Two papers. Two views on micro-generation.
Shout it from the rooftops: you're powering the country
Should I buy a rooftop turbine for my house?
Enjoy.
Sunday, October 21, 2007
Who does is cost to save the planet?
Well, it should come as no surprise as to who is trying to gain financially.
Green travellers face VAT shock
All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.
Green travellers face VAT shock
All I could manage was a slight giggle. I think it has gone beyond farce.
'Dere was dese two fellas
And I am sure there will soon be another. Thing is, do we deserve, or need them?
Charles launches campaign to save ravaged rainforests
So to the multi-billionaire Mr. Eliasch and his Cool Earth, we can now add HRH. How long before Al decides to add saving the forests to his portfolio of investment opportunities... and hence things to get us to support?
Now I am all for awareness, so long as it gets things pointed in the right direction. But three (well, two, so far) white, rich, 'not really practical for us to do, but say, why don't you guys try?' chaps splitting the whole forest saving gig into ever-more fractured, labour intensive, camps (offices, staff, jollies, etc, before a twig gets any money - unless they are joining forces (if so not mentioned in the piece), which seems unlikely as there are egos that need to be spared before anything else)seems to suggest we are heading down a familiar route... again.
Watch this space. Not knocking trees down is now 'in'.
Charles launches campaign to save ravaged rainforests
So to the multi-billionaire Mr. Eliasch and his Cool Earth, we can now add HRH. How long before Al decides to add saving the forests to his portfolio of investment opportunities... and hence things to get us to support?
Now I am all for awareness, so long as it gets things pointed in the right direction. But three (well, two, so far) white, rich, 'not really practical for us to do, but say, why don't you guys try?' chaps splitting the whole forest saving gig into ever-more fractured, labour intensive, camps (offices, staff, jollies, etc, before a twig gets any money - unless they are joining forces (if so not mentioned in the piece), which seems unlikely as there are egos that need to be spared before anything else)seems to suggest we are heading down a familiar route... again.
Watch this space. Not knocking trees down is now 'in'.
Saturday, October 20, 2007
What we need are more commitees - report
Or... not. ISBA issues guidelines to aid green ad claims
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
Another for the ToRoRAVA (talk or research or report always vs. action) Files.
Actually, I think Chris' 5 points about covers things, but I'm sure 'a wide-ranging set of guidelines on environmental claims written by a working group' will go on to clarify the issue greatly.
However, in light of how those from other bodies such as the ASA get treated, one wonders what, exactly, the difference will be.
Sadly it is only money that matters. Even more sadly, it seems the rewards go to those who make it short term (and move on quickly on the perceived kudos), irrespective to the eventual costs, to brand, profits... or planet.
You've got to right/left hand it to them
I no longer participate on the BBC is Biased site.
It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.
But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.
I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.
Remember this
"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."
Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.
I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.
Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.
It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.
Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.
If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.
ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:
Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research
It was because I felt I had been moderated off unfairly, and indeed with slight sense of agenda, for an attempt to point out that an extreme view on one 'side' of climate change is usually inevitably 'balanced' to resultant deadlock by an equally view on another.
But its contributors can still throw up some interesting stuff, if erring on the 'optimistic' side of things.
I thought this was of note, more to highlight how we are in the hands of journalists and, possibly, editorial policy who can often serve the facts poorly and hence create doubt on their abilities and offerings.
Remember this
"The change could have catastrophic consequences for marine life.
Oceans mop up carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, lowering the water's pH value - an effect that may be exacerbated by burning of fossil fuels."
Phew, what a relief that the catastrophic consequences have been averted by this morning's news.
I for one would like to thank Mr Harrabin [at least it says 'BBC environment analyst [a what? As noted before, he is not exactly qualified in this field, yet his opinion is given such weight by this title?] Roger Harrabin said: "The researchers don't know if the change is due to climate change or to natural variations] for putting my mind at ease with his agenda free reporting of this issue.
Now years have passed and things change, but I really would like the BBC, with all its staff and resources, to get its act together so we don't just get served sensationalist stuff all the time, punted out without consideration by questionably qualified folk, usually from some press release.
It's simply too important not to get right, and especially not to give any how would use such woeful instances to advocate a 'do nothing' approach.
