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.

'I got wet 'cos it was raining' shock!

I'm probably setting myself up for a fall here, but this made me giggle (and at this time on a Friday you need to): Yell Group blames reduced advertiser budgets for revenue drop

Thing is, like the mighty Junkk.com publishing empire (and indeed many commercial entities), their main product seems (to me at least) to be, well, dependent on clients buying their stuff.

So if the clients buy less, then one presumes revenue will follow.

I know it could be a bunch of other stuff, like the CFO running off with the Xmas petty cash, but it just seemed an odd way to put it. Maybe saying such stuff in this way is why they get the big bucks.

More facts, figures and statistics!

Yet another set of facts and figures that may be open to question.

Addendum below. Post redated from 02/02/08 accordingly.

I spotted the gov's official CO2 emission figures the other day and thought that as the supposed reduction was so small, it was hardly worth commenting on. However, as reported by Channel 4, some green campaigners claim the figures are 'misleading', especially as they "ignore emissions from international flights, which are increasing."

In fact, they reckon that if you add in the international flights factor, the gov's figure would show a 5.5% year on year INCREASE in CO2 emissions.

Errrm ....... just who the hell are we supposed to believe?

We are simply left in an unknowing dilemma when facts, figures and statistics are massaged to suit a particular argument, as we have already commented on before.

ADDENDUM (Junkk Male) - Now here's a useful thing. A little effort of C4's I subscribed to only recently, called Fact Check. And looky here: FactCheck: have UK emissions really gone down? Neither hyped up nor spun down? I think they're being generous.

ps; And as the typo king I'm one to talk, but have to love their spelling of 'largerly'

Tears in me eyes

From Greenbang - Gordon Brown’s nightmare

Maybe there is a chance that people might get interested in politics again!

What amazed me was the smiles I saw and laughs I heard from t'other side!

On a totally... well almost related topic, I have often found in environmental legislation, and reporting of same, that green and Brown keep trying to be brought together.

But the result seems to be a rather unappealing fudge.

How does he do it?

Now I know he is reading my blog!
After all the fun and games I have been moaning about these last few days, dealing with funders and VCs and the like, and not being very good at making up 'projections' that are in fact wild guesses, but po-faced stating them as done deals... this is who gets the money.

Well, there's a thing

Marketers warned against making false eco-claims

From Mad - Companies trying to ‘out-green’ each other in the battle for consumers’ hearts and minds are creating a potentially dangerous minefield for marketers, warns a new study from Getty Images.

Getty, which specialises in the creation and distribution of visual images, has launched its latest MAP (What Makes ...

Want to read more? If you do, you can, and it's free. But it's a trial. Here.

I think I've seen enough to get the message. Think is, have the... 'companies'.

ADDENDUM - polar-bears-fail-to-give-right-message - the full-er, story. So see, it pays to know folk who know folk

Just look at the blogger label below

Life as low-carbon man

I say no more.

Well, other than to add it does keep luvvies in Fleet Street and Islington occupied. Plus me:)

Shame we can't run things on 'awareness', especially of the misguided kind.

Plugging away!

When it comes to doing good by Gaia, glory is good, but I'm always keen to up the ante to actaul, tangibel re:wards: The glory of glass recycling

In the spirit of ‘every little helps’, and acknowledging the minute (though still relevant) extra it may contribute, let's not also forget re:use, too!

Not so great for helping meet targets, but often a lower energy option... and a highly self-rewarding one!

Take this for example, a stunning lamp design made from Perrier bottles:

http://www.junkk.com/newsarticle.asp?slevel=0z608&parent_id=608&renleewtsapf=97

Inspired by Jason, I have a few more modest projects underway. One is a shaving mirror surround that is awaiting the dozen Fahrenheit after shave bottles I have almost accrued in the last several years (I knew I'd find a use one day! However you may find your local Boots may be able to speed things up with discarded testers), a transparent wall section from 1l Lambs Navy Rum hexagonal bottles, and a solar-powered driveway buried lawn edge night landing system covered with wine bottles.

