Re-cycle of Life
Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.
I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.
I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.
Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.
Monday, March 19, 2007
At least we still have the vote. For now.
Council salaries revealed under the FoI act
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
It must be true. I read it in the paper.
High hopes
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Recycling taxes - what a load of rubbish
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
Suffer little children. It's good business.
I just saw an ad man and a charity lady discuss a kid's ad that has been pulled for 'being distressing'. And justified as necessary to secure money, most of which goes on the next campaign.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.
I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Title Fight
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
And that... is all we have time for
This, from the BBC website, sums up a major chunk of what I think is going wrong.
If you can't get it in two minutes, or one headline, you are not going to get it, no matter how complex or what context it is in.
Pump it up. Pump it out. Shoot it down. Next!
ADDENDUM (Mon 19/3/07):
It was only a piece on cooking, but I thought it was telling.
Some guy who had won something was in a kitchen and was being asked to demo. I think he was allowed ten seconds before the reporter said ''Throw it in". When he hesitated, perhaps as a consequence of it not working , at least as it should like that, she turned to camera and said "We're running out of time' and proceeded to hog the screen saying sod all of interest to a 'celebrity' chef who is on screen too often at the drop of a white stovepipe hat.
Sir, Madam. How would you like to be cooked?
When I lived in Singapore there were many phrases in Singlish (the local patois) that could cause delight, but one I always recall were variants on the way you'd prefer your steak. Perhaps my favourite was: 'What done you want?'.
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Friday, March 16, 2007
It's not just the question. These days it's who is asking it.
DO YOU WANT GREEN SNOOPERS IN YOUR HOME?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
They are inheriting it. Maybe we should let them save it as well.
Caption:Me presenting the prizes donated by the local Warhammer shop to the winners, along with a special award from Junkk.com to the young initiative initiator, an antique brass caliper.
Today is Comic Relief day.
So far, so media frenzied.
Frankly, I can take or leave scores of 'celebrities' - some of whom are doubtless sincere, but most of whom have either been told to do it by their bosses or agents, or need to do it to boost flagging careers - mugging to the camera to get the sofa-set to part with cash by phone. I'm sure after the last few weeks it's is all crystal clear and above board, but I'm prepared to bet there are still some admin and handling charges in there.
Meanwhile, in sleepy Ross on Wye, a few days ago a small boy had an idea. And frankly I reckon he has put the whole adult population, from self-centred celebs to sparring pols, to shame.
Because he set up a simple little competition between his mates.
They are all mad for Warhammer, which seems to be a brilliant way to get parents to pay for a 1" character what we used to get in the entire Airfix D-Day recreation set.
Lots and lots of plastic doo-dads which get snapped off and stuck together and painted and played with in strategy games.
And young Dexter's idea was to see who could make the most, and whackiest, creations out of the bits that are left behind in the moulding process (best name heard to date: sprue. But in may be spurl, or Trevor for all I know). One hour, at £1 a character.
My boys made nine. Each. So thanks to this little boy I am now shy £18. Worth every darn penny.
I got wind of it in advance, and for obvious reasons also got quite excited about the notion that kids were doing something a) productive, b) creative, c) worthy and d) fun with reuse. So I flashed around and got the local Warhammer store to sponsor some prizes, which were judged by a panel of proud Dads (not knowing what creation was made by which son).
I'm presenting them tonight. And then I am going to see what I can do to let the Warhammer guys know about it, the media and anyone else who will listen. Because this is worth building upon.
While others talk, these kids just got on and acted for themselves. And had a ball doing it.
Save the children. Save the planet. By and for the children. No adult egos or agendas to be found.
And that... is what it's all about.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Comic Relief does the Apprentice
Telegraph - Priceless gains from spending nothing
Guardian - Comic Relief/The Bits That Aren't Fame Academy: Live
BBC - Comic Relief appeal raises £40.2m
Where there's a... where is that will again?
The price of protection
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
When bad deeds make good copy
To the grievance community, it's always someone else's fault
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Bin. And Gone.
Green light given to empty bins every 2 weeks
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
Its a shame to waste
Money 'is wasted'
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Links! Rechts?
A visit from the BBC
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Train, train, go away.. come right back another day
Millions to pay more for train tickets
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
To boldly go.. up in smoke
Adventures can be had closer to home
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
Is it reality? Or is it Memorex?
I was idly penning a comment on the latest addition to the TV phone fraud scandals on last night's Newsnight blog whilst watching, even more idly, Breakfast TV. Here's what took place a wee while ago:
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)