Actually, by my reading the BBBC implied 'critique' may not be fair, because it looks to me that the first is pointing out the consequent acidification due to increased CO2 absorption, and the second the possibility that the oceans have reached a limit of doing that any more. They are slightly different, if related, things. And neither are good, or a pass to keep on pumping the stuff out. Which I would point out on site (at risk of a real oceanographic chemical scientist - if such a title exists - slapping me down, but I'd like to get such things clear), but they don't seem keen on such questions. Shame. On them. On the BBC for being just untrustworthy these days and certainly creating an impression of agenda. And for the future of the planet our kids are being handed by 'us'.
If anyone more qualified could confirm or deny my initial thoughts I'd be grateful. On the one hand I envy folk so sure of themselves in this manner, but on the other I am appalled that simply be saying something 'is' in such a way gets though so often without challenge.
ADDENDUM - A bit more via a BBBC poster:
Article is based on an article in the Journal of Geophysical Research
Friday, October 19, 2007
Auto industry will get its way
Who said that the European automobile industry has no political clout anymore? This, from Reuters, suggests that at next weeks EU debate, the industry will be given an additional three years to meet the intended targets on CO2 emissions of 125 grams per kilometer, now extended to 2015.
What are targets for if not to be slipped a little?
What are targets for if not to be slipped a little?
CHP to lead the way?
This from Interactive Investor reports that our government is predicting that 10% of power needs will come from Combined Heat & Power technology by 2010.
Now I may be being a little cynical here, but in just over two months time we'll already be into 2008. Our track record at getting things done on time, on budget and to the agreed design isn't exactly one to be proud of. My bet is that this is another foolishly optimistic target that will quietly slip into oblivion.
Now I may be being a little cynical here, but in just over two months time we'll already be into 2008. Our track record at getting things done on time, on budget and to the agreed design isn't exactly one to be proud of. My bet is that this is another foolishly optimistic target that will quietly slip into oblivion.
Stern honour
Peerage for climate change economist
After publishing the report that seemed to trigger some initial movement on climate change by our government, then getting unceremoniously dumped by the very same, Sir Nicholas Stern is now to be made a life peer.
That should provide plenty of opportunity for networking and hobnobbing then.
Imdy - No wonder the British no longer trust anyone
After publishing the report that seemed to trigger some initial movement on climate change by our government, then getting unceremoniously dumped by the very same, Sir Nicholas Stern is now to be made a life peer.
That should provide plenty of opportunity for networking and hobnobbing then.
Imdy - No wonder the British no longer trust anyone
BT, ring true?
When I first read this, I thought 'great!': BT invests £250m in wind farms
But, sadly, these days pretty much anything I read I need to question, just to make sure I am getting the full and accurate story. First for greenwash, and then for agenda.
Now I don't doubt it is probably a good thing, so please remember these are just questions, and the enviROI+ reasons they popped into my head:
'...a £250m wind farm project to generate renewable power that will supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2016.' Will? Or is this another 'at peak, 24/7 job? I just need to know because if not it is misleading, and also using one story to sell in (...puts pressure on other large UK companies with large land banks to consider similar action) others, possibly ill-considered. And I can't see that's right.
'...expects the new wind farm project to help the company hit its new target of 80 per cent by 2016.' Expects? Why not 'will'?
"... the UK derived around 4 per cent of its energy from renewable means, a figure it needs to treble over the next decade." Why? Targets? Or valid science/engineering estimates? What if this achievement does not actually reduce Co2 as well as other means?
" ... this is not the latest trend, this is the beginning of a cultural change. We all have to do this," I worry when I see it in terms like this. What matters is if these measures work. This aspect seems vague or unexplained almost every PR reprint I read.
"...could be windy enough to build wind farms, " Seeing a trend here?
"It said that its wind farms could generate a total of 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Coventry. The project could save around 500,000 tonnes of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, " Er...... And it is not even beyond being thought about. C'mon Indy, ask the questions!
"BT is looking for partners to participate in the project, " And finding them? How far off is this non story?
But, sadly, these days pretty much anything I read I need to question, just to make sure I am getting the full and accurate story. First for greenwash, and then for agenda.
