I rely on the very excellent Grist for many things, and will continue to do so, but where it strays into Global Warming territory I think they are in danger of losing the plot. I don't doubt their sincerity, but as to the methodology... well, they've lost me.
A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
'If only God the gift had gae us, to see oursel's as others see us'
Robert Burns
Re: A long rant about facts, persuasion, and global warming
I guess it's OK here (though while I am personally interested, I don't feel qualified and hence any more able to stay adequately focused on all this, possibly along with a few others who may not feel motivated to make it even as far as this fine forum), but here are a few subjective points to offer.
While some facts do need length for the full stories to be adequately told, when talking about persuasion on global warming, I suspect few media outlets are prepared to permit anything more than a sound bite that will feed the next headline.
Hiding behind the veracity of science is comforting as a justification, and its purity over realities of communication a possible consolation, but care must be taken that one only sees one aspect of science as 'the truth', and remains didactic in fighting from only that corner.
These are challenges to be addressed, whist avoiding a few other things.
High on the list, possibly, could be rants?
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Monday, March 19, 2007
Another Idea Gets Approved
There, but for the grace of God...
Poor man's floating home turns Rio recycling model
I have the trash.
And the River Wye looks set to oblige.
I have the trash.
And the River Wye looks set to oblige.
DO what?!!!!!
Council tax valuers recruit a spy in sky 'snooping on households'
If it's true, of course.
If it's true, of course.
Yummy... mummy!
Re-cycle of Life
Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.
I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.
I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.
Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.
Sorry. Don't feel sorry for Dave the Wave.. er.. Save at all. So as ye preach, so shall ye have your nethers rummaged, n' all. Comes with the territory.
I have to say I was more surprised the Turquoise (that's blue/green right?) hype & spinmeisters had missed this one as a possibility, being that it has been done before, to great effect, to such as Mr. Bradshaw, etc. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it.
Regrading you experiment, if your council does not collect then anything is better than nothing, and shame on them for not helping your area's residents to do so.
I have to wonder how good it is as an enviROI to not have a council truck collect and crush tonnages of material from each person in the street, and instead deliver it by Personal Fedex to a high volume, low weight skip.
Me, I keep a lot of it and make stuff (have done for years) . That doesn't cost money. It saves it. And can even make it.
At least we still have the vote. For now.
Council salaries revealed under the FoI act
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
One presumes this information freel... er... grudgingly shared also extends to the numbers of officers there are in total, their functions, salaries and pension consequences.
Where it might fall down is actually finding out what gets done for the money, to assess the ROI per person for this investment by the local taxpayers. But it's better than nothing (the information, I mean).
But such data is only worth having if it can be used.
And with luck the local taxpayers of Hackney will make very good use of it.
It must be true. I read it in the paper.
High hopes
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
'...the agreement's dirty little secret: it will do next to no good, and again at very high cost'
Oo-er. Careful with that. I rather suspect this will be the next flames begin!
I recently decided to have no more to do with the arguments over climate change, and concentrate instead on doing what I can personally and to encourage others - via objective information, entertainment and reward - to simply cut back on unnecessary waste and reduce consumption wherever reasonably possible.
Addendum to a reply:
'With so little making sense in this arena, at least even I could grasp your explanation.
It may even help assess what's being said by the various merry crews a tad better for validity.
As a mere graduate in Civil Engineering (BSc, but only on the strict promise I would not try and build anything, so I went into advertising. At least I can still figure out dodgy numbers), but with a Brigadier Generality in BS, hype & spin (field commissions), I know what I know, and I know what I don't know.
And I also know when others are in the same boat. It's a shame they can't admit it.
We'd get more DONE that way:)
Guardian - The water of discontent
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Recycling taxes - what a load of rubbish
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
When you fail to tackle advancing issues in good time and good order, the number of 'targets' can end up on your doorstep very quickly.