Still trying to figure what to do with the several thousand other varieties now spilling into the living room which the missus is none to happy about.

Any ideas?

Actually, I forgot to mention I am also looking for some on pledge caps (the cans are a no-no, being pressurised).

Could ya? Would ya?.... Should ya?

Thanks to being told by the missus to get back to the day job, I have of late been attending a welter of networking events.

More abbreviations than you could throw a spellcheck at (still busted, eh, Blogger?), there are only so many 'Full Englishes' or personal coaches and aloe vera sales ladies I can afford, both financially and psychologically.

But I have noticed something.

At three recent events, the near obligatory mortgage broker/IFA has stood up and said ''What if I said I could wipe out your mortgage obligation? Would you be interested?'.

It would appear that there is the potential for some bit of legal jiggery-pokery to do just that.

I don't know the full details, because those making the pitch suddenly got all vague, but this is not compo for mis-selling, more a bit of 'no-win, no-fee' financial ambulance chasing based on no actual wrong-doing, but simply poor contract wording.

So the issue is not so much 'could', which it may well be possible to, or 'would', which it seems many might. But what about 'should'? This does rather strike me as a short-term pyramid at best, which will profit some but damage the majority, from the rates of those paying now, to the chances of those to come in getting a good deal.

So I said so. And I was pleasantly surprised to find the room agreed with me. Now it may be this is not being explained very well, but as it stands it's looking like the next 'dodge' from an already bizarre sector that I hope will get sorted... quick.

What's this to do with matters eco? Not a lot. But I am minded of the time a very big multi-national got a few £M from a very big quango to help them cut the size, and hence costs of making their commercial product.

If it's there for the taking, why not grab it? But really, and ignoring the more pressing question of the responbility to the public of those doling out the dough, should they have done?

Sticking your oar in

I've cut back a lot on stuff that flies around the e-ther via other media, and am especially dubious about sharing the welter of stories that involve research or scientists, but this is worth popping up: Biofuels make climate change worse, scientific study concludes

No 'may' or 'suggests' here. We have a 'make' and a 'concludes'. So I take more notice. And, though noting it is 'just' in a UK quality national, according to The Independent this is the '...first thorough scientific audit of a biofuel's carbon budget.'

And the words used subsequently are not minced: 'damning evidence' ... 'biggest environmental con-tricks' ... 'actually make global warming worse'.

Hold that last thought. enviROI anyone? I take no pleasure in this, but here we have a very telling example of what headlong rushes into 'anything green that must be good' can possibly lead to.

It is to be hoped that we can expect this salutory lesson be applied to ensure the real e-value of all manner of other green initiatives, from wind turbines... to simply banning plastic bags with no thought for the consequences of the alternatives (or lack of).

So I would wish government, activists... and media... would all learn to give pause before the leap on the green band, and/or banwagon as they too often do.

Indy - Michael McCarthy: 'Free lunch' that could cost the earth

Gaurdian - Biofuel farms make CO2 emissions worse

Go Figure

As all will, well... should know, I have set up Junkk.com (and this associated blog) to not only do good, but make good, too.

As yet, while I think the first can warrant a tick, I'm still kinda working on the second. Getting there, but... a ways to go.

I think I blogged a short while ago about an educational foray back into the world of online media, and the help and insights I gained, though to date can't do much about becuase they need major dosh. Hence my scoping out the weird and wondeful laternate universe of VCs Business Angels.

But one thing has rung in my memory since, which is the advised target of 500k unique visitors to get taken serioulsy as an ad medium.

I think I can do it. I just have to focus on what will make the offering unique, attract an audience and keep them loyal... and telling others.

Which is all quite an ambition. Especially as, at the 'mo, there is one of me trying to do this.

So I was quite interested in this piece about an outfit called Shiny Media. All very inspirational, and a big up to them. Thing is, for their 3.5M unique visistors they have a staff of 20+! That's one person per 150,000, which is what I have managed. So, at the end of the day, it remains a numbers game.

