That could be the scenario here in the UK as a direct consequence of climate change, according to this from The Guardian.
Heatwaves, Malaria, skin cancer, Lyme's disease, plus huge increases in food poisoning cases from nasties like Salmonella, as well as increased rates of air pollution health problems, could account for thousands of additional deaths. It reads a bit like the proverbial pestilence stories from the bible - all that seems to be missing are the plagues of locusts!
It's all going to be OK though, because our Gov is on the case - "health minister Dawn Primarolo said the national health service would have to adapt to deal with the problems posed by climate change. ......... Measures would include: ensuring that hospitals were equipped to deal with the effects of heat, gales, and floods; developing local plans for heatwaves, gales and flooding; disaster preparation; and advising people how to adapt to climate change."
Errrr ..... wouldn't it be better to put more effort into mitigating climate change rather than adapting to it?
But, and again, it's all down to one little word - the report uses that word 'could' again - which seems to be the main culprit for most of this alarming reporting.
Tuesday, February 12, 2008
Leagues of their own
I have blogged before on the pre-selective, exclusive nature of a lot that takes place in the world of 're'.
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
Conferences and events that you need to pony up thousands for just to sit in an audience. No wonder those that are 'in' often don't relate as well as they might to those who are not.
Of course, all things that take time and money to create and need paying for (even Junkk.com, one day), so market forces will dictate.
But I must say I just had an eye-opner as to where I am vs. where others can afford to be in the wonderful world of being informed about your market.
Amongst many others, I subscribe to a (free) online news feed called PackWire. And I often get the odd useful tidbit through.
So when I saw this in my subject line, with all that I am in the thick of with RE:tie, I really perked up:
Consumer Attitudes Towards Packaging: New Insights and Future Perspectives
Today, it is widely acknowledged that packaging decisions can have a significant impact on sales. This report explores the changing nature of consumer attitudes and behaviors towards packaging in consumer packaged goods. It examines all the key trends shaping packaging led choices and ultimately offers actionable recommendations for industry players going forward.
Reasons to purchase...
• Access a blend of quantitative and qualitative data aggregating the most compelling and recent research in this increasingly important topic
• Gain a detailed insight into consumer views towards packaging and understand the implications for design
• Improve your marketing by following best-practice guidelines enabling more effective targeting with on-trend products and relevant communications
• Download Brochure
Sadly, a short-lived moment of excitement at further valuable market intel, for it was follwed by this:
• $5695
Ah well, I guess I'll just have to wing it some more! But one does have to wonder hwo those who can afford access to such things seem to pretty much get it wrong so often still!
Hardly a flying start!
Back in December 2006, Ol' Golden, then our chancellor, trumpeted a major tax relief policy that would see all new homes deemed to be zero carbon (in terms of emissions) free of stamp duty. Despite the apparently vague definition of what zero carbon meant exactly, this created quite a bit of excitement at the time, and many pundits were forecasting that the savings involved for buyers would entirely offset the additional construction costs.
OK, so a year and a bit on, just how many thousands of new homes have been constructed to qualify for this major tax relief?
Go on, have a guess. Any idea? No? Well, the answer is six. No, not six thousand, but the single digit only - i.e. six new homes have qualified for stamp duty exemption. Report is from This Is London.
"Clearly this does fall into the camp of green-tax con. The Government is not putting forward serious policies to tackle climate change and this is a classic example. ........ It is all talk and no action. If the Government were serious about benefiting the environment, they would offer everyone a rebate if their houses were properly insulated."
Quite! Despite the government spokesman's claim that numbers will rapidly rise this year, for once I agree with the Green Party's economic spokesman wholeheartedly.
OK, so a year and a bit on, just how many thousands of new homes have been constructed to qualify for this major tax relief?
Go on, have a guess. Any idea? No? Well, the answer is six. No, not six thousand, but the single digit only - i.e. six new homes have qualified for stamp duty exemption. Report is from This Is London.
"Clearly this does fall into the camp of green-tax con. The Government is not putting forward serious policies to tackle climate change and this is a classic example. ........ It is all talk and no action. If the Government were serious about benefiting the environment, they would offer everyone a rebate if their houses were properly insulated."
Quite! Despite the government spokesman's claim that numbers will rapidly rise this year, for once I agree with the Green Party's economic spokesman wholeheartedly.
On yer bike!
That seems to be the message from Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, as reported by NaturalChoices today.
Can't argue with any of the ideas at all; it all looks very sensible and would be for any major urban conurbation. But just look at that cost, £1 Billion! That seems an awful lot of bucks for a few cycle ways!
And I'll be interested to see what any 'out of city' local equivalents might be. An express cycleway from Shrewsbury to Ludlow? I can't quite see it happening somehow.
Can't argue with any of the ideas at all; it all looks very sensible and would be for any major urban conurbation. But just look at that cost, £1 Billion! That seems an awful lot of bucks for a few cycle ways!