At this point the solution seems to be to move from rifle to shotgun to dropping a hand grenade at your feet, and hoping that it doesn't wipe out more who are 'innocent' in the hope of being seen to deal with the 'guilty'.
Nice vest. Is it Semtex?
Pathetic.
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.
The rich are different to you and I. They can better afford to cope with (knee) jerks.
I suspect that I will be adding links from elsewhere to these, not to mention a whole raft of emotive comment, Just what the media loves.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Pressure group urges higher air taxes to penalise 'rich' flyers
Brown tackles 'Chelsea tractors' in final Budget
As with road pricing I simply fear potentially necessary measures to manage personal travel emissions will get snarled up by woeful knee jerk legalisation that has little to do with the environment and more to do with hype. Not all who fly or use 4x4s are rich or doing so simply for fun.
Let's see how the BBC mangle that one.
ps: The banner ads at time of writing were... ironic. One for short haul flights. And the other for a dirty great Beemer.
BBC - Budget 'to hit gas guzzlers hard'
Guardian - Budget to give tax breaks for green homes
Sir,
As a strong advocate of incentive based measures, this is, on the surface, hard to fault. I just worry about the practice. And how fair it can be made without more legions of civil servants draining the public purse simply to assess measure, approve and/or fine.
Not all are in a position to whack up a wind turbine to order. At least the payback is being claimed as on energy created and sent back tot he grid.
What I am not keen on is greenwashing measures, that may be acceptable if it leaves the financial ROI to the wallet and conscience of the consumer, but not if the ultimate enviROI is actually worse for not being done at all. That would not be helping my kids' futures.
The question then arises whose shorter term interests are being served.
Sunday, March 18, 2007
Title Fight
Titles matter.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
Does an Ace beat a King? A King a Queen, etc.
Of course, there is the small matter of the Jester.
Because when it comes to climate science, this has become key.
I am guessing a Professor beats a Doctor, but maybe not.
Then there are qualifiers.
Does 'eminent' mean more than 'noted'. And in what combination?
And is the quiet guy, who knows his/her stuff and gets on with it, better to explain than the one with a slick sound bite and speed dial to the media?
Frankly, I do not know what to believe any more, because I do not know who to believe.
Pity.
And that... is all we have time for
This, from the BBC website, sums up a major chunk of what I think is going wrong.
If you can't get it in two minutes, or one headline, you are not going to get it, no matter how complex or what context it is in.
Pump it up. Pump it out. Shoot it down. Next!
ADDENDUM (Mon 19/3/07):
It was only a piece on cooking, but I thought it was telling.
Some guy who had won something was in a kitchen and was being asked to demo. I think he was allowed ten seconds before the reporter said ''Throw it in". When he hesitated, perhaps as a consequence of it not working , at least as it should like that, she turned to camera and said "We're running out of time' and proceeded to hog the screen saying sod all of interest to a 'celebrity' chef who is on screen too often at the drop of a white stovepipe hat.
Sir, Madam. How would you like to be cooked?
When I lived in Singapore there were many phrases in Singlish (the local patois) that could cause delight, but one I always recall were variants on the way you'd prefer your steak. Perhaps my favourite was: 'What done you want?'.
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Quite. The degree of 'done', as in being so or simply having had enough and giving up with it is very topical.
I have here announced I no longer intend to blog on 'Global warming' more times than bands announce final concerts, and will doubtless be seduced to the pointless side again when something truly egregious strikes. But I have decided enough is enough. It really is getting me nowhere. And the amount of time I am wasting reading all this guff, writing about it all, and not doing what I do better is not a good investment in helping improve the planet.
To grasp why here are two recent pieces that typify the situation of, it seems to me, wanting to be 100% right rather than getting on and doing an even better % of the right thing.
Bad Science - Credit where it’s due - You gotta graph!
EDITED extra bits:
When I lived ..
I'm afraid I came to this conclusion as this latest set on the topic of 'who's 100% righter' came into my in-box along with one from the BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' -
I don't know what my body may be like in a decade, but my brain is already drowning in such 'information' and fried by trying to square the spirals.
