The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over Titanic?
April 13, 2012 - 21:22
Something that has puzzled me for some time, and has once again been brought to the fore by the anniversary of the Titanic disaster, is why the press of the time made such a fuss over the maiden voyage of the Titanic?
Is this impression merely something that is given by modern media, or was the Titanic really hailed in the way that we are told? The reason why I bring this up is because Titanic's sister ship, the Olympic, launched the year before, and for the most part, as far as I am aware was mostly of the same design, save for some modifications, and some different outfitting in places.
Are there any maritime experts here who know what the differences in terms of main structural design were? The Titanic was hailed as unsinkable (by the press, not the ship builders), and a revolution in ship design. So I am left puzzled, as surely the Olympic had the same sort of internal design such as the isolated compartments to help reduce the risk in the event of a hull breach?
April 13, 2012 - 22:51
#1
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
I heard on some news reports that they had so many problems with the Olympic that it was taken out of service fairly quickly, it also had some of it's parts taken out and fitted into the Titanic and no doubt the big publicity was then thrown at that ship and no also put pressure on all to make it perform.
Titanic also had a lot of engineers on board to fix any of the problems that occurred.
I think it was also explained on the recent programes on BBC but why they had to choose dancer Len Goodman to present baffles me as he was dreadful!
Ok he may have been a welder once but it doesn't qualify him to be a mainstream presenter of such an important doco ser.
April 14, 2012 - 01:13
#2
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
FreeFlow wrote:
Something that has puzzled me for some time, and has once again been brought to the fore by the anniversary of the Titanic disaster, is why the press of the time made such a fuss over the maiden voyage of the Titanic?Is this impression merely something that is given by modern media, ..........
Good thinking in the second sentence - truth seems to be the press didn't make a fuss at the time over the maiden voyage itself, but certainly did over the sinking....... And of course, they were only days apart. Later, the impression is of the two matters being one. Likewise, the "unsinkable" claim - seems never to have actually been specifically stated (even if believed) before the sinking. (I can imagine something like "safest liner ever built" MAY have been said - but that's not the same as "it's unsinkable!"
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-17515305
Quote:
Contrary to the popular interpretation the White Star Line never made any substantive claims that the Titanic was unsinkable - and nobody really talked about the ship's unsinkability until after the event, argues Howells.Although the sinking of the Titanic happened around 15 years after the birth of cinema, and the disaster featured heavily in the silent newsreels of the day, there was very little footage of the ship itself.This was because the Titanic was not big news before it sank. Its sister ship the Olympic effectively stole the limelight on its maiden voyage from Southampton to New York in 1911. It had the same captain as the Titanic, travelled the same route, had the same safety facilities and the same number of lifeboats - or lack thereof.
Try googling "Titanic myths" and see what else comes up! :)
April 14, 2012 - 01:15
#3
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
Gary Nattrass wrote:
I heard on some news reports that they had so many problems with the Olympic that it was taken out of service fairly quickly, it also had some of it's parts taken out and fitted into the Titanic
I believe all that to be untrue - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RMS_Olympic Which news reports were they?
The "problems" with the Olympic were down to a collision, but I doubt any parts were taken off it to be put into the Titanic - they were being constructed more or less alongside each other. From the wikipedia article, it sounds like the news reports have got it the wrong way round, it's was parts intended for Titanic that were taken to assist the repairs to Olympic:
Quote:
Harland and Wolff was forced to delay Titanic's completion in order to use her propeller shaft for Olympic
And Olympic was certainly NOT "taken out of service fairly quickly" either! After the repairs from the collision, it re-entered service, had an illustrious career throughout World War 1 (including sinking a U-boat by ramming!), and remained in service through to the mid 1930s.
April 14, 2012 - 07:45
#4
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
Funnily enough, I never usually like Len Goodman, he gets up my nose, but in this programme he excelled and presented the facts and stories exceptionally well. I was impressed.
April 14, 2012 - 07:56
#5
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
branny wrote:
Funnily enough, I never usually like Len Goodman, he gets up my nose, but in this programme he excelled and presented the facts and stories exceptionally well. I was impressed.
Hi Branny
I agree, he also presented the 1952 show recently and did a fair job of that as well.
There are many worse presenters around
April 14, 2012 - 07:58
#6
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
Thanks for posting the wikipedia info about the Olympic infocus, I had read this article myself last night and it looks true to me.
April 14, 2012 - 21:54
#7
Re: The Olympic. Why did the press make such a fuss over ...
The fuss with Titanic, is big business. Many people have capitalised on the tragedy. After this year the hype will settle down and the future generation who come along will no doubt rekindle the history again.