Like I say, this morning's Breakfast was a rich seam.
So along with all the other vastly crucial environmental issues covered of late, our Declan does an expose of... plastic bags. There's a novelty.
I simply don't get it. And have still to find out just what amount of plastic the 290 a year 'we' 'use' actually amounts to as a block when compared to say, the half dozen Fairy Liquid bottles we get through each year. Or if it really matters vs., well, most other things, really.
Anyway, the target was online deliveries, and it was actually quite surprising that these bozos use plastic bags, and just how many they do use, with Declan's best buds ASDA swinging in at 50% above the rest (15 for a normal 3-bag shop).
What was not surprising was that, good golly, they are all 'looking at' new ways. Now, let's see, home delivery have been going on how long? And NOW they decide to get all proactive. Sad.
And then we get a two-for-one deal on spokespersons, with the classic retail clone of sharp-suit, shaved-head and monotone mantra from a couple of high-power (in their minds) 'executives'. I bet a brace of 318 Beemers were being waxed in the underground garage as we watched. And 'make some noise' parties to Ibiza with Linda in accounts getting finalised on the Bluetooth as they headed back to shopping-central.
Their families must be so proud. I'm sure they are worth every penny. As is my licence fee.
Showing posts with label BREKTV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label BREKTV. Show all posts
Wednesday, July 11, 2007
Sunday, June 24, 2007
Something for another time
I was idly watching (is there any other way?) BBC Breakfast 'News' this morning, when an innocuous little piece came on about some Eastern European state whose capital has become a City of Culture.
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
So far, so what. But my ears pricked up when it was introduced in the voiceover by mentioning the fact that such places had been 'opened up' as weekend short-hauls by the explosion in budget airlines. 'Interesting,' I thought, 'I wonder where this is going?'.
Well, for the majority of the next 5 minutes it went there with a full crew to have a very good time, seemingly without irony.
Then we were back at the studio, with one of the BBC's 'experts' (folk who are a) a mate, b) next door and c) On a Sunday prepared to get up at a silly hour. So I have no idea who she was) to discuss it all.
And then, near the end, we had the eco-tilt.
'I suppose we should acknowledge the environmental aspect of all this', she said.
Well, that would be a plan, considering all that has preceded it, both in the BBC's corporate contribution simply by making the piece, but also the consequences of 'selling' the notion so well.
I don't pretend it's an easy one, but I found the jocular bouffant-du-jour anchor chain's final comment so very telling 'Well, yes. But that is something for another time.'
Er, when? And if not by you, who? And why?
Thursday, June 07, 2007
Telling you so.
Today was another bumper crop of eco on BBC Breakfast news.
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.
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.
Thursday, May 31, 2007
Witches' Knickers
I have pretty much given up on BBC Breakfast News now (and they on me, so not much to lose), as they have pretty much given up on news, or at least reporting, in favour of creating visuals of press releases.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
However, around the cornflakes it can still often be lurking on in the corner, and I just caught the tail-end of the latest worthy initiative surrounding plastic bags.
Now as I missed the beginning I am not quite sure what it was all about, but here's a link to today's programme, and as this will soon disappear to the initiative in question: mosbags, guerilla bagging.
Sounds fun. No harm. Good luck to them.
But, now, enviROI.
I learned something. 'We' apparently demand/use/dispose of 290 bags a year, and the reporter was seen under a pile of them. Yuk. Thing is, how much plastic is that? No, really, how much? I don't know, but ignoring litter (which IS an issue) and killing wildlife (ditto, though I wonder how much other rubbish in the sea and fields does more), in terms of plastic weight (not volume), how much are we actually talking here? As the aspiring beneficiary of the RE:tie's contribution (though that is turning something that has no use, save disposal currently, into an actual second useful item) I am the first to wish to say every little bit helps, but context is important. If compressed into a block, how many Albert Halls are we talking here or, more personally, how many bottles of fabric softener for example, with one in our kitchen now destined for the bin because I don't know if I can pop it in with the PEP fizzies in the local plastics skip - which to me is a MUCH BIGGER ISSUE!???!
As it is a critique sometimes levelled at much that Junkk.com and I come up with, I also wonder about consumer uptake.
With a family of four and time pressures, my trips to the supermarket are few, far and frantic. What I have done is kept several cardboard bottle carriers in the boots of both cars, which I take with me and pop in the trolley. These make a big difference to the bagging, and with bottles double bagging, that used to be done. I also have a few score hemp jobbies from council shows and eco-expo giveaways, which it now occurs to throw into the mix, too. So this piece has done its job with a slight awareness boost, and credit to them.
But I have to say I need about 10 to handle it all. I noted that this piece was again a bunch of young, single, urban trendies, on foot picking up a sarny and a bottle of Evian (how many bags' worth?), and again wonder how that equates to a harassed parent trying to get the week's shopping in and done.
Personally, if one were organised, I always thought the crate system was better, though the sheer amount of plastic making them seemed huge and possibly poor enviROI from the get go. But the word there is organised. For spontaneity, we are back to remembering to take these no so little bags with us. For a 5 item dash to the corner shop, why not, but for a bigger effort, by foot or even car, how many are going to go there (though logically why not if you are to struggle back with several laden bags) with all these efforts hanging out of your pockets? There is a supposition one is just carrying out that task, from your home base. Is that practical? Is it going to be done?
But, as noted, other countries seem to do fine, and waste is waste, so it must be addressed. I just wish we could be a bit more joined up, recognise some practical realities, and sell it in ways that might appeal beyond a twenty-something BBC researcher's local street community and PR mates, authority box tickers, real-issue, greenwash-distracting, knee-jerk marketers, etc.
