All the unfounded opinion that's unfit to broadcast

To the BBC:

I today on BBC Breakfast News watched a possibly sincere but lightweight attempt at dealing with a serious issue: fuel costs and mitigating actions.

In the course of my morning viewing I saw two of the slots devoted to this.

In one a 'reader's tip' was read out to suggest I ran my car with a half-empty tank on the possibly rational explanation that one is lugging less weight.

Later on, another read out flatly contradicted this, saying the void left encouraged evaporation.

To be fair, the hapless reporter and studio reporters did rather lose it and suggest that 'maybe they need to find out'.

Much as I know the BBC is addicted to viewers' input, may I suggest that on matters of subjective fact, as a supposed news programme you blooming well find out what is the correct information FIRST before broadcasting it?

Or at least have informed, educated moderators to hand to put things in context?

Any commuter who left without seeing any clarification at the end of the programme (if there was I missed it) will now be either ill-informed or totally confused.

Which is about right for the state of green-related reporting and editorial on the BBC these days.

It's serious. Treat it so. And hire guys who know what they are on about.

Tides of Opinion

I am aware on various issues regrading the controversial Severn Barrage tidal proposal; too much to hope our national news will help clarify matters sensibly.

I have written:

I have just watched the BBC Breakfast News 'report' on the Severn Barrage. Being already aware of the ecological objections I was keen to learn more objective information on the claim that it makes no economic sense, but this only amounted to a member of the RSPB saying so (if based on a 'report'). Hardly in depth. Or objective. 'Balance' was provided by an 'expert' who was quoted more on what the alternatives, specifically wind, would involve... to wildlife. What about the economic arguments we were promised? Or any hint as to this scheme's potential in reducing greenhouse emissions effectively?

I am also intrigued at the comment passed that governments should not be involved in huge energy projects. Er... do what?

Is the BBC just a mechanism to read out press releases, or can we ever hope to get news and analysis in forms these days that allow sensible understanding of the issues?

BBC - Concern over tidal barrage cost

It must have been something in my drinking water

A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:

COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?

They have been gracious enough to now reply:

'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'

As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:

It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.

Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.

LAST WORD?:

At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:

I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...

A metaphor for the age

No, not Terminal 5.

I refer to the BBC forums comment system. As the licence fee has gone up, so every aspect of our national broadcaster has plummeted. I'd like my money back, but that's not an option.

It started with a comment by invitation:

Going Carla crazy

It's too much to hope that the current (0) comments is anything more than yet another glitch in the moderating system, or maybe my fellow commentors have so far managed to resist (at 1820 GMT) where I cannot. If so... bravo!

And good on the Gallic diplomat!

You and your lot really have lost the plot.

If 'In the Newsnight office Carla Bruni has.. been the most talked about subject of the week', then I weep for serious news journalism ever taking place again. Are you all just in demob mode for the Olympic jolly or what? Will it just be the trainees and temps running the show, getting their story ideas from Heat magazine?

ps: I don't think it is just the Daily Mail who have had trouble deciding whether it is plastic bags or this lady who are of most importance to the future of news, the governance of the world or the future of the planet.

Of course, I was too prescient from the outset. After a few days of retrying, I might have to give up. But have tried another tack:

Friday 28 March, 2008

Excuse being off topic, but as this little bit still works (for now) I am just experimenting with this posting system, which was either a) created by the T5 designers on an off day or b) has given up any pretence of being an open, free and objective forum and is now in the hands of highly selective moderation. Or maybe the BBC is just trying to grind us into submission to accept yet another fee hike?

Free the 502 commenters from their limbo hell!

Shambles is too good a word for the whole sorry bunch. Like they care. What's the worst that can happen to them? Probably all en route to Beijing already.

Addendum 1:

I have been moved to send the above to Newswatch, for all the good that will do. Though Ray Snoddy may find one grumpy editor to say 'who cares?' on Sunday at dawn.

Why does the BBC bother with forums for audience comments?