Now I don't doubt it is probably a good thing, so please remember these are just questions, and the enviROI+ reasons they popped into my head:
'...a £250m wind farm project to generate renewable power that will supply a quarter of its energy needs by 2016.' Will? Or is this another 'at peak, 24/7 job? I just need to know because if not it is misleading, and also using one story to sell in (...puts pressure on other large UK companies with large land banks to consider similar action) others, possibly ill-considered. And I can't see that's right.
'...expects the new wind farm project to help the company hit its new target of 80 per cent by 2016.' Expects? Why not 'will'?
"... the UK derived around 4 per cent of its energy from renewable means, a figure it needs to treble over the next decade." Why? Targets? Or valid science/engineering estimates? What if this achievement does not actually reduce Co2 as well as other means?
" ... this is not the latest trend, this is the beginning of a cultural change. We all have to do this," I worry when I see it in terms like this. What matters is if these measures work. This aspect seems vague or unexplained almost every PR reprint I read.
"...could be windy enough to build wind farms, " Seeing a trend here?
"It said that its wind farms could generate a total of 250 megawatts of electricity, enough to power a city the size of Coventry. The project could save around 500,000 tonnes of carbon being emitted into the atmosphere, " Er...... And it is not even beyond being thought about. C'mon Indy, ask the questions!
"BT is looking for partners to participate in the project, " And finding them? How far off is this non story?
Bio Fools?
As the Severn Barrage may spell the end to a wildlife reserve here, so Victims of the ethanol rush: Loss of the native prairie
I've mentioned this before; and it's brutal.
While there is a slightly more immediate concern about the sacrifice of nature to meet man's energy expectations, if you don't factor in population then it's all academic in a fairly predictable timeframe anyway.
I've mentioned this before; and it's brutal.
While there is a slightly more immediate concern about the sacrifice of nature to meet man's energy expectations, if you don't factor in population then it's all academic in a fairly predictable timeframe anyway.
Thursday, October 18, 2007
Coping with Conferences
If any are of value I'll post 'em individually, but this email sums up what I (and I presume all in the world of 'green') now face by way of info exchange:
I’m writing to inform you of five recently launched conferences on corporate responsibility to add to your diary.
1) ‘Employee engagement for a sustainable business’
- How to get your workforce 100% Committed to sustainability..............and turn actions into profit
- 3-4 December, London.
2) The Climate Change Summit 2008
- Manage the risks, create new products and get you message across to consumers
- 12-13 February, London.
3) The Global Reporting Summit
- Celebrating best practice and assessing the landscape of CR reporting around the globe.
- 3–4 March, Berlin.
4) Global Anti-corruption, Compliance and Ethics USA 2008
- How to effectively develop and manage your corporate compliance and ethics programs
- 14-15 April, Chicago. Contact ross.vincent@ethicalcorp.com
5) The Responsible Business Summit
- Europe’s largest corporate responsibility conference returns for a 7th year
- 13-14 May, London.
That's just one conference outfit's worth. How many folk shunting around the world and how much cost?
I simply boggles the mind.
I know 'we' have to communicate and meet to negotiate, but this really is becoming a very expensive (which few outside lobbyists, corporates and Gov/LA types on per diems can afford) bandwagon, which makes one wonder just how well the average person in their rice paddy is really gaining any benefit.
I’m writing to inform you of five recently launched conferences on corporate responsibility to add to your diary.
1) ‘Employee engagement for a sustainable business’
- How to get your workforce 100% Committed to sustainability..............and turn actions into profit
- 3-4 December, London.
2) The Climate Change Summit 2008
- Manage the risks, create new products and get you message across to consumers
- 12-13 February, London.
3) The Global Reporting Summit
- Celebrating best practice and assessing the landscape of CR reporting around the globe.
- 3–4 March, Berlin.
4) Global Anti-corruption, Compliance and Ethics USA 2008
- How to effectively develop and manage your corporate compliance and ethics programs
- 14-15 April, Chicago. Contact ross.vincent@ethicalcorp.com
5) The Responsible Business Summit
- Europe’s largest corporate responsibility conference returns for a 7th year
- 13-14 May, London.
That's just one conference outfit's worth. How many folk shunting around the world and how much cost?
I simply boggles the mind.
