Junkk.com promotes fun, reward-based e-practices, sharing oodles of info in objective, balanced ways. But we do have personal opinions, too! Hence this slightly ‘off of site, top of mind' blog by Junkk Male Peter. Hopefully still more ‘concerned mates’ than 'do this... or else' nannies, with critiques seen as constructive or of a more eyebrow-twitching ‘Oh, really?!' variety. Little that’s green can be viewed only in black and white.
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Telling you so.
First up was part of an ongoing series on 'Future Schools', which on the whole can only be a very good thing. So much so, I might make this something to assist with.
My only slight concern was the mantra nature of the information being dished out and played back by some of the kids, but that might have been a consequence of the terrible addiction to silly short timeslots and 'that's all we have time for' that is today's TV. I loved the science and the way the kids were getting on board, but there was a slight eyebrow twitch at what seemed to me was a trip to Japan to study what they are doing over there. It's an impossible task trying to balance our need for/addiction to travel - especially in the name of education and promoting good eco-behaviour - but I have to wonder at the symbolism of a child cranking that out without being aware of the irony. And I couldn't resist a slight guffaw at the wind turbine 'providing power for 3 homes' - except, one presumes, at the dead stop it was shown with. I fear I hear the slight sound of boxes being ticked, with targets and agendas being met too much at the expense at decent, objective, questioning education.
I want my kids to be aware, concerned and proactive about their future, but I don't want them trotting out stuff they are fed as a done deal, that may not be quite so clear cut in reality.
What I did feel was telling was that out of a £50M pot to green-up public buildings, only £1M has so far been used. Er... why? Don't tell me, £49M is required to staff the system to administer it. Oo... oo... sir, I know. Let's run an ad campaign!
Then, there was almost VERY GOOD piece about recycling, based on a Which? report. The intro inferred, to my approbation, that the big problem with all this is that consumers don't know what can and can't be recycled, and often have little help to do so correctly.
I have to say I groaned a bit that to address this we were treated to the thoughts of Neil & Christine Hamilton, though there was also a rather charming and erudite Michael Warhurst from the FoE. Sadly he was unable or not provided enough opportunity to do too much to develop on his expertise, such that we were treated to a load more 'will need looking ats' than much that moved anything on.
Funnily enough Neil, who was there as the spoiler (well, more so than Christine), posed quite a few sensible questions and legitimate concerns, and they really did not get answered very well. At least to allow the viewer to feel theirs 'as consumers' had been addressed.
As I wrote to the BBC (in the slim hope of a plug, if they have short memories):
RE:hashing
It is good to hear some thoughts on the actual enviROI (benefit to the planet) of some more target-based systems such as recycling, which can often be very uncritically served up by those with a vested interest in meeting them. Let us not forget that re:duction, re:use and re:pair all stand higher on the re:hierarchy.
ADDENDUM:
If you look in the comment section you will see there is one with a very useful lead to the Which? report via an equally great find, a website called newscounter
This is obviously an issue to follow very carefully, and I will.
It's so odd, because I was just talking this morning with the editor of Recycling and Waste World (another worthy read to stay on top of things) about this, and trying to get my head around how this story tallied with their front page that 92% of local authorities now offer plastic bottle recycling.
2 comments:
I believe in freedom of speech. But I also don't like bullies on blogs, even verbal ones, as they can drive away those with something valid to say... or offer.
Subjective is fine, but well argued and substantiated is even better. Calm and polite tops. Anything that crosses my personal line will not go up. There may be reasons given, but not guaranteed.
I'm not too keen on 'Anon' as a handle (and the content usually explains why), so if that's what you opt for it may not make it. Sorry.
The local government association has responded to the criticism from Which? You can read the response and judge whether it's convincing here: http://newscounter.com/fullStory.jsp?id=267754
ReplyDeleteWow. THIS is what it's all about. And now I have been introduced to a valuable new resource to help in trying to arrive at an objective view. I wonder if it's automated, as I have before replied to a very convincing reply from a robot/spider thing, to my eternal IT-embarassment.
ReplyDeleteI'm only sorry my dire abilities with HTML won't... yet... allow me to provide a decent hyeprlink here. But fear not. I feel a blog in itself coming on!
To the issue at hand, it was great to have access to more than I saw on the simple broadcast slot.
However, unless I missed something, or clicked on the wrong thing, I am totally stunned that those who so far chose to vote in the newscounter system seemed more persuaded by the explanation than the story (I wish I could flip between this and the page as I write, but that would be a recipe for crashing).
I must say have more sympathy with almost all I read by those interviewed, and frankly the reply didn't, to me, even address a fraction of the issues raised, much less answer them to any degree of satisfaction on my part.
It's shaping up as a big issue, so I guess I'll have to keep pretty on my toes to ensure I have all the facts, and try and ensure that those I do have are all I should have... and are accurate.
Sheesh, why did I give up the day job?