...they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
BBC - Caution urged on climate 'risks' - And they are not even real... well, they seem to be, but they're not the right kind (ie: our kind) of climate scientist)
Here's a newsflash. If I no longer feel like keeping up, I rather doubt most others can be bothered either. That may mean the 'deniers' (too broad, but will suffice for here) have succeeded.
But it also means that those who would claim to wish, and have the ways, to rectify matters... have failed.
When you rely on Chicken Little for your science, and then rush with his findings to the Boy Who Cried Wolf to handle the PR, and do it too often, then, like Little Red Riding Hood, it doesn't matter what you take to Big Bad Media. If it isn't palatable enough for their audiences, or spoiled by being rushed, they will eat you instead.
Time for new, less self-interested, and more genuinely motivated and engaging brooms.
Observer - Don't exaggerate climate dangers, scientists warn
Friday, March 16, 2007
It's not just the question. These days it's who is asking it.
DO YOU WANT GREEN SNOOPERS IN YOUR HOME?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
No. But how do I know any more that they will be as described here?
They are inheriting it. Maybe we should let them save it as well.
Caption:Me presenting the prizes donated by the local Warhammer shop to the winners, along with a special award from Junkk.com to the young initiative initiator, an antique brass caliper.
Today is Comic Relief day.
So far, so media frenzied.
Frankly, I can take or leave scores of 'celebrities' - some of whom are doubtless sincere, but most of whom have either been told to do it by their bosses or agents, or need to do it to boost flagging careers - mugging to the camera to get the sofa-set to part with cash by phone. I'm sure after the last few weeks it's is all crystal clear and above board, but I'm prepared to bet there are still some admin and handling charges in there.
Meanwhile, in sleepy Ross on Wye, a few days ago a small boy had an idea. And frankly I reckon he has put the whole adult population, from self-centred celebs to sparring pols, to shame.
Because he set up a simple little competition between his mates.
They are all mad for Warhammer, which seems to be a brilliant way to get parents to pay for a 1" character what we used to get in the entire Airfix D-Day recreation set.
Lots and lots of plastic doo-dads which get snapped off and stuck together and painted and played with in strategy games.
And young Dexter's idea was to see who could make the most, and whackiest, creations out of the bits that are left behind in the moulding process (best name heard to date: sprue. But in may be spurl, or Trevor for all I know). One hour, at £1 a character.
My boys made nine. Each. So thanks to this little boy I am now shy £18. Worth every darn penny.
I got wind of it in advance, and for obvious reasons also got quite excited about the notion that kids were doing something a) productive, b) creative, c) worthy and d) fun with reuse. So I flashed around and got the local Warhammer store to sponsor some prizes, which were judged by a panel of proud Dads (not knowing what creation was made by which son).
I'm presenting them tonight. And then I am going to see what I can do to let the Warhammer guys know about it, the media and anyone else who will listen. Because this is worth building upon.
While others talk, these kids just got on and acted for themselves. And had a ball doing it.
Save the children. Save the planet. By and for the children. No adult egos or agendas to be found.
And that... is what it's all about.
Guardian - Last night's TV: Comic Relief does the Apprentice
Telegraph - Priceless gains from spending nothing
Guardian - Comic Relief/The Bits That Aren't Fame Academy: Live
BBC - Comic Relief appeal raises £40.2m
Where there's a... where is that will again?
The price of protection
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
One of my favourite words... 'SHOULD'. Closely followed by 'COULD'.
Thing is, it is pretty much meaningless without 'WILL' to back it up.
When bad deeds make good copy
To the grievance community, it's always someone else's fault
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Fine words.
So, what can you... we... do about it?
Or is this just another talking shop industry within an industry with all sides having a vested interest in maintaining the status quo?
Bin. And Gone.