And I'll be interested to see what any 'out of city' local equivalents might be. An express cycleway from Shrewsbury to Ludlow? I can't quite see it happening somehow.
A very cheap shot
And I am making it. Sorry.
Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.
Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.
Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.
At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.
It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.
Just watching the BBC morning news about a wind farm proposal in Scotland, with those involved making the case for and agin'.
Mainly it surrounds the energy needs vs. other factors such as, ironically, 'environmental damage'.
Thing is, from the start to the finish of the piece, live and to camera, the reporter was in front of a mighty windmill that wasn't actually turning, with a couple behind also acting as nifty perches for seagulls.
At least I am now joined in this less than helpful, and rather superficial, observation by the anchor. Tricky. Becuase of course if they had opted for the library shots the BBC could have been accused of potraying an overly favourable scenario.
It's just as shame that, given the choice to do it live, it wasn't considered helpful to also address the enviROI of the operational facts to round out the case. All I know is that I went away with a vision of a great, big... still turbine.
NEWS/GO3 PR - Pocket battles
A PR last night from the Green (Party) Machine (London) has strirred a musing in me. Let me share it here as supplied, but I do propose to comment:
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
ABOLISH ROAD TAX AND CHARGE THE POLLUTERS, DARLING
The Green Party's Principal Speaker, Caroline Lucas MEP has today
urged the government to reward responsible motorists by abolishing
the Road Tax, and shifting the responsibility onto gas-guzzlers
through the fuel duty. The call comes as road lobbyists meet with the
Chancellor to plead for a smaller increase in fuel tax.
Dr Lucas said:
"The flat road tax on vehicle ownership takes no account of road
usage, and provides no incentive or reward for making less polluting
travel choices. A far fairer alternative would be to scrap it and move
the responsibility onto fuel tax.
"But today we see the road lobby arguing against this fairer measure.
The AA has consistently argued for more roadbuilding, more traffic,
more pollution. They have attempted to block every effort to reduce
our dependency on petrol. Now the price has inevitably risen, and
they want the rest of us to pay for it through our taxes, or in cuts
to services.
"Most car owners would like to take more public transport, but some
lobbyists seem determined to make it as hard for them as possible.
Does Alasdair Darling have the guts to stand up to them?"
At first blush, what is not to agree with? Polluter pays. Simple.
Thing is, this is issued by a self-evidently London-centric source (not suprisingly, as their candidate is gunning for mayor. Which, by the way, I was totally unaware of, for which the major media might be asked why. It's the Boris & Ken show, with Hugh coming in on occasion. No one else gets a peep). But to the best of my interpretation, this call refers to a national issue.
And there be the rub. And it's our old chum again. The politics of the pocket. Or Eco(nomics) vs. Eco(logy).
In London, you don't really need a car, especially to do your job. Distances are shorter. Cycling is an option. Tubes and trains and busses abound. So the Prius is really just to get the luvs to cello practice without paying the congestion charge.
But elsewhere you might need to drop a few hundred miles a week in your Fiesta just to earn a crust.
So what seems so simple need not necessarily be so... or certainly fair. It's a tricky balance, but whoever starts trying to do it properly will get my vote. Make that whenever...
Monday, February 11, 2008
There are ethical funds and there are ............errrr .... ethical funds
This from the Guardian highlights a few little nuances that may surprise you if you are lucky enough to have a few spare quid and choose to invest in one of the so called 'ethical funds'.
Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.
So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.
It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?
Reading it made me smile. There are obviously rather varying shades of ethical just as there are varying shades of green.
So, if you thought that your ethical fund investment was directly helping to tackle climate change, you just may have to reconsider having read this.
It's just not easy being green, or ethical, is it?
Bureaucrats - 200. Rainforests - Nil
And my brain into minus figures, if not near meltdown.What I should be doing is getting cracking on filling this lot out. But all I can think of doing is taking a picture and blogging (yes, I need help. In more ways than one).
You are looking of stacks of up to a dozen pages, from A to O, though with a few letters rating subsets from (i) to (iv), so probably around 30 stacks in all.
It all started so well. I stumbled across some nice folk who liked what I was doing and offered to help with the prototypes of the RE:tie for the show next month. So I went up to Brum to see what they could do and explain what was needed; we communed, and lo... it was good.
And it's all ready to kick off. With precisely a month to go. But... just... a bit of paperwork.
I didn't pay much attention as it was just one Excel document, but when it came time to address it (OK, deadline) it just kept on printing... and printing. No first born required, nor pint of blood, but amounts and levels of data required that go back in the past and project into the future that I can barely grasp the relevance of for this task, yet alone imagine how I will aquire... or complete.... ever.
Even the lovely lady who sent it to me was sympathetic, for she is but an intermediary working for the University and hired just to handle their responsibilities with such paperwork, as demanded from 'above' by... now who is that? A blue square with a circle of golden stars at the bottom of each page (only part-funded by, mind. Lord help me if I get another set from another bunch later!). Layer upon layer of 'EU-what!' to 'help' them 'help' me get a prototype ready.