I just ask, as after yet another frustrating few days trying to deal with the woeful system that we have all paid for, I have had to resort to a few other blogs that actually seem to work, including my own: [as above]

Addendum 2:

At time of writing (Sunday 7.20pm) nothing has changed. And no reply has yet been received, at least here... even to my complaint. Other than being mightily miffed personally, I am now even more concerned that any pretence at free and objective news and debate is now dead. Other than my little isolated outpost being outraged, the silence is pretty effective. Don't like the opinion? Ignore it! And ignore any follow up. What you don't see won't hurt you. But if you have an agenda you can let a few selected 'acceptable' thoughts slip through. It really is extraordinary. Where, if I could be bothered, do I go next? A registered letter to the BBC Trust? Sadly the compromise of that final word has rendered the ultimate avenue nonsense a long time ago. Even if this was a genuine glitch, just like the T5 debacle there has been no attempt to concede there even is a problem and PR an explanation at least.

Daily Mail - Fury of BBC over Cameron's £250m bid to end its public service monopoly -

"Once you take away part of the licence fee you break the trust between the BBC and the licence-fee payer," said a senior BBC executive. "The viewer won't know who on earth their money is going to and will say, 'why on earth should I pay this any more?'

Oh... will I?

Addendum - An answer.. of sorts. Unlike some, as I get 'em, they go up:

Thank you for your email. I can confirm that the problems you are
experiencing are due to technical difficulties that we are aware of and
working on. We intend to revamp the blog system in the next couple of
weeks which will end these problems. Until then I can only apologise for
the inconvenience caused and thank you for your patience.

Had to reply as yet again I have been thwarted:

Dear Team Assistant,

Thank you for your reply.

I am aware that there are technical difficulties. And would be amazed if the BBC had not been aware of them since they cropped up (which was when? It seems like months... or more).

I do note, with optimism, the confidence that these will be fixed, though am cautious on the vague timeline.

Having just tried, unsuccessfully , AGAIN, I am intrigued as to what has been causing these errors, and in so selective a manner. Evidently some are blessed with access and some are not.

Is it because I is Mac?

I am unsure if they will get the Ali G allusion.

BBBC - NEW - 'If you get error 502 you are probably blocked (as I am) from posting. They block your IP address. the BBC do this all the time.'

'Is this verified/able?

I currently get a 502 on every post (to Newsnight, Editor's Blogs, etc. Even, ironically, to the exchanges about them 'fixing' a system they 'admit' is 'broken'). That said, some get through, though most get 'lost'. Therefore a blanket 'ban' is hard to credit. Even a 'moderating' (sorry for all the quotes, but there is a lot that raises 'questions') stance is tricky to grasp as often many I offer up are not that complimentary of the guys who have kicked off the post either.

In fact I am exchanging pleasantries with a junior munchkin in some fob-off department as we speak. Not sure she liked my 'Is it 'cos I is Mac' comment, bless her. It's not... er.. supposed to be, by the way.

But if I get the merest whiff that such selectivity to agenda is taking place with an entity I co-fund, and especially when I have devoted good time at their request to contribute, I will be... grumpy.

And, like the Incredible Sulk, they won't like me when I'm grumpy.'

Amazing what gets missed...

I quite like Raymond Snoddy of the BBC's Newswatch programme.

Even on the on-air show he does seem to try, and though the whole format (a 'mea culpa' stuck on at dawn on the weekend to 'atone' or 'explain' (though sulky editors saying they don't see what the fuss is about hardly counts as either) for high-profile boo-boos in the peak hours seems contrived at best, just to tick a 'we're listening' box. Few complaints get followed up and fade away.

But in print he seem even more diligent, though it now occurs to me that I thought BBC journos were not supposed to write outside of Auntie to avoid accusations of... well, anything.

Anyway, check out the bit halfway down his Indy column, entitled Emily gets short shrift

I'm sorry I missed it.

Because, speaking of being tucked away, as HRH might say, one's gob is smacked that stuff is been created and broadcast that purports to be 'based on' factual, when it is nothing of the sort. It's just agenda dressed up as news, or information.

And if they can do this here, well, New York, New York, they can do it anywhere.

But then, this is a Corporation where 'staff somehow also managed to mislay champagne worth a total of £818...'.

Now I see why my licence fee must go up.

QUOTE OF THE DAY - Friggin' in the riggin'

Another from today's Newswatch...

Some snitty editor trying to weasel out of an enquiry as to why the nation's broadcaster managed to fail to cover the Chancellor's press conference at The Treasury (you'd have thunk they might have thought getting the BBC there might have been a plan. They certainly seem good at getting them on site with much less pressing issues of public concern, such as PM pontifications on football managers) on Northern Rock:

"It's hard to rig a press conference".