Green light given to empty bins every 2 weeks
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
When there is no trust left, the comments here show the value of ' A Whitehall-funded study...' to convince anyone of anything.
Especially when it is unclear how ever higher rates can be justified in leading to ever fewer services. Unless local authority pensions count as a 'service'.
Yet...'Council chiefs say local taxpayers will have to foot the bill if the targets are missed and fines are applied.'
That's just an attitude that stinks.
Its a shame to waste
Money 'is wasted'
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
At least a third of the £555m spent each year on business support by the Regional Development Agencies is claimed to be wasted on administration...
Only a third?
Thursday, March 15, 2007
Links! Rechts?
A visit from the BBC
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Without meaning to suck up too much, I tend to have slightly more faith with those who operate the online 'arm' of a medium. Maybe because there is less chance of establishing a side career simply by being recognisable, those who create online as opposed to onscreen seem, IMHO, to be a bit more concerned with doing their jobs, doing them professionally... and ethically.
However, I must disagree with this: "What we call moderation, readers call censorship."
As with all things, the devil is in the definitions. Trying to be as brief in analysing a pretty complex issue, I'd have to say that if the rules are clearly stated, the moderation should be accepted, if applied... as stated.
The problems arise where you have subjective interpretation. Most blog rules allow you to simply have an opinion and post it up there on screen, so long as it is not 'bad' or 'nasty'. And I think the vast majority can handle that.
Censorship is when a poster follows the rules, but has their post either deleted or edited, it seems, often to suit an agenda held by the guys holding the ball and owning the pitch. And if your remit is to be balanced and objective, if you do that once to often for no good reason, and without explanation, then you deserve to reap the harvest you have sown.
With all the talk of citizen journalism and the financial attraction of free reader vox pops, it is hard to feel too sympathetic to read this: 'The more successful you are at attracting reader responses... the bigger the problem gets', when such responses are being solicited sixteen to the dozen via every outlet.
Especially when the ethics go out the window and the trust is blown.
On BBC Breakfast TV this morning, my opinion was read out, having been sent as requested by the presenters.
Thing is, they took only one phrase out of 3 sentences that as read was the total opposite of what I said.
So in setting out 'some principles for working on the web', I'd recommend not following their broadcast brothers and sisters.
And if they are trying to encourage user participation and comments on their sites, the BBC questioning the need to host those conversations sounds interesting, but almost as if they like the benefits of the content streams, but don't want to worry about the consequences of carrying them.
Which is a total abrogation of accountability and responsibility, and not what 'we' would wish from our public, and publicly-funded broadcaster, surely?
Train, train, go away.. come right back another day
Millions to pay more for train tickets
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
I have a possible jaunt to York, solo, this Saturday.
Even with 'gear', I decided the train was a worthy option.
Checked the timings. Not even. Checked the price. Not ever.
I am not sure bumping prices up is quite the way to convert me.
Telegrpah - How to keep the costs down - Ah, theory... don't you just love it.
To boldly go.. up in smoke
Adventures can be had closer to home
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
There seems to be a fine line between an 'adventure' and a 'jolly'.
And a vast gulf between those who enjoy them and those who bear the consequences.
Looking at the banner ad on the right, I can only hope all protagonists are at least saving their 20%.
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.
Tuesday, March 13, 2007
Judge ye not?
Thanks for this: And the winner is...
I'll have to check but I have a vague notion I submitted, and paid money to do so. Or was it for the main site on the Webbies?
Makes you think. All's fair and all, and certainly if it's still the best then it deserves the accolade.
But who decides? And who checks? And who judges the judges?
Maybe they just got that Ch 5 production company to handle it, pocketed the saving and decided to just go with what worked before with a few tweaks.
My faith in the workings of awards shows is about on a par with TV contests.
I'll have to check but I have a vague notion I submitted, and paid money to do so. Or was it for the main site on the Webbies?
Makes you think. All's fair and all, and certainly if it's still the best then it deserves the accolade.