I know 'we' have to communicate and meet to negotiate, but this really is becoming a very expensive (which few outside lobbyists, corporates and Gov/LA types on per diems can afford) bandwagon, which makes one wonder just how well the average person in their rice paddy is really gaining any benefit.
Here's one I made earlier... but can't any more
Saw this and had to pitch in: Package designers need to innovateTell me about it! Ignoring for now the immense opportunities presented by green-friendly second use design, even with those that show promise 'as is' I can testify to the woeful nature of most.
Look at those pictures above. I loved that Maltesers one, and we made several great things out of it.
Now what do we have? Some 'thing' that's just like every other jar. The new Target chewing gum is the only sphere I can find to play with now. And don't get me on Smarties!
I know it's all about shelf space and stuff, but if not to make life a bit more interesting, or to save the planet, can these guys not at least try and stand out a bit within the design constraints? They might even sell more.
It will give me a lot more source materials to adapt, too.
Free. Useful. Planet saving. And uncontroversial
With all the current fun & games surrounding what gets sent our kids with what baggage in terms of press furore and 'teacher's guides', I'm happy to share one that just makes sense.
Yesterday my boys came back with a free copy of our area's O/S map.
We had a gander together, and I am sure many walks will ensue. Obesity offset and a bit of planet appreciated, even saved, too.
And a nifty bit of marketing inspired as well. Now, with twins I have two, so we can either do a swappsies or make a bit of munny.
Were it that others could be so straightforward
No wonder there's such a rush to be seen as 'green'
I'm not what you might call a fan of surveys generally; I could never understand how a sample of '450 people interviewed on the Manchester city centre streets' can be seen as truly representative of the population as a whole.
This survey, reported in CRM Today, however, takes in 7,500 consumers in 17 countries in North America, Europe and Asia. OK, still not exactly representative, but far more likely to produce results that are to some degree realistic.
Now what's really interesting are some of the results:-
"Nearly nine out of 10 consumers worldwide said they would switch to energy providers that offer products and services that help reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions"
Now that's some response!
"Nine out of 10 of all respondents said they would have a negative perception of any energy provider that is not taking concrete action to address climate change."
Ditto!
"nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents said they would be willing to pay a higher price — a premium of 11 percent, on average — for products and services that produce lower greenhouse gas emissions."
Wow, a majority of consumers are willing to pay more?!!
Now I think I'm beginning to understand just why so many businesses are rushing to air their 'green' credentials.
I just hope that the consumer can rapidly learn to distinguish between the genuinely 'green', the 'greenwash' and the totally 'green bullsh*t'.
This survey, reported in CRM Today, however, takes in 7,500 consumers in 17 countries in North America, Europe and Asia. OK, still not exactly representative, but far more likely to produce results that are to some degree realistic.
Now what's really interesting are some of the results:-
"Nearly nine out of 10 consumers worldwide said they would switch to energy providers that offer products and services that help reduce the level of greenhouse gas emissions"
Now that's some response!
"Nine out of 10 of all respondents said they would have a negative perception of any energy provider that is not taking concrete action to address climate change."
Ditto!
"nearly two-thirds (64 percent) of respondents said they would be willing to pay a higher price — a premium of 11 percent, on average — for products and services that produce lower greenhouse gas emissions."
Wow, a majority of consumers are willing to pay more?!!
Now I think I'm beginning to understand just why so many businesses are rushing to air their 'green' credentials.
I just hope that the consumer can rapidly learn to distinguish between the genuinely 'green', the 'greenwash' and the totally 'green bullsh*t'.
Bums on seats. Heads in hands?
Greenpeace tears into retail 'eco-villains'
I can't be sure (there have been a lot recently in different guises), but this would be the fourth 'survey' of green goodness/badosity this week.
And what are we, the public to make of this?
At this rate we'll need to go to about 20 different outlets to get the best option of each shopping list need.
In the old days that would have been the shops in the street. However this would seem to indicate a 'green-crawl' to do the weekly shopping.
And whilst in some ways understandable, does not replying warrant an 'F'? I am unsure that not subjecting oneself to a body's 'cooperate or else' 'survey' paints the surveyor in the best light either.
I fear a battle looms, and the consumer and planet again will be the main losers.