Finally, and on a practical note, I was also a little intrigued by the reporter's choice of recycling bin for his 290 bags at the end of the piece: what looked like a street skip. Now unless there are industrial sized collection facilities in his neck of the woods, I'd hazard that all that ends up in there ends up in a landfill, and so to ensure they stand a better chance of actually being recycled would probably advocate popping them in the bin at the supermarket that says 'plastic bag recycling'.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
News, new, slow news day
I don't really have much to lose with most parts (a few nice, notable, exceptions, who are the only ones likely to be reading this) of the BBC these days, so what the hey.
Turned on at 5.30am to get straight into day whatever of the Maddyfest. Concerned journalists and anchors here and there swapping war stories about how the beastly Portuguese coppers don't give press conferences BECAUSE THEY ... ER... 'WE' NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!!!! No irony at all when they interview a Brit policeman who mutters that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing here to be allowed to get on with their jobs rather than having to tell the bad guys (I didn't mean the media, but...) every ten seconds what they may or may not be doing to satisfy the demands of the media.
And now, having got that off my chest, here is the rest of the news.
Seems a highly-funded bunch of academics has announced a study that pumping out endless 'We're all toast' climate change doom 'n gloom stories to a willing and eager ratings machine such as our media... isn't helping much. Check back a few years to see why I can only ponder, with some rueful shaking of head, that I wish I'd said that. Oh, I did. Along with a few (not many) others. And I told a few media outlets, such as the BBC, but maybe offering a word of caution on the responsibility of outrageous reporting wasn't quite in keeping with their journalistic standards of... 'WE'RE ALL DOOMED! - say eco-activists with book tours', vs. 'NO, WE'RE NOT! - say big-oil funded deniers'. Which ever way, the ratings flames are fanned to good effect by those less interested in the truth, accuracy and a better future tomorrow, than a good headline today.
And so we come to Declan, 'discussing' (if that is what his slot can be called) train travel today, looking as cute and cuddly as ever in his Thomas the Tank outfit on the footplate of a steam train. Now, remind me, how do these things work? Oh, yes, they burn vast amounts of of coal, and not very efficiently belch it out of their smokestack. Ah, well, a little artistic licence in the name of good TV, eh? But one wonders when he'll be off to the Arctic to 'study' global warming.
Anyway, a point was made. The eco-family tested out a train and the car. Train = fun. Car = chore. No contest. But... Train = loadsamunny, plus lots more per person. Oops. There's also the small matter of where you are setting off from and going to. Plus flexibility. And convenience. And...
I am leaving soon for the first day of the Total Packaging Show at the NEC. I need to get there, do the biz and get back. Money, time and convenience. On a good day in the car outside of rush-hour I can get there in about an hour, and back to get in more work, for about a tenner in petrol. In that time I may just about have got a bus to Gloucester to the station, if one runs at the right time and there is a train. And I have a family to feed by every minute of my day being used to try and make my business work. Because the demands of those in power require that.
Sorry, no contest. So I am not sure what point was served by the piece, as it merely served to confirm my situation. As far as I was aware, not one jot of 'discussion' about how to improve matters was attempted. Plus ca change...
But I think they are flying more reporters to the Iberian Peninsula. The weather is lovely there at this time of year, I gather.
Indy - Wild theories and a warped sense of priorities - at least they didn't also put the latest 'scoop' on the front page.
Indy - Reporting The Hunt For Madeleine: Media and police collide on the Algarve - Has a nice sense of irony and moral outrage, though you do suspect they are also not averse to feeding off it all. One thing that does come across, to me at least, is how sidelined the actual finding of the little girl has become to the process of reporting upon the cirrus surrounding it.
Turned on at 5.30am to get straight into day whatever of the Maddyfest. Concerned journalists and anchors here and there swapping war stories about how the beastly Portuguese coppers don't give press conferences BECAUSE THEY ... ER... 'WE' NEED TO KNOW WHAT IS GOING ON!!!! No irony at all when they interview a Brit policeman who mutters that maybe it wouldn't be such a bad thing here to be allowed to get on with their jobs rather than having to tell the bad guys (I didn't mean the media, but...) every ten seconds what they may or may not be doing to satisfy the demands of the media.
And now, having got that off my chest, here is the rest of the news.
Seems a highly-funded bunch of academics has announced a study that pumping out endless 'We're all toast' climate change doom 'n gloom stories to a willing and eager ratings machine such as our media... isn't helping much. Check back a few years to see why I can only ponder, with some rueful shaking of head, that I wish I'd said that. Oh, I did. Along with a few (not many) others. And I told a few media outlets, such as the BBC, but maybe offering a word of caution on the responsibility of outrageous reporting wasn't quite in keeping with their journalistic standards of... 'WE'RE ALL DOOMED! - say eco-activists with book tours', vs. 'NO, WE'RE NOT! - say big-oil funded deniers'. Which ever way, the ratings flames are fanned to good effect by those less interested in the truth, accuracy and a better future tomorrow, than a good headline today.
And so we come to Declan, 'discussing' (if that is what his slot can be called) train travel today, looking as cute and cuddly as ever in his Thomas the Tank outfit on the footplate of a steam train. Now, remind me, how do these things work? Oh, yes, they burn vast amounts of of coal, and not very efficiently belch it out of their smokestack. Ah, well, a little artistic licence in the name of good TV, eh? But one wonders when he'll be off to the Arctic to 'study' global warming.
Anyway, a point was made. The eco-family tested out a train and the car. Train = fun. Car = chore. No contest. But... Train = loadsamunny, plus lots more per person. Oops. There's also the small matter of where you are setting off from and going to. Plus flexibility. And convenience. And...