But who decides? And who checks? And who judges the judges?
Maybe they just got that Ch 5 production company to handle it, pocketed the saving and decided to just go with what worked before with a few tweaks.
My faith in the workings of awards shows is about on a par with TV contests.
It's not just what you say, but how you say it... and to whom
You know it makes sense
It is yet another example of an organisation realising the benefits clear communication can have on both its profits and public relations.
Not so engaging can also have a conspicuously deleterious influence should one be seriously committed in seeking to influence the widest audience demographic to a positive and proactive outcome.*
I've seen it a lot lately... often right here.
* Writing all funny may be great and all to impress mates in the boozer at the Ivy, but it's well worth giving it the old literary (as opposed to Glasgee') KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) if you really want to move masses of the masses.
It is yet another example of an organisation realising the benefits clear communication can have on both its profits and public relations.
Not so engaging can also have a conspicuously deleterious influence should one be seriously committed in seeking to influence the widest audience demographic to a positive and proactive outcome.*
I've seen it a lot lately... often right here.
* Writing all funny may be great and all to impress mates in the boozer at the Ivy, but it's well worth giving it the old literary (as opposed to Glasgee') KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) if you really want to move masses of the masses.
One flew into one's cuckoo nest
Charles does a lot of good. Until he opens his mouth
Sadly we are in a culture (sic) where everything is pretty much decided by what is popular, embodied by the celeb du jour: pumped up, allowed to float and then shot down by the media, who get what they need on the way up, along (which is usually boring and hence doesn't get permitted to last very long) and down.
In entertainment the process is measured in months. Pols can get away with a few years, especially if they persist in staying in office though that darn democratic vote thing.
Royals are different to one and one. They are locked in for the long haul, by an odd combo of historical precedent, loadsamunny, oodles of space to hide away in... and a a slight problem of what else can be done with them.
Over the centuries a rough plan has evolved and become established, and 'don't ask, don't tell' has served well, even outside these shores. Simply for being, they can lob up, open a napalm factory in Saudi and the whole world press goes 'Wooooo'.
The problems kick in when they start wanting to start behaving and actually do behave and get caught out like normal folk... only without the grubby down sides.
Of late there have been quite a few deeds that have done awfully well to give the royal poppemoffsti enough ammo and opportunity to bag a fair brace.
But the newest and greatest Royal flaw to this arrangement working as intended has been to want to mouth 'orf. And do it in public via the gutter press (ie: all of them - sorry, but you know it's true:).
Often this can and has been used by those who know people who know people to swing a a good cause higher up the ratings list, and thus the earning league. Even the odd slow moving, rich consumer goods range.
But the trouble with created idols, especially high profile regal ones, is that when they are proven only human, the lustre is all the more damaging for being seen as flawed as normal folk. And when those some would place above us on a pedestal with no real substance come crashing down, they can end up doing a lot more damage than any good achieved whilst floating around 'up there'. Being rich may be aspirational, but it's not exactly a worthwhile job description to be taken seriously by those who really know how and can do.
It's a bit like the Red Arrows. Awesome as you crane your neck to catch a glimpse. A rush of national pride as they do their thing. Probably well worth the investment in terms of national ROI.
But if they come too close to the ground and, heaven forfend, fail to stay a touch above it, it can prove... less than optimal.
Sadly we are in a culture (sic) where everything is pretty much decided by what is popular, embodied by the celeb du jour: pumped up, allowed to float and then shot down by the media, who get what they need on the way up, along (which is usually boring and hence doesn't get permitted to last very long) and down.
In entertainment the process is measured in months. Pols can get away with a few years, especially if they persist in staying in office though that darn democratic vote thing.
Royals are different to one and one. They are locked in for the long haul, by an odd combo of historical precedent, loadsamunny, oodles of space to hide away in... and a a slight problem of what else can be done with them.
