Edit,or? 2

A few days ago I decided to weigh in on the small matter of the BBC excusing editing news footage to suit a younger agenda (where dealing with the truth gives way to hitting a rating) thanks to all its new, trendy, yoof employees coming from a Big Brother mentality.

But a blog by one of the Newsnight editors seemed so grotesque in trying to steer the debate I really had to make comment (it's a ways down).

Thing is, to date, only one comment seems to have been made, with mine (and, I suspect a few others), curiously yet to appear. Though critical, and indeed very well written as I noted, it was not perhaps as stinging as some that may have been inspired.

Technical hitch? Or just another example of editing.

What was there was some kind of link thing to other blogs. The first two I looked at were quite supportive. I wish I could figure out all these new tech opportunities and take part, as they might benefit from a bit of balance to avoid looking like it's all staged. Or maybe it is by invitation only.

Anyway, here it is again:

BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order

Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.

That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.

Nice try.

'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'

But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?

Nice try.

'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'

Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?

Nice try.

'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'

Um, or not. See above.

Nice try.

Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?

Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.

And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.

I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.

In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.

Indy - Now 'Newsnight' admits doctoring a report - Just call me 'Scoop'

ADDENDUM - 9.25am 16/07 - It looks like the comments are no dripping in. The one I lauded (the only one to make it up these last few days) is lost in the middle, so how that happened I know not. Mine is yet to appear.

Guardian - Out of order - Indeed

ADDENDUM 2 - 10.30am 16-07 - It's up.

I would like to explain that I made my post (26) a few days ago, at which point post 19 by Mike S was the one and only one up there. As it remained for a few days.

I guess the order got changed. Oh, the irony:)

Indy - Production firm apologises to BBC for Queen blunder - So, give the BBC anything and they'll run it if it looks better than it is?

Guardian - Box of tricks - It's taking me a while to figure if they are saying that it's all alright as we should know it's all fixed. Or not?

I also note, at this juncture, all involved have, indeed, moved on. In their jobs. Salaries intact. Bless.

Indy - Victoria's reality check
Indy - BBC: Decline of a great institution
Indy - Ray Snoddy on Broadcasting - I was going to start watching Newswatch again, but then I saw the words 'draw a line under it all'
Indy - You can trust me, I'm a press journalist - You can't get humour this good on the... er... humour pages.

Guardian - Poll reveals how trust in BBC has plummeted after scandals - Well, there's a thing. But what is their definition of 'heads rolled'?

Biased BBC - a blog for those who may feel we are poorly served by those we pay, and have no other choice but to. Good piece here: Crisis-prone BBC needs management clear-out

Sun to blame for global warming. Not! Well,.... maybe!

Who are we supposed to believe? Does anyone have a method we can follow to fight our way out of this pandora's box of utter confusion?

We suspected that this just might be the case - "this debate will still run and run and run."

First we had a counter AGW theory - climate change is not anthropogenic at all, its all to do with natural cycles in the sun's output - solar radiation levels, magnetic field changes, sunspots, solar flares etc.......

...... Then along comes research that supposedly proves that this is definitely not the case, and looking at the data graphs in the New Scientist (link below), the evidence appeared quite compelling ........

"measurements of solar activity show it has been declining since the mid-1980s and cannot account for recent rises in global temperatures" - New Scientist.

...... Well, further to previous posts on this subject on this very blog, it now looks as if it all comes down to "interpretation of the data". This opinion article from The Telegraph suggests that ....

"Last week's research is a simple piece of science and fundamentally flawed. Nobody looked beyond the hype; if they had, they would have reached a different conclusion."

And "Using the global temperature data endorsed by the Inter-national Panel on Climate Change, one can reach a completely different conclusion."

So what was conclusive last week is no longer so this week!

The argument (and debate) is over .... NOT!

Wake me up in twenty years time please.