I am leaving soon for the first day of the Total Packaging Show at the NEC. I need to get there, do the biz and get back. Money, time and convenience. On a good day in the car outside of rush-hour I can get there in about an hour, and back to get in more work, for about a tenner in petrol. In that time I may just about have got a bus to Gloucester to the station, if one runs at the right time and there is a train. And I have a family to feed by every minute of my day being used to try and make my business work. Because the demands of those in power require that.
Sorry, no contest. So I am not sure what point was served by the piece, as it merely served to confirm my situation. As far as I was aware, not one jot of 'discussion' about how to improve matters was attempted. Plus ca change...
But I think they are flying more reporters to the Iberian Peninsula. The weather is lovely there at this time of year, I gather.
Indy - Wild theories and a warped sense of priorities - at least they didn't also put the latest 'scoop' on the front page.
Indy - Reporting The Hunt For Madeleine: Media and police collide on the Algarve - Has a nice sense of irony and moral outrage, though you do suspect they are also not averse to feeding off it all. One thing that does come across, to me at least, is how sidelined the actual finding of the little girl has become to the process of reporting upon the cirrus surrounding it.
Monday, May 07, 2007
Studying to death?
I quick Grinch-risking missive to the Beeb:
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Dear Sirs,
Re: Antarctic Global Warming Prizes
While the theory behind this initiative, and the ideas it inspired are to be applauded, I have to wonder at the prizes.
Our polar wastelands seem to be getting pretty crowded these days with people traveling there (often with film crews in tow) to 'study the effects', one presumes with certain irony, of people traveling there.
And did I hear right that the runner up prizes were for... travel?
http://www.iceedge.co.uk/
Just watched some winners (with a few non-winners sounding typically much more interesting actual solutions as opposed to TV-friendly gimmicks).
Further to my Grinch views, I thought the comments were telling: 'Well, it is a dilemma flying up there, but at least getting to see it before it goes will be amazing'.
Hmn, indeed. Maybe we should all go up and catch it before it has gone then?
Then I read this:
Binge-flying culture is just beginning. The only way to stop it is a severe tax
As an environmentally-concerned individual, I face the dilemma of being married to a Singaporean with all the family-related annual travel consequences that creates (no flights for several years now, but wife and kids do deserve to see their folks soon). Sadly, time and money preclude the options of other alternatives, unless I can get sponsored on a slow travel blog by some green-minded newspaper. However, unless you are a mate of the editor that may be a dodgy sell, as people may tire of 'I'm spending a year having a hoot doing no work... and getting paid for it' efforts by now.
It does rather seem the travel issue is getting more and more polarised, if you'll forgive the pun... bearing in mind what follows.
Today I watched BBC Breakfast News with what seemed like an excellent initiative to encourage kids to come up with some ideas (a few which that were perhaps less televisual not getting the credit they deserved, IMHO. Chewing gum will sort climate change?) to tackle global warming.
The prize? A trip to see the polar regions before they disappear because, one presumes, of people going to see them before they disappear.
And the runner up prizes were... travel!
There is quite an interesting industry being created in saving, and promoting the saving of this planet.
Shame it seems there is little actual desire or effort to actually get around to actually doing it in favour of hype, spin and a quick slot on the TV.
Monday, April 30, 2007
All the news that's unfit to print, broadcast, etc
Dilemma time. I need them, but I can't stand most of them, or what they stand for.
This blog, maybe rightly, will continue to be slim for a while as I try to maximise the PR value of the Geneva win.
So far, it has been a mixed bag.
One thing that is hard to understand is the almost complete silence from the majors.
But then again, as Carol Thatcher rightly pointed out yesterday on the Andrew Marr Sunday Show, as she dumped all the packing and inserts from her papers on the table: 'how can we take any of them seriously in their 'wars' on packaging when they are so hypocritical?' It seems they are so obsessed with being seen to be green they are not in the least bit interested in actually being it. Or playing up genuine efforts to help people make a small difference.
Meanwhile the various BBC programmes remain mute. Paranoia is knowing they are out to ignore you, but I do wonder if my critiques have resulted in some kind of blacklist. So be it. They have a new Chairman of the Trust in place now, and his claimed remit is to respond to the customers they serve rather than just defend the Corporation. I think this needs testing more.
The same day I get yet another form 'so what?' reply to a complaint about a blatant ad for ASDA in the increasingly laughable Breakfast 'Business' slot, they run another, even more ridiculous plug for them.
And I've just switched off the TV this morning in disgust at the boss of EDF energy being given his opportunity to do the same, before running off like excited kids to see the new Kate Moss collection being unveiled. This isn't news, but if there is no financial reward for them doing it, I can't figure what it is mean to be, or for.
BBC - EDF to lower its gas bills by 10% - In case you missed the plug on air
This blog, maybe rightly, will continue to be slim for a while as I try to maximise the PR value of the Geneva win.
So far, it has been a mixed bag.
One thing that is hard to understand is the almost complete silence from the majors.
But then again, as Carol Thatcher rightly pointed out yesterday on the Andrew Marr Sunday Show, as she dumped all the packing and inserts from her papers on the table: 'how can we take any of them seriously in their 'wars' on packaging when they are so hypocritical?' It seems they are so obsessed with being seen to be green they are not in the least bit interested in actually being it. Or playing up genuine efforts to help people make a small difference.
Meanwhile the various BBC programmes remain mute. Paranoia is knowing they are out to ignore you, but I do wonder if my critiques have resulted in some kind of blacklist. So be it. They have a new Chairman of the Trust in place now, and his claimed remit is to respond to the customers they serve rather than just defend the Corporation. I think this needs testing more.