Over the centuries a rough plan has evolved and become established, and 'don't ask, don't tell' has served well, even outside these shores. Simply for being, they can lob up, open a napalm factory in Saudi and the whole world press goes 'Wooooo'.
The problems kick in when they start wanting to start behaving and actually do behave and get caught out like normal folk... only without the grubby down sides.
Of late there have been quite a few deeds that have done awfully well to give the royal poppemoffsti enough ammo and opportunity to bag a fair brace.
But the newest and greatest Royal flaw to this arrangement working as intended has been to want to mouth 'orf. And do it in public via the gutter press (ie: all of them - sorry, but you know it's true:).
Often this can and has been used by those who know people who know people to swing a a good cause higher up the ratings list, and thus the earning league. Even the odd slow moving, rich consumer goods range.
But the trouble with created idols, especially high profile regal ones, is that when they are proven only human, the lustre is all the more damaging for being seen as flawed as normal folk. And when those some would place above us on a pedestal with no real substance come crashing down, they can end up doing a lot more damage than any good achieved whilst floating around 'up there'. Being rich may be aspirational, but it's not exactly a worthwhile job description to be taken seriously by those who really know how and can do.
It's a bit like the Red Arrows. Awesome as you crane your neck to catch a glimpse. A rush of national pride as they do their thing. Probably well worth the investment in terms of national ROI.
But if they come too close to the ground and, heaven forfend, fail to stay a touch above it, it can prove... less than optimal.
It's not just what you say, but who hears it that matters most
Scenes from the denialist denoument
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
All very well 'n good.
For those who may not have had a chance to see it, you can get a flavour of the offending piece here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u6IPHmJWmDk ... for now.
I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it as standard hackery, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might call the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read George Monbiot's rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
If it caused a sensation anywhere, it's not too much as that was about all I could find here by way of mass media.
He makes good points, but it's also a pity all comment is closed on Mr. Monbiot's piece (the link is to his own site) already. However, I am not sure he is too worried about critics: http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2007/3/5/0230/83316... look out Richard Branson (and those who stand beside him), George is watching!
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that circle cannot be squared.
Speaking of going in circles: Don't let truth stand in the way of a red-hot debunking of climate change
(with a few tweaks)
I came here via a US post that called the programme, 'standard hackery', and a follow-up which pointed at this article. I'm afraid that no matter what else I may think, I would feel unable to dismiss it in such a way, even if I think I understand what that term is trying to conjure up.
I'd hazard that, to your average Joe on their sofa, this is slick, calm, considered, credible, easy on the eye and ear, with a large selection of talking heads with impressive titles (the co-founder of Greenpeace! That blew me away, I have to admit, though being unaware for now what the back story is or may be. Doubtless I will be advised that he is 'discredited'). I also have to say that some of the factual footage of techniques used to discredit these 'deniers' was handled... convincingly.
I might add that it's all a bit like stuff I get fed by what might be called the 'other side'.
So I was/am seduced in part, and will have to delve more to try and weigh what is said and by whom against alternatives. Hence I will try to get what may approximate to actuality inbetween the two, sadly usually as served up by compliant and/or often complicit media with agendas of their own (principally this is a rating point rather than any desire to educate of inform objectively, else we would see well-balanced debates stocked with all sides. So the remark about the environmental journalism industry having a vested interest in keeping the frenzy at fever pitch is noted, but rather undermined by the fact that there seems a very healthy anti-environmentalism industry turning a healthy buck too. It would be nice to get past all this, move on and let the whole lot get a real job at Starbucks).
Most time-poor folk are unlikely to do so.
So it's possibly a shame that the majority of the UK population, and even those who tuned in to Against Nature, won't ever read this rebuttal, as opposed to watching a primetime TV show or even a more highbrow niche news piece, such as BBC 2's Newsnight - http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/2007/03/monday_12_march_2007.html
I just wanted to ask what 'syllogism' meant. I'm personally of the view that staying so highbrow is not the best way to get the punters onside with anything else you may go on to say, though I'm sure it makes your posh mates dead impressed and start blogging away in awe. You can blind people with science. Shame if that renders them deaf to reason as well.