Oh, I don't know. They seem to do pretty well most of the time.

An insight into how we get our news

Just watched the BBC's high-profile (Not) mea-culpa progamme, Newswatch.

Moderated by 'Uncle Ray' Snoddy, there was a lady viewer/scientist on with one of the customary cabal of defensive News editors.

Boy, was she focussed. And boy, was he inadequate.

The issue was the reporting of a Govt. report on dealing with the health consequences of a warmer climate (different to 'global warming'). Bascially the BBC had managed to get this as two completely differing takes, depending on when and where one looked.

Ignoring the actual ramifications of basic premise this lady had, that it would be nice to hear some good news as we all know the bad stuff, I was frankly appalled at this editor's explanations and excuses.

For a start he seemed pretty clear that the BBC will mess with facts in any way it feels necessary, and somehow it's all OK as the viewer needs to flit between headlines and subsequent text, but also what's on broadcast screen and online, to try and arrive at what the actual situation is/might be.

Frinakly I am getting to the point that news has about as much value as fiction, let alone reasonable debate. As a public service they are totally compromised.

Edit, dit, it... it isn't what you thought it was

For reasons that will soon become clear, I am highly sensitive to the accuracy of what gets served up to us by our publishers and broadcasters.

Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.

And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.

Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.

Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.

And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.

Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!

There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!

And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.

Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:

1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.

3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then

9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?

Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.

There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.

Donkeys leading, reported on by jackals

Of all the things to come back from my jaunt yesterday and address first, but this example of government agenda and media rantings (I meant ratings, but this typo may as well stay)-driven complicity made my blood boil as I listened in the car.

First up there was a totally factually spurious set-up on the issue of possible overprescription by Doctors, somehow coerced by drug companies. You will all gather how this went down and what I thought of it... and how it was left.

I also make reference to another topic, which pretty much gave sole voice to one guy who reckons a 9-ton satellite full of toxic waste is going to land on us sometime in March. No check, no balance. I have decided to see what actually does happen and how it gets reported. Even if the facts turn out to be true, the way it was all shared was truly idiotic.

'Thank heavens for guest expert Dr. Sarah (Jarvis?), the only calm, rational and objective contributor to this whole sorry piece.

If ever there was an example of a set-up agenda hijacked by a self-serving set of interests, and handled in total disservice to balanced information and the interests of public understanding, this was it. Bar this lady.

Inspired, it would appear, by a grand-standing Labour MP, on the potentially interesting and worthy of debate topic of potential over-prescription, we are promptly treated to this individual being pretty much allowed by the host to claim all manner of 'factual' nuggets, such as depression can be solved by a stiff walks and some fresh air.

To the best of my understanding, this utter tripe is completely at odds with the views of the medical profession, and the only real expert present, who could barely get this point across... because, I think her heard her say... 'she is not allowed to'.

Meanwhile, the host's only contribution to the quality of this 'debate' is to ignore all this and allow this semi-official and wholly-irresponsible government (WHO MIGHT HAVE BEEN TOLD A FEW REASONS WHY SO MANY MORE FOLK ARE IN THIS COUNTRY AND MIGHT BE DEPRESSED SINCE 1945) numptie to leave and then keep the whole sorry thing to drag on by trying to steer things in a whole new route of whether drug companies are 'responsible' with, I note, no spokesperson in their defence, and the good Doctor seemingly constrained from defending her profession's ability to surely make their own minds up by simple good manners and a desire not to disagree with her host.

A travesty of ratings-driven stirring at the expense of responsible public service broadcasting, partially redeemed by a loan, but woefully restricted voice.

ps: I tried to find the place on the show site to comment this but could find no option other but to contribute*. I then went to the Newswatch site but could find none there relevant to this show either. Not the best - or as I could not locate it easily - clearest set-up really. But I look forward (not) to getting the usual form, insincere 'we regret.. but...' dismissal in due course.

*pps: But there is one on the other 'sky is falling...' topic of ... the satellite falling. I have made a note to check in a month's time what actually has happened, and see whether it tallies with the scare story as portrayed, with only one side presented, in the show.'