The same day I get yet another form 'so what?' reply to a complaint about a blatant ad for ASDA in the increasingly laughable Breakfast 'Business' slot, they run another, even more ridiculous plug for them.
And I've just switched off the TV this morning in disgust at the boss of EDF energy being given his opportunity to do the same, before running off like excited kids to see the new Kate Moss collection being unveiled. This isn't news, but if there is no financial reward for them doing it, I can't figure what it is mean to be, or for.
BBC - EDF to lower its gas bills by 10% - In case you missed the plug on air
Friday, April 27, 2007
Who's a clever boy then?
Well, I'm back.
Actually, I have been since Monday, but for reasons that will hopefully become apparent, have been a tad busy elsewhere dealing with the backlog that built up during the Geneva trip... and the consequences of it. Because....
I won. And I won big!
Here's the press release that has been prepared, and I am touting around as we speak to try to make the most of it while it is fresh.
‘Hole-in-one’ for award-winning Herefordshire inventor Ross-on-Wye inventor Peter Martin has been awarded a Gold Medal at the International Exhibition of Inventions held in Geneva last weekend… for a small hole in a strip of plastic. His patented Re:tie concept is simple, but shows just what you can achieve from an inventive approach to recycling. Peter has redesigned the security closure strip used in many drinks bottles and jars, by introducing a block with a hole. This means the strip can be saved and reused as a tie, in the garden, for cabling, for bags – for anything which needs tying together. Peter took his invention to Geneva with his company Junkk.com, and won the Award against stiff competition from the world’s top inventors and major R&D institutions. The international Judges were so impressed with the simplicity and potentially wide application of the eco-design tie that they awarded Gold, and several have subsequently congratulated him by email. ‘It’s one of those “Why didn’t anyone think of this before?” ideas,’ says Peter, whose free website Junkk.com has been created to share how virtually any potentially discardable item can be reused. “I am proud to win such a prestigious award for myself, my company and the UK, but I am particularly thrilled that it was noted for its environmental impact, and potential positive contribution to commercial eco-design. When you are in a place like Switzerland and surrounded by eco-inventions from the likes of Germany and Asia, it is good to show we Brits are creating consumer-friendly solutions that need not incur or impose additional costs.” The RE:tie may be a small change to a piece of plastic, but every little bit helps when it comes to reducing waste and helping save the planet. The Re:tie will also bring manufacturers considerable green-£-based benefits as Peter intends to license the concept for commercial use. He is also hoping to turn the commercial and public interest in RE:tie into further official support for his free re:use ideas website initiative Junkk.com – which offers people a way to exchange second use ideas for all sorts of products and packaging. “After immense interest and support from the 70,000 international visitors to the show, I'd like to accelerate my plans to expand the site into other languages, and establish its postcode localisation facility into other countries.” Peter is now seeking investors for RE:tie, especially if he is to fight off imitations despite his patent: “It would be a pity not to exploit this idea worldwide from a British base. I'd like to see it not only on an Innocent juice carton here, but a jar of jam in China and a bottle of pop in the US, too’.
So, a lot of work to do. I'm trying to get help to protect the idea from the likes of the BusinessLink, UKTI and various government agencies, and of course support from the media.
Both are proving an effort.
I know business help takes time, but it can be frustrating to wade through the systems. There is so much that is in theory on offer, but finding it and making use of it demands a lot of time and inside knowledge which I don't have.
Then there is the media.
I am getting some coverage, but in a week when waste and packing is all over the media, from the Indy to the Daily Mail (who shamelessly seem to have copied the Indy's campaign, not that it was that original or skillfully applied), the level of interest so far (with a few notable, and appreciated, exceptions) has been about what I'd expect from our mighty 4th estate.
And now I watch BBC's Declan in a 5 minute slot* on the same thing. Having already queried their addiction to giving free PR to ASDA, I guess it wouldn't help to wonder why the majority of the slot was about 'an initiative' in 'a few stores', whereby customers are asked to put packs in a bin 'for analysis'. Hmn. Does it it wash as a real, credible attempt? And does the BBC's coverage count as valid, skillful reporting?
Maybe I haven't yet sussed out the secret to getting coverage in this new media age.
*BBC - Tough packaging fines are urged - Check out the vid top right: nice ad for ASDA guys!
Friday, March 30, 2007
Dilemma Number 2
I like the Eden Project. I don't like some of the senior folk privileged enough to be running it, but hopefully they are just an arrogant green elite minority. But when they dragged me and our then Head of Prose & Comms Anita all the way to Cornwall to tell us how great they were and didn't need to work with us on reuse (oddly, I still see no great efforts on this emanating from there) as they knew a lot better, I was a bit miffed.
And so again I was struck by today's PR event on BBC Breakfast, with an eco-motor show held there. Now, there are some who may see a certain irony in trying to get people to drive to Cornwall to see a show about how cars pollute and emit, but there you go. It's probably more logical than the NEC or London, apart from the whole majority of the audience base getting there issue. Oh, well. It's the message that is important, see.
Anyway, a lot of car brands got to say their 'all we have time for' sales pitch to the microphone munchkin. Nothing much about bio fuels looking less optimal on food production, etc. At least we were spared the Prius. Maybe explaining how getting it there was worse for the environment in comparison to many other makes was a factor.
And at the end we had Green Guru Dick Strawbridge, who has also to find time in his busy schedule (doubtless why he drove and didn't take the train. Hey, that's why we did, though it was car sharing...ish) to respond to our outreach efforts. Admittedly this may not happen as he was part of my less than positive feedback on the SKY BIG Idea set-up, but we did try and get int touch in several ways way before that.
