All the 'news' that's fit to be... minted?

Newsnight last night seemed to have an odd set of priorities, if you look at some blog comments. I tended to agree.

We all seek the holy grail of a slot on national TV, but what chance do we have if those with deeper pockets seem to have magic ways to not only gain better access, but a pretty blank canvas handed them as well.

There has always been a fine, and difficult to navigate line between 'news' and 'current affairs'.

News is pretty simple. Stuff happens and your report it... who, what, why, where, etc.

Current affairs drifts into other territories, and much muddier waters (to mix my metaphors) once a product or service that is there to be sold (and hence can benefit from being seen and/or talked about) is involved.

While 'the arts' have always had a pretty easy ride (they are still flogging their wares after all), most still seems fair enough in the name of public information and/or entertainment.

But lately it does seem that a lot of PRs have a pretty direct line to the BBC's producers.

Especially those from the, much grubbier, corporate world. I was watching BBC Breakfast's 'business' section this morning, and there was some CEO so desperate to score just one more sale that whatever topic was being discussed he might as well have run a sales video. Even the presenter was embarrassed, if too late to intercede.

I even recall a while ago Sir Michael Rose was allowed on with a rack of garments and given public broadcast time to flog 'em for Xmas like some market trader.

Yes, there is a balance to be struck, and in return for a story about their stuff you do give an opportunity for profile. But really guys, are they slipping bungs out now or what? Or is it just sooo much easier (and in these cost-cutting days cheaper) to let your mates from the lobby firms pitch an idea, set up the meet and provide the script?

Maybe we need a story on payola rearing its profitable, if ethically-questionable head again. And even if no money exchanges hands, who knows what mutual back-scratching deals get done over a nice lunch in SoHo? On 'ex's, natch.

The wind and the willowy

Dave has beaten me to it, but as he looks at things from the ruthlessly scientific, I often come at it all, I hope in complement, more for the ad-man's view of consumer perceptions.

And words were important this morning, especially with BBC Breakfast New...er... 'press release read out'.

Of course I perked up when I heard this country was going to be independent of nasty foreigners and free of emissions in terms of energy, and all all within an awesome timeframe.

Where I did find my eyebrow cranking was in the manner of deliverables.

I can't quite recall, but I think it was broken into three. Which, for reasons of narrative, I will repeat in reverse order.

The last was something social, I think, like shredded seagulls. I'm afraid I can't really get into that. If all creatures are going to be toast anyway, I think some sacrifices need to be made and I can live with this aspect. I also have to say that the whole view thing is getting a bit silly... at least as the main objection.

The next was more significant. Lots more. Oodles more. But was breezed over rather blithely. Money. What this was going to cost.... us. It's one thing to say 'of course this will impact..', but quite another when this get divorced too much from enviROI.

Speaking of which, this brings me to the last. And it was headed 'Reliability'.

'Ah-ha!', I thought. A nettle being grasped.

Alas, no. This was reliability of supply. Significant to be sure, and I'm not clear I got any answers as to how 'could' supply translated into 'will' supply, once inconvenient facts on durations and useful levels of actual wind speed are factored in.

But, and here's the thing, no mention of what I was thinking of under reliability. Namely how these things are at doing what they do, parked into the ocean, being battered daily by wind and salt water. And this has to be important, as they might not be the best option if we are having to rebuild them a lot more often than claimed.

Which brings me to the word 'Quality'. Because this was the next piece of the morning 'sofa, so trivial' news. Seems 'we' are going back to 'quality', at least in fashion, and to encourage us to spend as much as we can on such essentials as thigh-length patent leather boots we had some 'expert' whose only contribution was a gallon of peroxide down the sink and an outfit that looked like she was on her way back from leaning on a Kings X lamp post all night.

Seems the collective wisdom of the group was that 'quality' equated to buy one massively expensive bit of tat because of the label, as opposed to a series of cheaper bits of tat with less ad-supported ones. And it was acknowledged all round that these things were only good for a few outings until the next fad comes around... but who cares.

My definition of 'quality' is slightly different, and more to do with the one I have for 'reliability'. Things that last.

Shame our national broadcaster can't seem to get on board with that, too, especially as it pumps out what it thinks are the necessary box-tickers on enviro issues at the same time as a bloated squanderfest.

Such as Declan's ongoing woeful romp with the 'low carbon' family. Today we got a few tips on green Christmas. And a sorry collection they were too. The only time I thought it did get potentially interesting was when he pointed out to the guy selling Xmas tat that encouraging the purchase of eco stuff that you didn't need to replace year on year wasn't a great economic model. The answer was less than convincing, I felt.