No wonder it's taking me a while. I must get in touch.

The world's larget rubbish dump

Reported in the Independent this morning, this is absolutely amazing!

"A 'plastic soup' of waste floating in the Pacific Ocean is growing at an alarming rate and now covers an area twice the size of the continental United States, scientists have said."

Known as the "Great Pacific Garbage Patch" or "trash vortex", it is estimated to contain some 100 million tons of flotsam!

"The vast expanse of debris – in effect the world's largest rubbish dump – is held in place by swirling underwater currents. This drifting 'soup' stretches from about 500 nautical miles off the Californian coast, across the northern Pacific, past Hawaii and almost as far as Japan."

"Plastic is believed to constitute 90 per cent of all rubbish floating in the oceans. The UN Environment Programme estimated in 2006 that every square mile of ocean contains 46,000 pieces of floating plastic."

And some people still insist that rubbish thrown out to sea doesn't constitute a problem!

Addendum (Junkk Male) - Well, someone seems to think there's an angle.

Kite ship makes significant fuel savings

I saw a piece on the MS Beluga Skysail on TV a few weeks back and wondered just how much energy the giant kite might save in terms of fuel costs.

Well, Reuters are now reporting that the vessel saved some 15 to 20% of its daily fuel needs by deploying the giant kite, cutting fuel consumption by some 4 tonnes per day. Now that's not an insignificant saving. I wonder if they're thinking about fitting giant kites onto many more cargo vessels now. Strange how things go full circle - from Sail, to Steam, to Oil & Diesel, and back to Sail.

I wonder what Firebird.com might be worth?

Sadly, not for sale.

But what I did find rather suprising, in a nice way, is to see what something do do with 're' was up for. Though quite how they funded that cocks an eyebrow.

So, maybe that bodes well for Junkk.com?

Also, and again sadly, not for sale though.

Creativematch - The million dollar 's' bought for UK domain name

NEWS/GO3 PR - Reading below the lines

I normally have a fair bit of time for what comes out of the Green Party Press Office, and am usually happy to print it with little, if any comment 'as is'.

I fear that this must be an exception; not so much for the content (which you, as big boys and girls, can make judgements upon for yourselves), but as an example of what I personally don't like seeing, and as much as I do, in matters of headline grabbing.

Here's what I got:

CANCER ‘CAUSED BY POLLUTION’, MEP LUCAS TO TELL BRIGHTON WOMEN

Event: MEP Caroline Lucas speaks at ‘C’s the Day’ cancer prevention event
Place: Friends’ Meeting House, Ship St, Brighton
Time: Saturday, February 9th, 10am-4pm. Dr Lucas to speak at 2.15pm

CANCER is often caused by environmental factors including toxic chemicals added to household goods, pesticides and poor air quality, local Green Party MEP Caroline Lucas will tell a Brighton cancer-prevention day.

Dr Lucas said: “Levels of breast cancer are rising across the EU – especially in eastern Europe and the UK, where one woman in nine will be diagnosed with the disease at some point in their lives.

“An increasing number of scientists are pointing to the link between toxic chemicals – especially so-called gender-bending hormone-disruptors – and breast cancer, which kills more than 10,000 people each year in the UK alone.

“Similarly links are being found between pesticide use and cancers. Yet these technologies are all growing apace – the Government and EU simply must exercise caution, and put human health above the profits of their friends in the companies that manufacture them.”

I am in no doubt that amongst many consequences of modern life, 'pollution' (however that may be defined) is high on the probable causes of cancer.

However, I do not believe that headline to be an accurate representation of the situation, and while the more qualifying statements below do express it better I fear that, to me at least, this did not come across at all well, no matter how worthy the thinking (and, one presumes, call to action) of that last para.

Desperately seeking Susan. Or Bob, Carol, Ted & Alice

Last night I attended an investment funding event at (and, I think, co-sponsored by) the University of Worcester School of Business.