Dire and dire

Just a few thoughts on the state of governance and the media, starting with the Andrew Marr show:

I see Mr. Purnell described as 'up and coming' and a 'future leader in waiting'. Just wondering how 'up and coming and future leaderlike' is he, say, to Mr. Milliband, who seems to have had similar sales pitches in the past.

He is certainly in with a chance with such a useful CV (an ex-BBC employee, like an awful lot... too many ... in government), which should get around needing to pay for PR and get in the troubles such as Messrs Hain and Johnson have/are experienced/ing.

Also he seems on safe, secure ground in trotting out a load of stuff that 'will' (well, might) be done to address problems and issues, without actually needing to explain in great depth as to how all this happens now, and yet again, after this administration has been in power and in theory addressing all this... or not... for how long already?

As I watch on, having written the above I watch Sir Menzies Campbell relate how, during his leadership, a top reporter came with crew to visit him how he kept his socks up. Says a lot about the state of our media.

So, meanwhile, for Newswatch...

Just watched a programme promo for some Rugby.

I'd just like to ask that when it is quoted that 'some say they are descended from Gods', just who this 'some' who say this are?

And in a already celebrity obsessed culture, where the media is entirely complicit in setting up role models, especially to the younger generation, that are, how to say... in excess of realistic expectation and aspirations.

I may not like, but accept, that commercial entities might and do engage in such deification in the cause of pushing the next product and service, but expect better of the national broadcaster.

You, Me, Dupree... and the BBC

I ended up here for another reason. I ended up staying a tad longer.

With the IPCC report and Valencia now it seems but distant memories, with the full brunt of Bali doubtless soon to wash over us as the 15-20,000 concerned country delegates and their entourages chew on the thorny issue of climate change, I'd like to make a small plea for more in-depth reporting on the factual issues.

I am brought here having noticed a side bar on 4x4s, where plain inaccuracy is excused as 'shorthand', and will be 'looked at more carefully'. Along with 'learned from' this has to be one of the most dire and ineffective attempts to not really provide a good reason, let alone explanation, or offer an reassurance on the quality of reporting we can expect to get.

It is also simply not good enough to rely on any old press release as gospel just because it has a green tint.

From electric cars not having any emissions (the exhaust is just in another place) to wind farms with rather optimistic ratings to plastic bag bans (are we really going to get a town by town piece all around the country? Modbury was 'first'. OK) that may not actually be as 'friendly' as shared (this may show why it is a lot more complex and worthy of deeper consideration: http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/11/junkk-category-plastic-bags.html ), I simply think that we, the consuming public, need a better explanation of all the issues, warts and all, to help decide our actions.

By green-gilding everything uncritically and without thought, you run the risks of a) misinforming, b) encouraging poor practices, c) simply disappointing or d) giving unnecessary ammunition to those who would advocate a less concerned, more hedonistic approach to our planet's precious resources.

Green is usually one heck of a good thing. But you still need to look at each and every aspect of it on what can be some quite complex interactions and/or merits before shoving any old stuff out in its name.

There are simply too many who see it only as the colour of money or the rally of a 'ban-wagon', and will use it for less noble ends than the saving of this planet.

And if as the efforts of the organisations above would suggest, and as echoed by our government and media such as the BBC, this is the greatest challenge we face as a race, then it surely deserves to be taken a lot more seriously, to the highest standards of journalistic challenge, at every level.

At the moment too much is being pumped out as an '... and finally', by the most junior of staff, and the consequent tone, lack of investigation and/or frequent errors are eroding the good and necessary works on the much bigger picture.

Debate in this country sucks. No it doesn't.. yes it...

Readers will have no doubt gathered by now I'm a gobby sod. Not just here, but elsewhere (usually cc'd here too in case I get 'moderated').

By virtue of birth, parenting, education, travel, nature and nurture, I have ended up with views. And I often like to share them.

I'd like to think the way I do it is as inclusive as possible, and do try to think of myself as relatively 'centric' in most things, though I do stray in various directions (or back the other way if I change my mind... it is allowed). And as these can vary an awful lot between various topics/issues, I really... REALLY get irritated when some clown tries to find a neat pigeonhole that somehow manages in their minds to encompass all that they think I feel about health, defence, religion, climate change, etc.