Nobly, he had driven there in his 20-year old chip-fat powered Land Rover, which promoted me to write and ask:
'What's the tax on Dick Strawbridge's 20 year old Land Rover these days? Are bio 4x4's exempt?'
Sadly, selling new cars is all they had time for. Anyone know? I just thought as an example of joined-up e-government it was a fair question.
And so again I was struck by today's PR event on BBC Breakfast, with an eco-motor show held there. Now, there are some who may see a certain irony in trying to get people to drive to Cornwall to see a show about how cars pollute and emit, but there you go. It's probably more logical than the NEC or London, apart from the whole majority of the audience base getting there issue. Oh, well. It's the message that is important, see.
Anyway, a lot of car brands got to say their 'all we have time for' sales pitch to the microphone munchkin. Nothing much about bio fuels looking less optimal on food production, etc. At least we were spared the Prius. Maybe explaining how getting it there was worse for the environment in comparison to many other makes was a factor.
And at the end we had Green Guru Dick Strawbridge, who has also to find time in his busy schedule (doubtless why he drove and didn't take the train. Hey, that's why we did, though it was car sharing...ish) to respond to our outreach efforts. Admittedly this may not happen as he was part of my less than positive feedback on the SKY BIG Idea set-up, but we did try and get int touch in several ways way before that.
Nobly, he had driven there in his 20-year old chip-fat powered Land Rover, which promoted me to write and ask:
'What's the tax on Dick Strawbridge's 20 year old Land Rover these days? Are bio 4x4's exempt?'
Sadly, selling new cars is all they had time for. Anyone know? I just thought as an example of joined-up e-government it was a fair question.
Hippo-crats
I'm guessing that after several sustained, and apologised for, complaints about mangled on air journalistic/editorial efforts by Breakfast TV, I suspect I am less likely to be featured on air, at least via the BBC, any more. Especially when it is to 'Defensive Declan'.
However, on a morning when our public broadcaster sees fit to publicise a hen and stag night promoter exclusively, in the guise of 'worrying whether we are spending too much money on more and more grandiose wadding-related events', I popped a mild effort in as a result of a piece on water conservation:
'Instead of an additional manufactured item such as a branded product like a Hippo, one alternative to displacing the volume of water in the WC cistern is to locate a second use item of packaging such as bottle or container selected to fit the space.'
Now the Hippo is OK. But it is frankly just a heavy duty plastic bag, and I have a small problem with new things being manufactured in the name of green that are really not helping the overall global enviROI.
However, on a morning when our public broadcaster sees fit to publicise a hen and stag night promoter exclusively, in the guise of 'worrying whether we are spending too much money on more and more grandiose wadding-related events', I popped a mild effort in as a result of a piece on water conservation:
'Instead of an additional manufactured item such as a branded product like a Hippo, one alternative to displacing the volume of water in the WC cistern is to locate a second use item of packaging such as bottle or container selected to fit the space.'
Now the Hippo is OK. But it is frankly just a heavy duty plastic bag, and I have a small problem with new things being manufactured in the name of green that are really not helping the overall global enviROI.
Deterrence
I was watching the BBC Breakfast News when a piece came on about a train crash enquiry/case.
They had of course wheeled out a spokesperson/victim, to whom our sympathies must be extended.
He seemed to be of the view that a fine of £10M will be appropriate. I fear I must question the logic of all this as an effective deterrent. While money is a great motivator, just how it works in ways to the decision makers in corporations is in question. Look at the famous Pinto case.
As I wrote:
How is a fine, of any size, or a company apology, going to act as a deterrent when individuals must have been culpable? Have there been any individual, career-related penalties?
Until people take responsibility, and are held truly accountable, I rather fear that all that's happening is money getting shunted to where it is really not going to do much use from where it could be better applied to rectify faults.
They had of course wheeled out a spokesperson/victim, to whom our sympathies must be extended.
He seemed to be of the view that a fine of £10M will be appropriate. I fear I must question the logic of all this as an effective deterrent. While money is a great motivator, just how it works in ways to the decision makers in corporations is in question. Look at the famous Pinto case.
As I wrote:
How is a fine, of any size, or a company apology, going to act as a deterrent when individuals must have been culpable? Have there been any individual, career-related penalties?
Until people take responsibility, and are held truly accountable, I rather fear that all that's happening is money getting shunted to where it is really not going to do much use from where it could be better applied to rectify faults.
Thursday, March 22, 2007
Ask. Don't Tell.
I'm on a ro... mission:
Noted that Declan asked the 'enviro question' of the BMI boss regarding the impact of increased flights as a result of new regulations.
And noted that the airline industry takes this issue very seriously (where have we heard that before.. ad nauseam).
But as to the answer that he (the BMI guy) doesn't think it will adversely affect the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change, [MY QUESTION:] does the BBC think leaving it at that is adequately dealing with this as a major aspect of news issue, on the day the budget is discussed for its green influence?
Noted that Declan asked the 'enviro question' of the BMI boss regarding the impact of increased flights as a result of new regulations.
And noted that the airline industry takes this issue very seriously (where have we heard that before.. ad nauseam).
But as to the answer that he (the BMI guy) doesn't think it will adversely affect the contribution of greenhouse gasses to climate change, [MY QUESTION:] does the BBC think leaving it at that is adequately dealing with this as a major aspect of news issue, on the day the budget is discussed for its green influence?
Nice one BIll
I usually lump him in with the blonde as the bouffant, however in the spirit of fair critique as my concern is the lack of fact in news these days:
'I have to give a big up to Bill.
He was the only one who kept trying to point out the facts to what sounded like the most nonsensical Westminster insider hype worship I have ever heard on Mr. Brown's budget, from the Lib Dem spokesperson and Telegraph columnist.
