Playing the playing field

BBC Environment reporters

Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.

It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.

In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.

For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.

I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.

I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.

And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?

But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.

Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.

You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.

Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:

"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."

Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."

"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."