa," most people assume the next word will be "Clause," but thousands of people - especially the ones employed by Princess Cruises and Cunard - automatically assume the next word will be "Clarita."
There's a nice little story about Princess Cruises in the LA Daily News that updates the local population about the the giant company that quietly lives in their midst in Santa Clarita (California). In mid-article, however, it seems to take an unscheduled detour via Gavin MacLeod and "The Love Boat."
Note: Link is valid at the time of posting.
There's a nice little story about Princess Cruises in the LA Daily News that updates the local population about the the giant company that quietly lives in their midst in Santa Clarita (California). In mid-article, however, it seems to take an unscheduled detour via Gavin MacLeod and "The Love Boat."
Note: Link is valid at the time of posting.
Thursday, November 29, 2007
From the difference of perspective department:
Many North American fans of Princess Cruises as sad to see the line deploying the Sun-class ships on more exotic itineraries that are far from US shores. They say they enjoy the "smaller" ships because they are "more intimate." Princess earlier this year announced that Sun Princess would be homeported in Australia year round, and just last week they said that Dawn Princess would also remain there year round beginning late next year.
Sun Princess made its maiden call at Fremantle last week (actually the occasion was when the line announced Dawn would also be homeported in Australia), and it was interesting the way the local media covered it. The 77,00-ton ship that fans North America see as a "small ship" made headlines in The West Australian as the "giant cruise ship" arriving at Fremantle. The article then went on to refer to it as "one of the world's largest cruise ships."
It's all a matter of perspective.
Sun Princess made its maiden call at Fremantle last week (actually the occasion was when the line announced Dawn would also be homeported in Australia), and it was interesting the way the local media covered it. The 77,00-ton ship that fans North America see as a "small ship" made headlines in The West Australian as the "giant cruise ship" arriving at Fremantle. The article then went on to refer to it as "one of the world's largest cruise ships."
It's all a matter of perspective.
Monday, November 5, 2007
From the is this news department:
Here's the story: Two passengers die from natural causes aboard Celebrity's Summit last week while the ship was en route from San Diego to Hawaii. That's not much of a story, but it was enough to generate articles from a number of outlets (we counted at least six) and three from the Honolulu Advertiser alone (including two follow-ups). To make it even more of a waste of space, when the original was published, it included a statement from Royal Caribbean saying the two deaths were completely unrelated (and went on to give the causes). (If they had in any way been related, it would have been unusual and would have had some newsworthyness.)
The general media needs to get over this attitude of anything that happens on a cruise ship is news (such as norovirus outbreaks - they need to learn what the numbers mean). I noticed that on the same day the original story ran, they carried 26 local obituaries. If it's only a matter of grabbing readers' attention, "26 Dead in Honolulu" sounds like a much bigger story to me than "Two Hawaii cruise ship deaths from 'natural causes'" or the following day's follow-up, "Cruise ship arrives in Hawaii with two dead." (By the way, just in case you were wondering, the follow-up article also details the death of a humpback whale Summit struck accidentally in Alaska in 2006, and perhaps I'm dense, but I cannot see the relevance there either.)
Note: Links are valid at time of posting.
The general media needs to get over this attitude of anything that happens on a cruise ship is news (such as norovirus outbreaks - they need to learn what the numbers mean). I noticed that on the same day the original story ran, they carried 26 local obituaries. If it's only a matter of grabbing readers' attention, "26 Dead in Honolulu" sounds like a much bigger story to me than "Two Hawaii cruise ship deaths from 'natural causes'" or the following day's follow-up, "Cruise ship arrives in Hawaii with two dead." (By the way, just in case you were wondering, the follow-up article also details the death of a humpback whale Summit struck accidentally in Alaska in 2006, and perhaps I'm dense, but I cannot see the relevance there either.)
Note: Links are valid at time of posting.
Wednesday, October 31, 2007
From the in the Caribbean now department:
Emerald Princess entered service in the Mediterranean last spring, but just arrived at its winter home (Ft. Lauderdale) last weekend. This winter it will be sailing a pattern of 10-night cruises round trip from Port Everglades, and yesterday Emerald Princess made its maiden call at St. Thomas. The event was covered by Caribbean Net News. St. Thomas is one of the busiest ports in the Caribbean, but even so, the arrival of a new ship still make big local news.
Tuesday, October 23, 2007
From the with friends like this department:
Did you catch the somewhat uneven review of writer Jason Cochran's cruise to Bermuda aboard Azamara Journey in the New York Post? It starts off favorably enough, but the farther you read the less happy he seems to be with the experience.
To sum it up, he seems to like the hardware and the concept, but is anything but impressed with the onboard product.
Part of the problem may be that Mr. Cochran is confused about where Royal Caribbean is positioning the Azamara brand. (Maybe Royal Caribbean itself is sending mixed signals, or at least unclear ones to those who don't know much about the travel industry.) At one point he says that the rates of $1,500 to $2,500 for a 14-night cruise are "sane." Those certainly aren't luxury prices by any stretch of the imagination. ($175/night at the top end of the range for luxury?) When, in another place, he says, "When I spend this much for a cruise...." he starts to lose credibility with me for knowing about luxury cruising. (Seabourn Odyssey will debut with minimum accommodations starting at $645/night.) Then he chides Azamara by saying, "Let's not pretend that you're a true luxury brand." I'm not sure who is pretending and who is confused.