I don't want this country, or its economy, run by people who play silly games and only admire those who do so well at the expense of substance, and certainly not commentated upon by those who have lost touch with how the normal, working person exists and views things'
Let's see if one of those get a mention!
'I have to give a big up to Bill.
He was the only one who kept trying to point out the facts to what sounded like the most nonsensical Westminster insider hype worship I have ever heard on Mr. Brown's budget, from the Lib Dem spokesperson and Telegraph columnist.
I don't want this country, or its economy, run by people who play silly games and only admire those who do so well at the expense of substance, and certainly not commentated upon by those who have lost touch with how the normal, working person exists and views things'
Let's see if one of those get a mention!
Just the facts
My discourse with BBC Breakfast over the standard of their features and reporting continues, as summarised by this, which with luck will speak (write) for itself (I could have added that this black vs. white issue was left unresolved by the blonde and bouffant 'hosts', who just giggled):
I just saw your regular medical feature Doctor directly contradict the BUPA representative.
And he in reply told her she was wrong.
I do trust by the next screening 'we' will know who, if necessary via the moderators.
Otherwise what is the point of such news?
I doubt it will get read out at all, but if it does one can only wonder which sentence they will choose this time to suit their odd notion of truth.
I just saw your regular medical feature Doctor directly contradict the BUPA representative.
And he in reply told her she was wrong.
I do trust by the next screening 'we' will know who, if necessary via the moderators.
Otherwise what is the point of such news?
I doubt it will get read out at all, but if it does one can only wonder which sentence they will choose this time to suit their odd notion of truth.
Monday, March 19, 2007
Suffer little children. It's good business.
I just saw an ad man and a charity lady discuss a kid's ad that has been pulled for 'being distressing'. And justified as necessary to secure money, most of which goes on the next campaign.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
I was sickened. But not by the ad.
Here's what I wrote.
These 'tactics' can lead in only one direction. Loads of awards for the ad agencies. Bubbly corks popping in the media agencies. Nice salaries for the expanding charity marketing departments. And how much going to what that tangibly helps kids... exactly?
I would wish this question had been answered, despite being posed more than once.
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Is it reality? Or is it Memorex?
I was idly penning a comment on the latest addition to the TV phone fraud scandals on last night's Newsnight blog whilst watching, even more idly, Breakfast TV. Here's what took place a wee while ago:
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
'As my website has often been called 'Blue Peter on steroids' (I was in my twenties before I knew what 'sticky back plastic' actually was, which is an interesting historical aspect to note as the BBC drifts ever further into commercial, and rocky, waters) this 'episode' caught my attention.
I find the shameless scramble to insincerely express 'regret' for a 'mistake' all too predictable and hollow. Only matched in cringe by what I'm now watching on BBC Breakfast TV as to how 'they' regain 'our' trust.
I just love the way the producer responsible was not yet known a few minutes earlier, but Biddy Baxter is now saying she knows exactly who did it. I await with amused dread how Newswatch will weasel this one.
And nothing like giving the £300 back as it has has now come to light since November, and all is OK again.
Too little, too late, maties.
I think the era of the 0900 (for charity or not, the money I am sure gets divided up first for various admin and handlers, so not actually worrying whether or not the sincere commitment of funds against a chance of winning is being treated honestly is rather typically worrying) number is surely up. It should never have been on the public broadcaster in the first place.
Oh... wait, they have just read out my emailed comment on air. It was:
______
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.
-----
Well, actually, they only read out one line of the three.
Bearing in mind I have several complaints into the BBC about selective editing and dismissive explanations, guess which one they read out? (Hint: it wasn't the first and it wasn't the last:
Peter Martin of Ross on Wye says:
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.
That 's a total 180 degree reversal of what I was saying, by selective editting and a different tonal reading!!!! They work in media. They know the difference. They are playing the same game as they were reporting upon piously.
I guess that will teach me to assume they can identify sarcasm and appreciate my point... or was it just a cute way to get a positive out of a total negative?
I repeat: 'That's the way to rebuild trust.' Not.
Good job I have decided to record programmes I comment on. It's amazing the number of technical hitches can happen in edit suites these day.
Makes things a lot easier when you bring it to the attention of those who may be interested in broadcast standards.'
What's the word I'm looking for. Oh, yes...'Gotcha!'.
And here was me thinking that the presenters actually read those emails. Seems like all things these days, there is truth, and then there is what you see on TV.
The irony is, of course, that this was inspired by a piece on production issues taking precedence over professional and ethical practice. Sweet.
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fake phone-in winner - Can I say sorry and make it all go away if I get a speeding ticket? Or can a 12 year old say sorry and be pardoned if she doesn't put the right paper in the recycling bin? Or... is there an expanding level of double standards at play these day?
Times - Blue Peter admits phone-in fake
Express - Blue Peter says sorry for faking TV winner
Mirror - A BLUE PETER BODGE
Guardian - Blue Peter legend Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by phone-in scandal
Guardian - The phone-in scandal is hardly the first time Blue Peter has
let viewers down
Guardian - Blue Peter is the latest victim of the phone-in witch-hunt
'Witch-hunt' is one of those interesting terms whose origins and subsequent evolution into a descriptive phrase has left me unsure quite what it means.
I'm guessing that it implies that as there were/are no witches, hunting them was/is pointless and unnecessary. Fast forward to the present day.
So because all other aspects of the show are, and have been noble in the extreme, it is therefore quite OK to ignore and let pass taking money under false pretences? Hmmn.