And that seems to be happening a lot in the blogosphere, with a worrying trend to even more tackle the player than address the ball. Not that this is a new phenomenon, as our able pols are showing at the moment. More Chis Moyles than Winston Churchill in the Westminster Village and studios that they dash to.

The Internet has indeed revolutionised the exchange and discussion of information. No more are we served up what we are thought to want, or need, by a select group who were no more put in charge of such things than we ourselves have been. They just ended up in a relatively better position to broadcast their thoughts to us all. Many, sadly, mistook the position they were in and the entity that made them known as being less important than they were/are themselves. I know of few who would get where they are without '...from the xx' in the intro.

So we come to matters of trust. And an awful lot of the more traditional organs of education and information have been found wanting in this regard. Call it bias, lack of balance or whatever, the fact is that by selective editing even accurate facts can be presented in the best way to support whatever the creator wishes. For instance, I just watched an edition of the BBC's navel gazing dawn slot Newswatch and was surprised to see the Planet Relief issue dredged up again. Just two viewers, selected lord alone how, and the thing was debated in terms of whether or not climate change is happening or not. To the best of my knowledge that was never the issue (certainly not for me); as it was certainly initially 'sold' as another celeb-style hooly in the vein of Live Earth. The way this came across was the muzzling of an educational documentary. What was all that about?

This is where the Internet is great. Because pretty quick you can get access to some stuff that shows that there is a whole other story out there. And, in some cases, makes a story of why the first story ended up the way it did. It's a fact of modern life. I don't like that it is happening, but I know it is and so I adapt and move on.

My mistake has been to engage too closely on occasion. There really is no point (save for some places where risking a contact URL can be worth it to gain converts to the cause visiting and signing up if they like what one has to say) pitching in.

The views are too entrenched and the people espousing them too self-absorbed to even contemplate allowing another point in. I have mentioned this need for tribal belonging before. Hence you get those on, say, BBC is Biased who think all who doubt them are left-wingers, and those on say, Guardian CiF who think those who would disagree with them are right wingers. And usually there is a hefty dollop of pejorative speculation without any hint of substantiation thrown in to muddy the soup some more. I have actually seen on one such the words 'we have spoken', when referring to a collection of less than two hundred (and ignoring the fact that not all of them did actually agree), when calling for the censure of a publication's columnist. The logic seemed to be that he had drifted from the club line, and hence needed to be ejected.

This is why I fear slightly for debate. Because not only do all these factions believe they are 'the ones', there are those (who should know better but with little time to delve more as they should) who are letting this minute little bunch hold even the modicum of sway that they don't deserve. This is no electorate. These are all, by definition, groups of people, admittedly passionate and often clever, who can and will do all they can to see their views prevail.

So even if I see 99 out of a 100 say black to another's white, I will first try and see how they come to this view, and support it objectively, before according it any value. And, in any case, from this very room I can crank up at least a dozen variations of 'me' to say what I think, disagree with it, support it and back again, all with different IP addresses if I wish. So numbers mean nothing. Which is why internet petitions are plain daft.

Take this as a typical comment: 'You types do not get it. The British public regard you ...' on Newsnight, which gets more posts on the naming of a pet than climate change, and can when passions stir manage all of 200 tops (for a national broadcaster), usually from the same suspects (inc. yours truly). Hardly the 'British public', eh?

I will be cutting right back on the pitching in to these troll fests from now on, but will still maintain a watching brief as they can throw up useful leads.

But... accord any of them, even those moderated by major media, more than passing respect as reliable sources of subjective information or reasonably objective opinion...? Or even as anything like a reasonable barometer of how folk really think...?

You are 'aving a larf.

News, views and whose who's?

I had better watch myself!

I was just having my breakfast when Newswatch came on with a 'special' from Edinburgh based on the recent TV Fest (was it so recent? It feels an age ago. So I had more than a splutter when they read out a quote from 'regular'.... me! It was my comment that they should stop asking for opinions and then not pay a blind bit of notice to them. So I guess I can't fault them paying attention... and sharing... though still stick by that opinion. I'm of course feeling awkward, because I think I went on to say that I'd given up commenting on Newswatch because I had no sense that it went beyond the featured edit-sneer (not Mr. Snoddy, who is in the unenviable role of posing some nasty questions to colleagues and does do so... though I too often feel that he asks, they answer and... nothing more happens) basically saying it wasn't a problem and if it was they didn't really care.