There were others involved, with the lead being a brokerage called Beer & Partners, but also Advantage West Midlands as well.

Initially billed as a 'Dragon's Den', I almost didn't go because of the connotations of that sick show, but in the form of a 'Business Angel' Panel, which it was, I am glad I did.

A well-attended event, there was a good 100 folk there, so interest was high. And I recognized a few faces.

The panel comprised some experienced investors, though the names meant little to me: Mike Weaver (head of Beer in this neck 'o the woods), Kerry Jones, and Jim Walker.

The latter came out with the quote of the evening, which at least made it for me: 'Any product which addresses environmental issues is now really important, and top of any investor's list'.

And the pitches were all from 'green' businesses, which was a complete, if pleasant, surprise. There was an automotive fuel efficiency device and two energy monitoring devices/systems, which is an area I know quite a lot about of course.

At about 10mins, with feedback from panel and Q&A, it all scooted through in a very interesting hour.

I was mainly there as all that I am up to has hit the next hurdle of actually getting what I am doing to market, and into profit, and for that I know I need people with me. So, interestingly, earlier that day I had been engaged in just such an effort. And pretty encouraging it was, too. One was an interview, whereby a very talented and savvy post grad was seeing why she would want to spend a month here. I hope she got the answers she sought, and hence will. The other was with a marketing guy who for once was not looking for an upfront fee before doing anything. And he is both local, experienced and connected.

But as I do think investors may well still be part of the mix, I was keen to see how one might package the proposition.

Three interesting products. Three personable chaps pitching. But I was encouraged, because I had been thinking what I was up to and capable of would not be up to the task. Yet I felt my pitch, when it comes, would stack up very well in comparison. And the judges, though I suspect being very nice about it all, seemed interested and keen to develop things with these guys, though I actually had some reservations from my knowledge of market conditions, in several areas, for at least a couple of them.

Also interesting was the pitches. All were cut off. And all were cut off by spending too much time on what it was at the expense of how it would make money, and where, with who, etc. An easy mistake to make, and one I have done a lot by being the creator and not so focused on the profit motive aspects.

Also of note was the amounts requested, especially with some fairly hefty capital-requiring proposals, and/or also with significant staffing levels of senior folk for as yet unproven market concepts. Numbers of £150k were being mentioned, which can get gobbled up in a flash! Heck, I could do that with Junkk just on a sales director for a year.

Speaking of which, one the angels mentioned something I did not know, which is that supermarkets expect associated marketing budgets to be attached to any 'product' they engage. Worth bearing in mind for RE:tie.

There were also several other panel questions that seldom were addressed in the pitches, but were good to know as being important for inclusion and also as points of priority in such pitches.

IP was seldom highlighted, but is obviously key.

But the one thing that stood out above all that these guys were looking for is the management team. In place... and on the case.

And that is what I don't yet have, and must soon get.

Thing is, this event got me no further, just as have any conversations I have had with in theory 'innovator-supportive' Gov//NGO organizations, as to how I find such folk.

But I'm clawing closer... I think.

Water, water, everywhere......

..... and but few drops of common sense in sight!

Today, our esteemed gov. (through DEFRA) launched its strategy for the future of securing water supplies in England. See this report from Government Network News.

The strategy's proposals include:-

- "The aim to reduce water usage to 120 litres per person per day by 2030 from the current level of roughly 150 litres per person per day, through a combination of efficient technology, metering and tariffs."

i.e. We'll all pay more through new tariffs. Sounds like all stick and no carrot to me!

- Possible mandatory metering

Shouldn't this have been done years ago? At least for any new developments?

- New proposals to tackle surface water drainage.
"proposals include introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity, clarifying responsibilities for sustainable drainage systems, and reviewing the ability of new development to connect surface water automatically into the public sewer."