Next thing you will be telling me is that because most BBC news output is of the highest journalistic standards, one shouldn't be concerned that they can edit contributions submitted to turn what has been provided into the complete reverse of what was actually intended, to suit some internal agenda.
Sadly, that is precisely what happened to me yesterday when I made comment on the Blue Peter show. What I wrote and what got read out and aired as from me were totally the opposite.
No wonder no one trusts anything, especially the media, any more.
Guardian - Biddy Baxter 'appalled' by Blue Peter phone-in row
Telegraph - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing competition
Indy - Blue Peter says sorry for fixing phone-in competition
Mail - Blue Peter fixed phone-in competition
Express - Blue Peter apologises over phone-in
Mirror - SORRY? YOU BET
SUN - Phone scandal hits Blue Peter
Guardian - Phone-in trouble for Blue Peter
Mirror - CBEEBIES CHEATS
ADDENDUM:
Though it is undoubted that the nudge-nudge, wide-eyed boys 'n girls will snigger and seek to cite my unfortunate turn of phrase for not making my intentions 'clear' (begging the question what planet they live on if they can't grasp meanings and tonality and punctuation - has none of them ever read a script?), I have decided to see what the munchkins from BBC Complaints can come up with this time:
Feedback was sought with regard to the segment on the Blue Peter issue.
In light of the hundreds of expressions of support for the way it was handled, I would appreciate an explanation as to how my comment, which was not so impressed with the evolving explanations, which was as follows...
'This has been 'out' how long and 'we don't know which producer was responsible'.
No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an 'honest'... 'mistake'.
Yeah, right. That's the way to rebuild trust.'
...came to be edited and read out twice, at 7.48am and 8.43am, thus...
'No real foul, no real harm. It's only TV, and was only an honest mistake.. '
...which totally reversed what was being conveyed.
If a more positive criticism was sought as balance to the more overtly negative ones that were shared (because I do sympathise with the notion it was weak to be responding only now, and when challenged. And by way of mitigation to simply re-run the competition, this time one hopes ethically, on the 'miraculous discovery' - Ms. Baxter's words - only the other day of data lost way back in November), why doctor and use mine in this way? Was it to buy time for kids to 'forget about it', as Mr. Curry seemed to feel was appropriate?
Is it now the BBC's practice to selectively edit and quote out of context words and/or phrases to suit internal editorial demands, from those submitted in response to requests soliciting feedback?
If that is the case, you may as well make them up and cut out the viewer/listener/reader and save a whole lot of trouble.
It would be awful to learn that the pressurised demands of getting a programme on air would lead to such unethical compromises, wouldn't it?
Observer - BBC faces huge fine in phones scandal - And who, exactly, ends up paying?
Observer - Phone fiasco gives BBC a wake-up call - Having just watched it, I'm not sure Andrew Marr 'interrogated' 'his boss' quite as diligently as one might have hoped, if not expected.
Guardian - Sky is the limit - Indeed
Guardian - Vodafone admits phone-in error
Times - Jowell fury over TV phone-in fiasco
..regulators Ofcom and Icstis, which are investigating six programmes.
Six? Oh no, as Yoda once said...'there is another'. At least.
Mirror - CHANCING ON ICE
Mail - Tough new laws to crackdown on TV phone-ins
Telegraph - Jowell floats tougher laws on TV phone-ins
'Floating' like a lead balloon.
Too little (...tougher laws 'could' be brought in??!).
Too late ('Now Miss Jowell has suggested.. ' after how long?).
When does anyone say anything tangible any more?
Telegraph - Let me tell you about the real phone-in scandal
As someone who believes themselves to have been defrauded by such a show as a contestant, and whose supporters have been as voters (OFCOM & ICSTIS on the case as we speak), I have to suggest the author and even the first few posters may be being a tad smug, if not dismissive of the sanctity of business relationships.
But it does make for a nice, snide article to offset all those awful, boring, tacky ones from journalists who have caught publicly funded (in the case of the BBC) and publicly trus.. (well, let's not accord independent companies more than they deserve) and, in theory, tightly controlled and/or monitored (see bodies above, who do have a bit of explaining of their own to do) TV production outfits cheating their audiences for profit.
So the next time you find anyone takes your money and does not do what they said, and you reasonably believed they would do for it, please bear this in mind.
If it bores you, there is always the remote. Me, I'd prefer those who care, and are tasked to deal with such matters, stuck with breaches of professional conduct and the law until they are resolved, not to the limit of luvvies' attention spans.
Guardian - Ayre to lead Ofcom phone-in inquiry
Thank you for your e-mail regarding 'Breakfast' broadcast on 15 March 2007.
Please accept my sincere apologies for the delay in replying. I know our
correspondents appreciate a quick response and I am sorry you have had to
wait on this occasion.
I understand you are unhappy that your e-mail to the programme was read out
incorrectly, thereby inferring the opposite meaning to that which you
intended. I have since been in contact with Deputy Editor, who was in
charge of this particular episode and she has replied as follows:
"This was a genuine mistake resulting from the producer misreading Mr
Martin's e-mail and not a deliberate attempt to doctor our viewers'
opinions. The mistake was made in the initial e-mail summary compiled by
the producer and sent to the presenters and hence was repeated twice during
the programme. Of course we should have read the e-mail more carefully but
I can see how the mistake was made as Mr Martin says the exact opposite of
what he really thinks - which is only revealed by the line "yeah right"
right at the end - so while not excusing it - I can see how the error was
made."
I trust this proves satisfactory. Please be assured that your comments have
been registered and are available to the 'Breakfast' production staff.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact the BBC with your e-mail.
Now, do I accept this? They don't read information thoroughly. Are incapable of assessing tone of voice from the written word and print only what they want to see, regardless of what it may convey. Watch this space.