But if they are taking note maybe I will plug away a bit more.

Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to Biased BBC.

By virtue of a thing that pops up to advise me of a new comment (some RSS doo-dad I should get to figure out on here, probably), I do get seduced back a fair bit.

But it is proving a bit of a trial. I fear most of the diamonds are getting well and truly swamped by the rough, and there is a lot of rough.

I'm learning some lessons about forum and blog management for here, but one thing I certainly believe I'll keep is my moderator approval facility. It's pretty anti-democratic I guess, especially when I complain about it on several other sites, but while I am actually not so concerned about the more PC-concerns that most retain this facility to censure, I feel I need a check for (if it ever happens - so far I have found debate here to be refreshingly civilised and based on fact more than opinion) the selective cut and paste 'tis/tisn't' epic exchanges that I am seeing on the site, usually between two totally entrenched protagonists.

As I mentioned in my appeal (I guess that was what you'd call it) on their blog, cherry-picking something, and that includes a link, really doesn't serve the story or an observer's ability to track it well enough to make a judgment. And I fear that where there may be valuable debate some, like me, simply switch off and leave them to fill ether-space with usually increasing name-calling as they spiral to nowhere.

While I'm not a fan of the Newsnight 'twofer' style, I do see merit in inviting, or welcoming, diverse opinions, and then having a central, hopefully objective but informed moderator, ready to intervene to request claims are properly substantiated before moving on. Too often I see things, even in the major online media, simply popped in, and possibly countered, but not to my satisfaction, or at least enough to know what the actual facts are.

I think I will revise my participation with BBC is Biased to more of an observer role, and use it to act as a valuable potential counterpoint to some sloppy reporting I know does occur. They do catch some howlers!

One thing to note (and to be fair to the site), is that it does pin its colours to its blog title, so it's a tad silly to expect it to be that balanced in itself. It's there to find out what is perceived to be bias in the BBC. Fair enough. They can hardly be expected to fall over themselves to 'put the other side', but it looks like there are enough to provide such context (or call out the more rabid extremes) to make it a reasonable resource to use still.

What's this lifting off my chest?

Unreality television

You want unreality? Try Newswatch, their navel gazing sop self-critique show, where sleepy junior management are wheeled out at dawn on the weekend to issue insincere mea culpas, or defensive denials, to transgressions throughout primetime the rest of the week.

Or their complaints department, which will review what you have said thoroughly and get back in some tick-box period to say they value your input, can't see a problem, will bear it in mind, but anyway for now buzz off.

If I was paying for this I'd be livi... oh, I am.

ps: Didn't write this to the Telegraph, but I am currently watching Breakfast TV, with the blonde and the bouffant in a love-fest with Mark Curry, who seems to get wheeled on at the drop of anything to comment, and promote his business. Oh, and he's an ex-BBC employee.

Oh, I couldn't resist. First salvo to Newswatch, which is always worth a laugh:

'Has BBC Breakfast been engaged to act as the PR agency for Mark Curry's business interests? He seems to have been invited to comment on... anything... recently, and then pitch his wares at the same time. Nice to help your mates and all, but a little incestuous perhaps?'

ADDENDUM: Newswatch

Well that makes.. two of us! Well tucked away little devil of a blog this... wonder why?

As I wrote to a paper the other day in response to a piece about broadcast standards:

'You want unreality [Rest above].'

Tick reply here:

1) It wasn't us
2) It wasn't a problem
3) If it was so what?

And if you get pressed...

4) It was not perhaps the best way to do it
5) We are addressing this at all levels
6) An urgent review is under way

But whatever happens, no one is responsible!

At least they are recycling more!

BBC failing on green issues

Meet a target.... Really save the planet. Tough call.

'If I may suggest, sending guys based here to places over there where the corporation ad says they have local correspondents, to stand in front of the camera for 30 seconds, may help a tad.

Also not flying in helicopters overhead at the drop of a turkey, especially for spots on 'helping the environment'.

As they say at dawn on Newswatch, though not to me very often (they don't often like to publish my critiques for somem reason on this daft mea gulp attempt at 'balance'), maybe we should look at this... and then forget it quickly as we could really care less.'