Nor were the comments to all this as sign-offs from our overpaid guardians of the Christmas eco-message. Declan referred to the closing of the carbon family's efforts over the year as an 'end to the punishment' . The bouffant scored e-cards as 'not as nice as the real thing'. And the blonde thought LED Xmas lights were not as 'nice and twinkly'.

And that was the message I left with. 'Yes, talk about it for sure. But we're not changing even if we have been told to tell you you should'. Nice.

Update

Gaurdian - Wind energy to power UK by 2020, (sez who?) government says

Guardian - Blow by Blow

Thank you!!!!

But then, why the heck if you - as a journalist, and one with what one might imagine a more than average desire to see such things through the greenest of hued glasses (no offence) - can see through this, am I getting fed the rosiest of 'couldfests' by the national broadcaster and others?

On their take 'we' 'could' be firing up the jacuzzi on windy alt-eng supply from a coastal array in the next few decades.

Where are the facts? I desperately want this all to be true, but other than some vague tilts to a few 'issues', I am none the wiser on actual deliverables.

Stuff such as 'costs' are alluded to, but they 'may' be vast and 'may' be ridiculously excessive. And all dumped on the consumer, too late to argue, when the Minister and the MEP are doing a post-pension fact-checking tour of the engineering contractors' lobby firm's beach villas.

And then there was 'reliability'. Not the one I am more concerned about, namely how these things stand up to the wind and salt water for the claimed lifespan, but the almost as pertinent one of how what they say they will do actually gets done by way of turning wind into usable 'leccy 24/7.

Until this piece I thought my kid's'futures were really going to be decided, by our major media at least, on the basis of a government press release. Shame so few others may see there are BIG questions that need asking before rushing to print or the screen.

It's November; it's extraordinary'

So say the blonde and the bouffant on BBC breakfast this am, about the fact that there was snow last night. I merely ask...'is it?'. If so that is worthy of note in the MWCC issue. If not, it sets up the BBC for a fall.

Because the segue for this piece was Declan and the 'low carbon family' now car sharing. Seems that, having for no good reason taken two cars to drive side by side daily, they now have realised they can go in one.

I was moved to write:

'Car sharing is... can be a great thing in carbon mitigation.

However, I have just watched you and the 'family' agree that busses are none too effective, even when prevalent, at 'fitting in' with the family schedule.

How many people, even within the same family, can leave or, much more pertinently, ensure they return at the same period within the same location and/or timing?

I think you portray an idealistic scenario in this piece.

Perhaps some thought needs to be given to coordinating better such sharing (Midlands Today has just announced dedicated lanes for sharers, so there are incentives) ways to DO this by way of public service campaigning/information.'

I am now, of course, inspired to list these as our national broadcaster is not that worried about such things, though I bet their excellent online site is littered with advice... point at them guys! We need information, not propaganda (though the cause of bus travel took a knock).

And I'll also raise the small notion I have created that needs some help (time and money) to get off the ground. It will not address daily commutes (though it can in complement to others), but it will be a big step on 'one-offs').

No news is.. well, in the news

I have been moved to write to the BBC News as their latest (it has arisen before) 'report' on a crisp labelling was wofeul!

What was all that about? Walkers puts a label that means nothing to anyone and can be compared with nothing, yet get a load of publicity. And now Coke are jumping the bandwagon.

Yes, there was debate of sorts, but not exactly helpful. A lady from something or other to say it raises awareness and a guy from Boots to mutter about a shampoo they might or might not have tried it on but are now 'standing back'.

And this on the day the IPCC report features second after an ongoing historical murder investigation. Shame the Spice Girls and Comic Relief got in on the act to distract from mankind's cat-astrophe, too. Or is that why we also got Sgt. Podge, the 4x4 hitching moggy?

No wonder no one is taking much seriously!

Trivial TV

I think I can see a reason (though, sadly, no solution) to why the message of MWGW is washing over the majority of the population.

In just a one hour period on our national broadcaster's breakfast slot I was cheerfully informed that it's now OK to be fat, fasting is good for you, vitamin D from sunlight helps prevent ageing but you can get cancer sunbathing. Oh, and if you blow $25k on a dessert you get in the news. And tomorrow it will probably be the exact reverse.

Too many people with too much airspace to fill... and not enough to fill it with.

Trivial TV (from news down), conveying the half-thought, half-a*sed and half-cocked, is killing any chance of anything being taken seriously any more.

So we don't.

Indy - Now doctors say it's good to be fat - Make that print, too. At least they seem equally incredulous. One slightly off-topic, but related point of consideration, especially in an era when overpopulation is looking to be an issue, is the implication of simply 'living longer'. It is surely as vital how one lives that life that is the key.