BBC - TV phone services 'fail viewers' - 'Lapses' they call 'em. Sweet.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
Speedy Justice?
Just watched a piece on citizen speed radar traps. With kids I totally agree with any form of traffic calming. But sorry, not by anyone but those trained and legally tasked with doing so. Not some granny with a gun.
Are these devices reliable?
Are the operators' eyes reliable?
Are they sure to be objective?
Are the records held against other traffic infractions?
What is the opportunity to appeal and have the records expunged?
Can I get a local neighbour to assess me for tax?
Are these devices reliable?
Are the operators' eyes reliable?
Are they sure to be objective?
Are the records held against other traffic infractions?
What is the opportunity to appeal and have the records expunged?
Can I get a local neighbour to assess me for tax?
Nice to have a soapbox provided
BBC - On the Oscars...
I really should record BBC Breakfast.
As I watch the ineffectual Newswatch (actually a few great questions posed, but as usual not answered in any effective way) with, irony of irony, Climate Change coverage (don't forget to watch, if not mention Ch4's 'Great Global Warming Swindle' next Thursday - as a climate change believer I would hope that it will not be deemed too boring to address with balance, but also diligence to ensure we are properly informed) followed by the commitment made, both in coverage terms AND resources (points well made here already here), with the 'fluff & froth' Oscars... Amazin' Kate, gosh, gush, amazin'.
I just got my latest 'We didn't do it. It wasn't a problem. And if it was what are you going to do?' from the show on my latest complaint as I watch the Saturday guest columnist (who I normally enjoy) mouth off on 'motorists'. He started off with a good point, but ended up being allowed to make, in my view prejudicial commentary.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fanshaw, that something fair, equitable... and national... needs to be done on road pricing.
But...
Can we presume that the rail system and connections in the South East from Brighton, to the BBC in London, and the compensation for same, may have resulted in a personal, privileged and unrepresentative view being broadcast without challenge?
Loved the dress... loved it.
I really should record BBC Breakfast.
As I watch the ineffectual Newswatch (actually a few great questions posed, but as usual not answered in any effective way) with, irony of irony, Climate Change coverage (don't forget to watch, if not mention Ch4's 'Great Global Warming Swindle' next Thursday - as a climate change believer I would hope that it will not be deemed too boring to address with balance, but also diligence to ensure we are properly informed) followed by the commitment made, both in coverage terms AND resources (points well made here already here), with the 'fluff & froth' Oscars... Amazin' Kate, gosh, gush, amazin'.
I just got my latest 'We didn't do it. It wasn't a problem. And if it was what are you going to do?' from the show on my latest complaint as I watch the Saturday guest columnist (who I normally enjoy) mouth off on 'motorists'. He started off with a good point, but ended up being allowed to make, in my view prejudicial commentary.
I couldn't agree more with Mr. Fanshaw, that something fair, equitable... and national... needs to be done on road pricing.
But...
Can we presume that the rail system and connections in the South East from Brighton, to the BBC in London, and the compensation for same, may have resulted in a personal, privileged and unrepresentative view being broadcast without challenge?
Loved the dress... loved it.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Am I missing something?
Nothing to do with the environment. A lot to do with the media... who report on the ways to save the planet, if not very thoroughly.
Ice cream can help women get pregnant
I write this as I watch the same piece on BBC Breakfast with the bouffant and the blonde reading out the same press release and saying 'Yummy, mummy'.
Now, valid though this may or may not be (I'm guessing pregnant ancestors may have needed a high fat boost to weather the demands of an extra kid from conception to weaning), I do wonder if some context may not have been worthwhile about how that rather unchallenged bit of info may apply in these modern days of obesity being a bit of a problem?
Times - Obese mothers blamed for baby deaths
Indy - Ice cream 'helps increase chance of pregnancy'
Ice cream can help women get pregnant
I write this as I watch the same piece on BBC Breakfast with the bouffant and the blonde reading out the same press release and saying 'Yummy, mummy'.
Now, valid though this may or may not be (I'm guessing pregnant ancestors may have needed a high fat boost to weather the demands of an extra kid from conception to weaning), I do wonder if some context may not have been worthwhile about how that rather unchallenged bit of info may apply in these modern days of obesity being a bit of a problem?
Times - Obese mothers blamed for baby deaths
Indy - Ice cream 'helps increase chance of pregnancy'
Monday, February 26, 2007
We're in with the 'in' crowd. So there.
I was watching BBC news yesterday morning and they had on Andrew Marr on selling his show later on.
On it, he was going to have Rory Bremner, who had just pulled what I thought was a rather fun stunt, though its ethics are under debate.
Of more interest to me was Andrew Marr's reaction to his colleague's question as to the competence of the No.10 switchboard and system such that this could have happened.
He was quick to defend 'his girls'. Without him being the BBC's political editor I wonder if they would be so helpful in putting him through in future had he had, as did I, some doubts? How did RB know what must surely be the oft repeated manner in which GB asks for folk? 'Hi, Gordo here, is Madge free..?'
Guardian - Beckett shows how to survive in politics
On it, he was going to have Rory Bremner, who had just pulled what I thought was a rather fun stunt, though its ethics are under debate.
Of more interest to me was Andrew Marr's reaction to his colleague's question as to the competence of the No.10 switchboard and system such that this could have happened.
He was quick to defend 'his girls'. Without him being the BBC's political editor I wonder if they would be so helpful in putting him through in future had he had, as did I, some doubts? How did RB know what must surely be the oft repeated manner in which GB asks for folk? 'Hi, Gordo here, is Madge free..?'
Guardian - Beckett shows how to survive in politics
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)