And I must do it as I have no choice now but to. I am committed.
But sadly, I do not seem to have the luxury of a lovely lady hired for the sole purpose of filling such forms out.
Nope, despite writing that, the monkey is still very much resting full square on my shoulders.
And so, with a heavy everything I must now turn to Form A (i).....
You gotta larf
Sorry, but this just appealed to my sense of irony.On the page devoted to a piece on climate science (well, the apparent supression of a scientist in the field - Climate scientist they could not silence), I could not help but note what rather dominated the rest of the page. Not quite the same on the online version.
There's the medium. There's the message. There's mixed. And there's just, plain 'off'.
The media really does just love it all ways.
Just in case they don't 'moderate' it in:
Meanwhile, in the print edition, the majority of the page with this piece seems to be dominated for a Tesco ad for cheap petrol - 'Every litre helps'.
Not quite clear as to what, in the circumstances.
Delicious irony?'
Bet they're in with a chance at the Sunday Times "Best Green Companies" slot, mind.
To the winners, whoever they are, the spoils.
Zadie Smith sinks teeth into book awards - it is about the world of literature, but applies pretty much everywhere.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
I've won a few. Lost more than I care to think on. But it's certainly hard these days to think of many that are judged purely on merit, without soem agenda creeping in.
Awards are, like most things these days, are merely products of an industry whose prime motivation is its own survival and the interests of those who work within it or feed off it to survive.
Winning is nice (and useful) if you are a winner. Not so great if you don't. But those nominated andhence competing are essentially irrelevant. It is the process, more than anything, that drives the system, rather than the product (though to some remoras, sorry, reporters, controversy can extend the period they can suck the life out of the topic).
So it is refreshing to say the least, if necessary to avoid accusations of sour grapes, to find a winner rather plainly stating it like it is.
Which, with luck, may briefly make for uncomfortabel reading for those who are paid way too much and have much more influence than they deserve, simply for being in the industry rtaher than contributing anything worthwhiel to it.
But though flawed, I see no hope for improvemnt, and hence the real winners will continue to be those nowhere near the podium.
Sunday, February 10, 2008
Led by donkeys; reported on by jackals
Watching the Andrew Marr show and decided to make a commment.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
I simply could not let pass a continued notion coming across that I, as a member of the public, am apparently very happy with our Dear Leader's performance so far, or indeed upon the reporting on it.
I simply could not believe a News 24 report the other night, which was the first in as long as I could recall that involved our PM having an opinion, when the reporter seemed to be parroting a press relase, and casting an amazingly glow on the man's character based on the subjective belief of the reporter. I do not think it is an objective newsperson's' job to say how calm and confident a politcal indivdual is, or how genuine and honest his beliefs. This was a character endorsement too far in my view.
However, the main reason for my post is a comment made by the host regarding the fact we are enjoying some unseasonably warm weather that is described as showing Global Warming in action.
Just watched the slot with Peter Mandelson, where the competencies of our PM were raised. With all the huge issues swirling about us I can of late recall no peep from him, bar a glowing mention the other day by a BBC reporter who positively misted up at Mr. Brown's common person empathy via his deep interest in... football.
ps: Andrew, when the weather is unseasonably nice, if you have to come up with a reason it might be better to refer to the possible explanation as climate change rather than global warming. Otherwise you may hand yet another piece of ammo to 'climate optimists' who often cite often rather loose science and editorial, especially when comparisons are made with historical records, or when it ends up very cold somewhere.
Voyages of discovery
Amazing what leads to what.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
I was scoping one of my many sources of stuff, and came across this from SHARKRIDE: A retail experience with negative externalities minimized and reflected in the labeling and pricing.
Now I can't say the headline did a lot for me, or indeed the cause of bringing the e-word to the near-indifferent masses, but it was worth persevering.
And I did pop in a plug, as it seems there may be guys, like Bob, who 'know people'.
I have to say I rather stumbled on the, er, ‘negative ex-thingies’. But a nice share, ta.
For any, like Bob, interested in mitigating efforts via design, may I point you at http://www.junkk.com, which tries to matchmake those with ideas for second uses with those keen not to throw stuff away if not necessary.
But I have to agree that the more potent notion is building this in from the off. If any are in the UK in March there is a show at the NEC called Innovative Packaging, with a sub-section called EcoPack, at which I am exhibiting (a bottle/jar cap re:evolutionary design called RE:tie) and also speaking on the joys of re:use!
However there was, in the words of Yoda, 'one more'. And that was the little gizmo called Snapshot, which looks a well nifty effort to, as the name suggests, give folk a thumbnail of your site.
Saturday, February 09, 2008
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.
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.
Friday, February 08, 2008
'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.
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'
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.
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
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.
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).
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).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)