Over on my other blog, there is reference to a BBC Editor who is 'helping' the government on some political options.
There is a small storm however, based on the fact that he essentially outlines an either/or for them, and by association the reader, that sort of throws the imposition or sparing of pain ultimately back on the public. Basically tax more or provide fewer services.
What he has been caught doing, and held to account for, is ignoring another option which, while equally unpalatable, should at least be in the mix. And that is trim the fat within the machine of government itself first. No real surprise of course, bearing in mind the unique way the BBC is funded, and the way this government has conducted itself over the last decade. How many more packaged and pensioned civ. servs and quango-getters on the public payroll now...1 million?
Which is what struck me reading this, for obvious reasons that will become clear, if horrible to be thinking about:
The natural consequence of human greed
There is no excuse not to do what one can, but it certainly makes me even more determined not to get on the sanctimonious route of many of the greenerati who may do all sorts of stuff, and doubtless rush to print to tell us they are, and we should, but for whom the actual back to basics suggested in this piece would not be part of the programme so long as the economy, nice job and/or trust fund delivers.
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Look, flying pigs!
Flying empty aeroplanes to keep landing slots should never happen
I have been here before. I wonder why I am back again.
There is what is, and there is what should be. Which is why 'should' is one of my least favourite words, especially when used in headlines.
I have been here before. I wonder why I am back again.
There is what is, and there is what should be. Which is why 'should' is one of my least favourite words, especially when used in headlines.
Don't know what to make of this
I tend to steer clear of Climate Changey stuff as it inevitably ends up so far at two extremes as to be essentially useless as information and simply overall unpleasant to be amongst.
However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.
Channel 4 to be censured over climate film
As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?
... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!
Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.
As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.
Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it
Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.
BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)
The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)
The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)
Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.
The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.
Read our five-minute guide to climate change
Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'
Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?
Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -
Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -
Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.
Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change
Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.
The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.
BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh
Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:
1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.
Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.
* as in Probably Man-Worsened
Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.
Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship
However, I do feel this worth posting, as I was alerted to it by a rather coy reference on BBC Breakfast News, which also seemed to be having trouble with the 'censure' bit being followed by the 'did not mislead' bit.
Channel 4 to be censured over climate film
As soon as I finish this sentence I might hop over to the Ch4 site to see how they spin it. What's the betting there might be a different order of emphasis?
... well there's a surprise. Nothing. At least, that I could find. And what a woeful site! Some of the news items are months old!
Thing is, I really don't know what to make of it all. At best there seems to be some value in news creators being told not to tell porkies, and also for those who would deny the deniers to get to grips with the fact that there are many who are not yet convinced of various 'facts' and consequent solutions, and that sulking is not going to cut it in rebuttal. I'd suggest tackling the arguments rather than the persons making them, and lock down the science rather blowing it out of proportion such that subsequent errors don't prove a gift to those seeking to spin another way.
As for the BBC, I'd also suggest getting a little more balance in, and a little less theatre in trying to help the public assess it. Lord Monckton and Roger Harrabin, while undoubtedly well-informed by now (so many miles flown in the pursuit of knowledge), are hardly well placed to reassure me that what I am getting has been sifted for even the most basic factual rigour.
Addendum - Global warming and the arks of the 41st century - seems about the right place for it
Addendum 2 - OFCOM ruling - that only a person with too much time, or no life, could love.
BBC - Climate documentary 'broke rules' (on e way of looking at it)
The Register - Climate Swindle film: bruised egos, but no offence (another way)
The Times - Channel 4 censured for programme that said climate change was a fraud (and another, reflecting the Guardian article referred to above. Ain't news reporting grand these days?)
Ch4 - All I could find: CHANNEL 4 APOLOGY OVER CLIMATE CHANGE DOCUMENTARY
The broadcasting regulator, Ofcom, has made serious criticisms of a Channel 4 documentary which challenged the consensual theory within the scientific community that human activity is the prime cause of global warming and climate change.
The regulator has found The Great Global Warming Swindle, which was aired last year, failed to meet obligations to be impartial and to represent a range of views, and was ‘unjust and unfair’ in the way it treated and represented individuals. But, concludes Ofcom, the programme did not mislead audiences ‘so as to cause harm’.
Read our five-minute guide to climate change
Indy - C4's climate change documentary 'was unfair but not misleading'
Indy - Michael McCarthy: Ofcom's judgement failed to address the key question... was this programme accurate?
Gaurdian - Why does Channel 4 seem to be waging a war against the greens? -
Gaurdian - Watchdog's verdict on Channel 4 climate film angers scientists -
Gaurdian - The public has been swindled - Might be time to pop over to another chann... paper route. This is getting... predictabel... partisan... etc. Sure it will be 'over there', too.
Telegraph - Channel 4 censured for misrepresenting scientists on climate change
Telegraph - Climate change fanatics censor inconvenient truths - a minority view perhaps - I have to say that the whole thing is rather embodied to me by one 'side' using the term 'deniers' and the other 'fanatics', with no sesne of anything other than these entrenched views existing... or being allowed to. Me, I'm a climate* dunno'er, but best to err on caution. But none of this lot get my voet to speak for me.
The Times, so far, seems to have missed it.
BBC - Newsnight - A Great Channel 4 Swindle? - always good for a laugh
Ch4 - It's not we who make the public sceptical on climate change - If I were to take anything as a member of the media from this sorry affair, it is:
1)Don't take sides
2)Don't pander to agendas
3)Don't chase ratings
4)Don't make things up
5)If you get it wrong, apologise, put it right... and don't do it again.
Which does of course applies to all sides in this 'argument'. I for one am fed sick of the extremes and, sadly, my first thought is to ignore the whole sorry lot.
* as in Probably Man-Worsened
Gaurdian - The great lunar rockism con - What strikes me most is how many replies have been deleted.
Telegraph - NEW - Channel 4 defends itself against green censorship
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)