'introducing surface water management plans to co-ordinate activity' - Meaning what exactly? Make it up as you go along?
'Clarifying responsibilities' - like, admitting that now one has any that they are accountable for now?
'connect surface water automatically into the public sewer' - errrrm, no! Surface water runs off into the public storm drain system. And the ideal thing would be to make such surface water run-off much slower in order to inhibit flooding.
And wouldn't it have made really good sense to make it mandatory for all new development to incorporate rain water harvesting systems for grey water usage? That would achieve a much bigger consumption reduction target very easily.

And, of course, lots of proposals for consultations on things like flooding and erosion.

But not a single comment about better enforcement to make the various water authorities fix and repair the zillions of leaks that our current potable water distribution system has.

All in all, it looks like another complete waste of taxpayers money, designed to provide jobs for government sponsored quangos and agencies who talk, talk, talk and talk, and do, well, very bloody little! Sorry, there is one outcome that is inevitable; it will hit every one of us in the pocket, as usual, as it will certainly make us pay more for the water that we do use.

EVENT - ECOPACK '08

I can't believe it has taken me this long to post this up.

Probably one of the biggest events we're taking part in so far, with hopefully major benefits for the cuases of both the RE:tie and Junkk.com message of second use design.

MONTH - Next

FIELD: Enviro-related
WHEN: 12-13 March
WHAT: ECOPACK '08 (and Packaging Innovations)
WHAT... MORE?: Does what it says on the... er... pack. The premier UK trade event for what can, and should, come in the world of packaging. Note that in addition to 'Innovation' they also are talking 'ECO'. Of course, some can honestly, if immodestly, make the claim to be both.
WHERE: NEC, Brum
WHO: Me!!!!!! I have just been asked to be a speaker on both days, which is a genuine honour and real endorsement of the concept. Now all I have to do is figure out what to say!!!
HOW: As far as I'm aware, it's free if you register.
URL: http://www.easyfairs.com/shows/detail.aspx?ShowID=464
COMMENTS: It's a trade event, so you'd need to be pretty keen on your packaging to go just for general public interest. But the Junkk.com stand is ready and waiting to tickle your fancy!!!!

This is posted as a new blog feature.

The little things

With a Mum next door I need to keep an eye on all day, I am quite sympathetic to those in a similar position, and appreciative of any efforts to help.

Hence I was more than interested in a BBC piece, fronted by Tony Robinson, pointing at a booklet by the Alzheimers Society, called 'Putting Care Right'.

However, in downloading this PDF, I am minded of some design principles I'd really like to advocate, especially when it comes to web publishing (and a few hard cover books taboot).

It can be done, and may even be an option here, but as it is not obvious that is in fact a good first point:

1 - clearly point upfront to a/the eco-print option!

Then there are a couple of others:

2 - Don't use reverse text. It gobbles ink!

3 - Make the most of the page. If you have to have a super-cool design, fine, but for printing just get the info across in as economical a way possible. Small pictures and fill the page.

Yes I know, I should leave it on screen. But at often a few Meg I actually deem printing and deleting the file possibly more eco (see a previous Prof's Poser), and in any case defy most to say this is not something they'd prefer printed out to refer to and carry about, for instance when visiting a home.

What is it bears do in the woods again?

I fear I am getting oversensitive to anything that smacks of overkill on the MWCC front, so must tread cautiously here.

I merely pose a question, having watched a BBC news slot about bears not hibernating in a UK zoo on account of the warm weather.... caused by.... you guessed it.

Do they usually do this? I'd have thought things were tad different as they are in an less than typical enviornment, namely a zoo pen in the more temperate UK.

So are our ursine chums usually tucked up over the winter months?

Sadly these days my trust factor in the science I am fed is so low that lack of such context simply makes me even more dubious.

And for some, if shown to be 'a stretch', it simply provides ammo to discredit other stuff that certainly should be making us take note at unusual weather/climate (whatever, I just gave up on a blog with two scientists knocking spots off each other on the correct usage of these. Who cares!!) anomalies.

No sh*t!