But, if we are really trying to effect positive change, whose interests are being served first, if at all, by such an approach?
If you can be bothered, here's a link to another very heavy set of academic to & fros to see an example of death match shuffleboard on the Titanic, with the winner left to rearrange the deckchairs.
http://junkk.blogspot.com/2007/03/weekend-of-planet-report.html
All together now... hit it, Celine...!
Back to the shed. I don't know what I don't know. But I do know that it has to be worth any and all ways to do things to reduce waste, improve efficiencies and, at least, consider acceptable ways to start reduction.
Ignoring GW/CC completely, simple maths shows the value of this. One spherical planet, with a finite livable area with an equally finite area for sustaining resources. And an ever-expanding population, many of whom can afford and even more of whom will soon be able to afford all sorts of 'stuff' and travel.
There has to be a point where that sphere cannot be cubed.
Guardian - Climate scientist 'duped to deny global warming' - How does one dupe a scientist to refute his science?
Indy - Carl Wunsch: I should never have trusted Channel 4
Times - C4’s debate on global warming boils over
Indy Letters
Telegraph - Arctic ice hits 'tipping point'
Priorities
Newsnight Friday
Newsnight Monday
Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.
I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'
Newsnight Monday
Not too impressed. How predictable the choices of twofer. How flip the bouffant. How deep the doo-doo we're getting into. Some interesting posts, though.
I type as I watch Monday's GW/CC (they are different, I am told) piece on my PC (shame such a large chunk was missing for copyright reasons. It would have been interesting to see what the BBC editted out of an edit), with this morning's BBC Breakfast summary numberfest still ringing in my ears. Don't know about the EU, but our own bonny lads and lasses are gettting into a froth enough simply in Londonland.
Targets every year or 5, depending on who is in power and hence needs time to make sure the numbers 'fit'.
Sorting things out by 2050 (I rather thought the IPCC report suggested that may be a tad late, but there we go, it's good to meet a target rather than solve an actual problem when your index-linked is based on it).
There were the usual, if highly sensible, suspects.
When I were was a lad it was cycle to work, share a bath with a friend and put on an extra jummy.
They all still apply (except the bath one... just hope shower cubicles will be big enough for the new plan).
But now it's insulation - fully endorse that one, and in fact have suggested a plan of my own: here, bulbs and standby.
The last two also make good sense, but the details still seem a bit vague. And after the road pricing farce my ears get attuned to words like 'suggest', 'encourage', 'make', etc, especially when they morph into 'we'll fine you if you don't'.
Like 4x4s, these items were and indeed are on sale legally, and possibly even generate VAT in the process. So I do wonder who bears the cost of them being taken away and replaced which, in the case of bulbs, means swapping a 20p effort for a £3 one. Not to mention, in some more stylish cases, the fittings too.
Standby button offing is just plain common sense, but I stand ready to see how Messrs Philips, Sony, LG, etc, get on board with the UK government's plans, in the great global scheme of things. I guess they will, because they'll have to. But again, will that mean I have a salaried and pensioned army of red dot monitors turning up on my doorstep to demand I scrap my perfectly good old TV and buy a new eco-one, with no concerns as to the manufacturing costs in terms of enviROI? Even though I do get up and switch it all off at night at the socket?
Funnily enough, in the same slot it was announced that there was a German outfit about to build a new coal fired power station. But not to worry, its emissions will be... 'better'.
Now, I don't know about your domestic output and how close to a personal 20% reduction you're meeting, but it all rather paled into insignificance when some environmental experts were wheeled out for their 2p worth.
Tony Juniper of FoE was as helpful as a director/spokesperson of a major charitable corporation can be, but what did make me pay attention was the long-haired, but seemingly un-named individual who advised that 2/3 of the energy from our power stations is wasted.