Guardian - Sainsbury's aims to regain green ground from rivals - I'm sure they mean to 'be' the most 'yadayadagreen' retailer, not 'seen to be'...;) That would be, well, it just wouldn't wash.
I can't be sure (there have been a lot recently in different guises), but this would be the fourth 'survey' of green goodness/badosity this week.
And what are we, the public to make of this?
At this rate we'll need to go to about 20 different outlets to get the best option of each shopping list need.
In the old days that would have been the shops in the street. However this would seem to indicate a 'green-crawl' to do the weekly shopping.
And whilst in some ways understandable, does not replying warrant an 'F'? I am unsure that not subjecting oneself to a body's 'cooperate or else' 'survey' paints the surveyor in the best light either.
I fear a battle looms, and the consumer and planet again will be the main losers.
Guardian - Sainsbury's aims to regain green ground from rivals - I'm sure they mean to 'be' the most 'yadayadagreen' retailer, not 'seen to be'...;) That would be, well, it just wouldn't wash.
Every little helps!
I had to re-read this twice and then recheck the date to make sure that it wasn't April fool's day. But no, it appears to be genuine. The article, from PendleToday, reports on Tesco's plan to use the canal system for transporting wine shipments from Liverpool to Manchester.
"The pioneering move will cut carbon emissions by 80%, according to the supermarket giant."
(I assume that means in comparison to the equivalent emissions by heavy lorries. )
"A company statement said 50 lorries will be off the road each week, which is claimed will save 1.1 million kilometres of heavy lorry journeys on British roads."
Well, I have to say that I'm initially impressed by this little initiative; let's hope that it might be a kick-start point from which others start to reassess the potential for commercial utilisation of Britain's canal network.
I wonder if they're going to look at using the horse drawn power option too?
"The pioneering move will cut carbon emissions by 80%, according to the supermarket giant."
(I assume that means in comparison to the equivalent emissions by heavy lorries. )
"A company statement said 50 lorries will be off the road each week, which is claimed will save 1.1 million kilometres of heavy lorry journeys on British roads."
Well, I have to say that I'm initially impressed by this little initiative; let's hope that it might be a kick-start point from which others start to reassess the potential for commercial utilisation of Britain's canal network.
I wonder if they're going to look at using the horse drawn power option too?
REPAIR - Housecall
Housecall
A picture based repair terms/advice site with multi-language capability. What's not to like?
In their words:
Housecall allows customers, staff, and third parties like family members to make repair requests over the Internet. With the help of simple drawings and clear options, it gives them the power to make a specific request that you can immediately turn into an order to a contractor.
Credit to Springwise for the share, plus these other, similar sites, which I'll get to...soon.
A picture based repair terms/advice site with multi-language capability. What's not to like?
In their words:
Housecall allows customers, staff, and third parties like family members to make repair requests over the Internet. With the help of simple drawings and clear options, it gives them the power to make a specific request that you can immediately turn into an order to a contractor.
Credit to Springwise for the share, plus these other, similar sites, which I'll get to...soon.
And what baggage will Sir be checking in?
Students to be given own minister
It seems we have a 'Universities Secretary', which I didn't know about. And what does the Minister for Education (not) do in all this that we need this extra layer of taxpayer-funded departmental deadweight?
I have created a new category - GLOAT, which stands for Government bloat
It seems we have a 'Universities Secretary', which I didn't know about. And what does the Minister for Education (not) do in all this that we need this extra layer of taxpayer-funded departmental deadweight?
I have created a new category - GLOAT, which stands for Government bloat
'Going green's divine, but, forgive me, just green...er' is less fine.'
LESS IS NOT GREEN
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Amen.
However, and I take a deep breathe as I write this, we need to walk the line between what is just plain 'wrong' (I mean ethically and morally if not factually) and allowing what's necessary to encourage better (and, one hopes, better and better...) behaviour towards a practical ideal.
If one accepts (as I do) the current necessity in a consumer driven ('scuse pun) world (with time poor demands on income earners and/or social pressures) for, say, a car, I need to know whose 'pollute' less so I may either applaud or make a purchase.
As you say, how that gets conveyed adequately, especially in a competitive framework, is key.