If Mr. Cochran had just stuck to talking about the things he liked and didn't like about the product, it would have been an excellent and credible review.
Note: Link is valid at time of posting.
To sum it up, he seems to like the hardware and the concept, but is anything but impressed with the onboard product.
Part of the problem may be that Mr. Cochran is confused about where Royal Caribbean is positioning the Azamara brand. (Maybe Royal Caribbean itself is sending mixed signals, or at least unclear ones to those who don't know much about the travel industry.) At one point he says that the rates of $1,500 to $2,500 for a 14-night cruise are "sane." Those certainly aren't luxury prices by any stretch of the imagination. ($175/night at the top end of the range for luxury?) When, in another place, he says, "When I spend this much for a cruise...." he starts to lose credibility with me for knowing about luxury cruising. (Seabourn Odyssey will debut with minimum accommodations starting at $645/night.) Then he chides Azamara by saying, "Let's not pretend that you're a true luxury brand." I'm not sure who is pretending and who is confused.
If Mr. Cochran had just stuck to talking about the things he liked and didn't like about the product, it would have been an excellent and credible review.
Note: Link is valid at time of posting.
Friday, October 19, 2007
From the word travels slowly department:
Royal Caribbean acquired Spanish tour operator Pullmantur and their ships a year ago, but for some reason the English-speaking Cuban press seems to just be discovering it and its effects on the island nation. In the last week, we've seen a couple of articles on the subject running in the Cuban press. The one appearing in Gramma yesterday is the more thorough.
US law prohibits US-owned companies from doing business with Cuba. The immediate effect of the acquisition was that Cuban crew members aboard the Pullmantur ships had to be terminated and sent home. Longer term, it also means, of course, that Pullmantur's ships will no longer be calling at Cuban ports.
There was a similar economic loss to the island when Carnival Corp acquired Costa Crociere. Cruise News Daily has reported several times over the last few years on the potential Cuba has had both as a port of call and a port of embarkation in combination with European-sourced charter flights. In addition to the direct loss of calls and jobs caused by the US embargo, another provision of the embargo that also stifles Cuba's cruise industry is one that prohibits calls at any US port (including San Juan and St. Thomas) by any ship which has called at a Cuban port within the previous six months.
US law prohibits US-owned companies from doing business with Cuba. The immediate effect of the acquisition was that Cuban crew members aboard the Pullmantur ships had to be terminated and sent home. Longer term, it also means, of course, that Pullmantur's ships will no longer be calling at Cuban ports.
There was a similar economic loss to the island when Carnival Corp acquired Costa Crociere. Cruise News Daily has reported several times over the last few years on the potential Cuba has had both as a port of call and a port of embarkation in combination with European-sourced charter flights. In addition to the direct loss of calls and jobs caused by the US embargo, another provision of the embargo that also stifles Cuba's cruise industry is one that prohibits calls at any US port (including San Juan and St. Thomas) by any ship which has called at a Cuban port within the previous six months.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
From the why is a cruise different department:
When people who don't usually go on cruises come back from one and write about it, it often seems they forget to unpack their memories of other types of vacations before writing their article. One of those is an article that appeared a couple of days ago on Newsday.com
In it, the author and his wife just returned from their first cruise, which was aboard Norwegian Pearl to Alaska, and he recounts some of the things he learned. One of them was:
OK, he learned about the corkage fee the hard way. But what prompted him to pick up two bottles of wine in Seattle (a stopover on the trip before boarding the ship) to take with him? In the beginning of the article he says they have vacationed in the Caribbean a dozen times. He didn't seem to pick up a couple of bottles of wine to take with him into the restaurant at that resort. So why does he feel this is the thing to do, or that it's OK on a cruise? My guess is that he doesn't take his own wine when he goes to a restaurant at home in New York, so why is he thinking it's OK on a cruise and is then surprised they're going to charge him a corkage fee?
Sure, the prices he mentions for drinks seem expensive, but they are comparable to what you'd pay in a first-class resort in the Caribbean - or near home in a New York hotel, so why make out like they're prohibitively expensive? Yeah, there's the comparison between the white wine for $52 a bottle and the two bottles he bought in the Seattle store for $31, but where isn't it true that if you go out to a restaurant, you pay considerably more than if you buy the same thing in the grocery store? When you go into Burger King and spend a buck and a half (or more) for a Coke, do you ever say to yourself that you could have gone to the grocery store and bought a 2-liter bottle of Coke for half the price?
He also finds that the internet via satellite is three times more expensive than the internet cafe ashore. By the same token he never mentions the $2.50 local phone call he can make from a New York hotel, either.
On the plus side, he loved the free shows, but he didn't make the hotel comparison there either, and mention that to see a show like that in a resort in the Caribbean, you'd easily pay $30 or more.