Indy - This research may bring sanity to the weight debate - what I actually found/find interesting, is the presumption of a 'correct' level. Who set/s that? It seems more designed to suit prevailing dogma, and all this counter-evidence just further erodes faith in the systems that create these notions 'for our own good'.

Gaurdian - Ageing process may be slowed by vitamin D, say scientists - Ah, the nuts of 'may'

Negative media. Negative press.

A gorgeous weekend. A green, secluded garden. So, for the first time in a while, I decided to invest in actually buying the paper to read under a tree as opposed being glued to the PC.

And while there is much that is available, not to mention free, it also served to remind me that, beyond enjoying the process a lot more, there is a great deal one can miss by not being confronted with a page rich in eye-corner editorial delicacies... and even the ads. So look out for a bumper crop of blogs soon... if I remember to go through the tearsheets.

While by no means the most significant, I'd like to share this first. It was from the TV section, and was/is a review for a show on BBC3 tonight, called Outrageous Wasters. Tellingly, it is entitled 'Recycling is bad', and as I doubt it's online, will reproduce the rest here: 'A good example of outrageous waste is making a four-part series, with all the use of resources that entails (a point many finger-wagging production outfits should remember, especially when a helicopter is sent up to show us how dire the land below is becoming), when the key points can be put over in a single programme (or have been covered to death elsewhere, though I guess I should watch to see what new 'insights' we are offered). Pointless, energy-guzzling duplication is certainly evident here, as the family learn essentially the same lessons as last week. They are simply told off for their prodigal ways, and then sent to boot camp as penance and face pressure to repent and reform.'

Quite. I was aware of this programme, but really could not be bothered to watch, as even by its own trailers could see the format that was coming. And I am bored to death with being confronted with extreme examples who are then sent to a gulag. Neither aspect is a true representation of what most of us face, and how we behave, and the 'solutions' simply make me want to go and buy a Humvee.

Where are the positive stories that I know exist and can be used to inspire? Why can't we get an eco-Plue Peter or Tomorrow's World to show people all the great ways there are to profit and save from innovative e-practices, rather than this endless raft of shame, humiliate and punish? Yes, we do get a a few such as 'It's not easy being green', but these are quickly identified as being very idealised situations, funded by massive production company input.

Makes me start to think about Junkk.tv, if I could afford the URL.

But at least it may avoid the kind of review that has a headline like the one above, and a consumer reaction like mine. May even help towards saving the planet, in case that ever really is the makers actual intention.

Joined up at the HIPS?

Today sees the Home Information Packs kick in, and the Housing Minister is on BBC Breakfast to explain why they are 'dead good'.

I sent in the following questions which, if asked, the BBC editors will hopefully not 'enhance for greater truth' this time:

1) If this is largely to address environmental impacts and not a social penalty, what is the proportion of 4+ bedroom houses as a % of the total, energy consuming housing market?

2) If older properties are inevitably going to be less 'efficient', is this grading just to enable market force choices, or is there an intention to use this information as a factor in future levies imposed by central and/or local government on the householder?

3) Are issues such as risk of flooding included as this would obviously represent a huge negative in terms of protections and/or clear ups with new builds no matter how eco?

These are, as stated, questions, but they do raise certain issues.

I suspect that the of 4+ housing I am asking for is not that high, and hence one wonders what impact targeting this sector will have on the planet.

Then there is the actual use of this rating system. I can get my head around one on a fridge, but a house? Choosing a white box that keeps things cold is pretty much just down to the op costs... to me at least. But if I fall in love with a property am I really going to reject that stone cottage (on a hill, 'cos the old folks figured that living where it gets wet is daft) and buy that 90's newbuild (on a flood plain, 'cos all that is left) because it is a few ratings lower? I doubt it. And hence one wonders what value this information ultimately has, and to whom?

And speaking of (well alluding to) those who would use green as a stealthy way to tax us without much explanation as to how those taxes get ploughed back, I do finally wonder if other environmental issues such as being built on a flood plain will score badly. Versus the lack of a cavity wall, one can only imagine that digging up the floors of a soaked property and renovating the whole thing will not offer the greatest global enviROI.

But maybe it's more a matter of boxes being ticked and grabbing some quick green dosh?

I just watched (How street cred is she? All bob and yoof speak!!?) and there was a bunch of... nothing. The key questions (just one was asked - nice one, BBC! I have to share this I read on a less than favourable blog as to their abilities: 'Double standards but half the quality') were almost all avoided or 'future mysteries' alluded to without being tasked to actually answer.

Indy - How ministers turned a help into a hindrance - like everything else they touch
Guardian - Home information packs are dealt new blow by lenders - Hmnnn