A shame that so few in 'marketing' seem to see it as anything other than a quick fix, at least in how it all gets conveyed to squeeze the silliest extra pantone shade of green out of any claim.
'To go green is divine, but, forgive me, just green...'er's less fine.'
ps: For now at least, you get a very irritating pop-up form Conqueror that has a rather fun doodle mouse thing, which in turn leads to a competition. I'm not sure if it is worth the effort as there seems to be no money, but then profile can be worth more.
Also I do note a lot is on carbon offsetting, and in light of the main piece that is... interesting.
Playing the playing field
BBC Environment reporters
Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.
It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.
In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.
For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.
I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.
I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.
And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?
But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.
Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.
You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.
Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:
"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."
Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."
"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."
Many issues have cropped up in the blogosphere lately, but more than usual surrounding Al Gore's legal and Nobel adventures, especially at at time of increased concern (if not at the level of our Government, it seems) in matters MWCC. Of course things have turned nasty, and now we are seeing the people who play the person and not the ball in turn being played. All very disconcerting. However, sometimes it is worth knowing more about those who would (and indeed are often paid) be trusted to serve us objective, informed facts. I just caution against missing the wood for the trees.
It is of course preferable to have those who share scientific news with us, especially where journalistically challenging, to be as qualified as possible. However to an extent I find this a slight red herring, and by playing the person we ignore not just the ball but the playing field.
In matters of Global Warming, climate change, MMCC or man-worsened climate change, from Mr. Gore to the IPCC to Bjorn Lomborg to... [it's a long list] there are a bunch of folk who either are, or quote, scientists who I presume have told them stuff. And I can honestly say that black could still equally be white in matters green from what I see served.
For sure a trusted reporter with the skill sets should be able to cut to the quick, but if the agenda surrounding him/her/them is not too keen on personal integrity (which all too easily can become subjective opinion), then it really matters little what the mouthpiece is. It's more who decides to stick 'em up there and what they get told, or choose to mouth.
I don't think he could have been trusted as an expert on much more than Spitfires (if he was more qualified I apologise to his memory), but I certainly hung on every fact that Raymond Baxter came out with as much as those from James Burke on Tomorrow's World. Because I trusted the system and the programme. Of course, I now wonder what I may have been spun even back then.
I have 2/3 of a vet degree (sheep breathe easier) and a Civ. Eng (Hons), but in the sound bite culture of today... so what? I still would prefer to see pols challenged by a Paxman... so long as he is well, and objectively, briefed.
And speaking of pols in this context, is it not amazing that we are lead at Cabinet level by folk who often get rotated in matters of months between amazingly diverse and complex areas of expertise. How many posts did Dr. (of what?) Reid hold?
But I totally agree with the basic critique in this case. Mr. Harrabin seems incapable of even getting basic facts straight, let alone challenging scientific matters of interpretation adequately.
Weekly Spin- An Ethical Look at Fake News - Not about e-stuff, but it serves here. And illustrates the pretty pickle 'we' face with what we are served... at every level. Both us, the audience, but also the time-poor, cash-strapped journos.
You get served up a nifty, packaged 'story' from a PR, so why not just run it? Well, it may not be the whole story, that's why. And even if it is something 'good', by not looking yourself at the back story you serve your audience as ill as you do the interests of the PR machine well.
Which is why I took recent 'stories' about 'surveys', which manged to put Tesco top and last (well, of 5) in some green ranking with all the salt I could stomach. This is good stuff:
"Press releases don't dwell on controversies and never explain the other sides of an issue," he stated. "They are not interested in other points of view."
Presenting promotional material as "news" has two effects: it undermines news quality, while enhancing the impact of the PR message. "Ask any public relations professional and they will tell you they want their story in television, radio and print news ... because it is more credible. Period. If we [journalists] do a story about it, the public is much more likely to believe it."
"The average viewer does not have a way of understanding whether this is fake, phony, or real." News viewers, he said, "are sophisticated and unsophisticated at the same time. They understand a lot about when they're being manipulated. But if you see a video news release -- a piece that looks like every other network or syndicated package -- on your local television station and it's introduced by your trusted local anchors, you're going to believe that that information is from a legitimate -- read, 'independent' -- news operation that's done its fact checking and has balanced its piece."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)