The point is that when people (including amateur reviewers on bulletin boards) write about a cruise, and are surprised by the onboard prices, they need to remember other vacation options such as staying in a first-class resort hotel and what they would pay for the same there - and then put the cruise prices in perspective. Of course then, there wouldn't be the dramatic shock value and they'd have to do some honest-to-goodness research. That's harder, but that's what they're getting paid for.
In it, the author and his wife just returned from their first cruise, which was aboard Norwegian Pearl to Alaska, and he recounts some of the things he learned. One of them was:
Don't take wine. We paid $31 in Seattle for a 1.5-liter red and a 750-milliliter white but on boarding were charged a $15 corkage fee for each. A Corona beer was $5.18; a snifter of Courvosier, $8.91; a glass of Duckhorn Chardonnay, $12.36; a bottle of Ridge Lytton Springs Zinfandel, $52. We didn't drink much alcohol.
OK, he learned about the corkage fee the hard way. But what prompted him to pick up two bottles of wine in Seattle (a stopover on the trip before boarding the ship) to take with him? In the beginning of the article he says they have vacationed in the Caribbean a dozen times. He didn't seem to pick up a couple of bottles of wine to take with him into the restaurant at that resort. So why does he feel this is the thing to do, or that it's OK on a cruise? My guess is that he doesn't take his own wine when he goes to a restaurant at home in New York, so why is he thinking it's OK on a cruise and is then surprised they're going to charge him a corkage fee?
Sure, the prices he mentions for drinks seem expensive, but they are comparable to what you'd pay in a first-class resort in the Caribbean - or near home in a New York hotel, so why make out like they're prohibitively expensive? Yeah, there's the comparison between the white wine for $52 a bottle and the two bottles he bought in the Seattle store for $31, but where isn't it true that if you go out to a restaurant, you pay considerably more than if you buy the same thing in the grocery store? When you go into Burger King and spend a buck and a half (or more) for a Coke, do you ever say to yourself that you could have gone to the grocery store and bought a 2-liter bottle of Coke for half the price?
He also finds that the internet via satellite is three times more expensive than the internet cafe ashore. By the same token he never mentions the $2.50 local phone call he can make from a New York hotel, either.
On the plus side, he loved the free shows, but he didn't make the hotel comparison there either, and mention that to see a show like that in a resort in the Caribbean, you'd easily pay $30 or more.
The point is that when people (including amateur reviewers on bulletin boards) write about a cruise, and are surprised by the onboard prices, they need to remember other vacation options such as staying in a first-class resort hotel and what they would pay for the same there - and then put the cruise prices in perspective. Of course then, there wouldn't be the dramatic shock value and they'd have to do some honest-to-goodness research. That's harder, but that's what they're getting paid for.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
From the unreliable source department:
A lot of people consider themselves "in the know" because they get their information from bulletin boards. We always caution people to take the information they find there with a grain of salt, because you don't know who posted it or what their agenda was. Here's a good case in point of how a whole city got taken in:
Ever since Carnival Holiday started cruising from Mobile, the city has wanted more - a larger ship, a newer ship and/or a second ship. So last Friday when a Carnival press release showed up on the Cruise Critic bulletin board announcing a larger ship, news spread like wildfire around the Mobile area. The story got to the local newspaper very quickly on Friday, and being good journalists, they called Carnival to verify.
That's when the heady moment began to deflate. Carnival was surprised, to say the least. They had no plans to change ships in Mobile. They hadn't issued any press release. The press release posted on Cruise Critic was a hoax, but one very skillfully written to appear to be the real thing, and Carnival asked that Cruise Critic remove it.
The whole disappointing adventure is chronicled in an article in Mobile's Press-Register.
Post on the bulletin boards, if you must, but get your information from a reliable news source - and bulletin boards aren't very reliable.
Note: Link is valid at time of posting.
Ever since Carnival Holiday started cruising from Mobile, the city has wanted more - a larger ship, a newer ship and/or a second ship. So last Friday when a Carnival press release showed up on the Cruise Critic bulletin board announcing a larger ship, news spread like wildfire around the Mobile area. The story got to the local newspaper very quickly on Friday, and being good journalists, they called Carnival to verify.
That's when the heady moment began to deflate. Carnival was surprised, to say the least. They had no plans to change ships in Mobile. They hadn't issued any press release. The press release posted on Cruise Critic was a hoax, but one very skillfully written to appear to be the real thing, and Carnival asked that Cruise Critic remove it.
The whole disappointing adventure is chronicled in an article in Mobile's Press-Register.
Post on the bulletin boards, if you must, but get your information from a reliable news source - and bulletin boards aren't very reliable.
Note: Link is valid at time of posting.
Saturday, August 18, 2007
From the Delta Queen department:
It seems to be a trend when plans are announced to retire a classic ship that there's an instant reaction with an outcry to save the ship. There's an excellent editorial in Cincinnati's Enquirer that has a balanced look at several of the issues. Open your mind and then click the link to examine some of the arguments.
Note: Link is valid at time of publication.
Note: Link is valid at time of publication.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)