Now, that seems quite a lot. Almost 67% in fact. And despite living and breathing this stuff for a while I'd never heard it before.
And vs. all the other stuff being wittered on about it seems, if true, to be something much more worthy of the talking head's attention in comparison to most I have had served up by our media of late.
For what it's worth, what our media and scientific community IS worth in terms of climate debate may be followed to some degree starting here.
It's an interesting discussion. I think my most relevant contribution as it applies here was this:
'I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.'
With a little help from our friends!
I am again indebted to Junkketeer Peter for not only pointing out the opportunity (which I immediately grabbed - now can I count it as 'coverage' in our ABOUT section?), but now kindly sharing the fact that we did score a mention (if not as submitted) in a Guardian online piece on reuse: Reuse it or lose it
Before going any further, may I appeal to any and all who may stumble across such a chance of promo for the site and/or a mention in the media to send it in this way. I am already struggling to catch up with just the last few days after my recent adventures. So any really helpful stuff flagged up is appreciated!
A quick comment on what we shared our glory with.
I was pleased to note that we were about the only non-individual (actually 'we' are, but it may be fair to say that 'I' am a bit more dedicated time-wise than most, if not 'professional'... yet) site in there. I say pleased only selfishly in terms of our commercial and even reputational prospects. It just seems odd and a tad sad that all the major funded Govt and Quango efforts seldom get mentioned? I'd like to think it's guys like us, FreeCycle and others who are talking to the public in ways they can, and obviously do relate to ( a couple of great new URLs for me to invite on the site today!).
Maybe they should just leave it too us... and help out a bit with some funds. Just a thought...
Before going any further, may I appeal to any and all who may stumble across such a chance of promo for the site and/or a mention in the media to send it in this way. I am already struggling to catch up with just the last few days after my recent adventures. So any really helpful stuff flagged up is appreciated!
A quick comment on what we shared our glory with.
I was pleased to note that we were about the only non-individual (actually 'we' are, but it may be fair to say that 'I' am a bit more dedicated time-wise than most, if not 'professional'... yet) site in there. I say pleased only selfishly in terms of our commercial and even reputational prospects. It just seems odd and a tad sad that all the major funded Govt and Quango efforts seldom get mentioned? I'd like to think it's guys like us, FreeCycle and others who are talking to the public in ways they can, and obviously do relate to ( a couple of great new URLs for me to invite on the site today!).
Maybe they should just leave it too us... and help out a bit with some funds. Just a thought...
Monday, March 12, 2007
Fame!... Lab
I think my weekend activities require a more positive response than I accorded them ion the previous blog, but I was trying to make a point to a bunch of 'scientists' who really did seem to be playing shuffleboard to the death, with the winner getting the last deckchair to rearrange on the Titanic.
The Nesta FameLab I had known about for a wee while, but then forgot about until Friday. Coming hot on the heels of another event, courtesy of the University of Warwick's nb2bc initiative (of which more later, in another blog, with suitable temporal confusion), I was all at sixes and sevens.
Basically I lobbed up at the 9am registry in Cardiff (after major fight with the Uni parking system - coupons. You have to buy them and then stick them on your car. Fair enough. Thing is, you can't buy them until 10am when public buildings who sell them may open. But you can get a ticket for not displaying beforehand. Stupid... or what?) and got my number.
Then it was off to rehearse for and hour and a half until showtime. As described before, I totally blew it. Bad preparation, a total inability to remember what i had to say and stick to it according to script I (lifelong curse), plus an arc lamp blinding me all conspired to ensure that while my stalk was good, it got cut off mid flow at the designated 3-minute limit.
However, the judges were very nice, and my fallow contestants nicer still, so I decided to hang about to watch the final in the afternoon. Plus there was a course on public speaking beforehand, which was well worth attending, so I did. To kill time I scooted off into the City, and had a very fruitful time buying a countdown and count up timer to help me in future.
Because I decided to give it another go. They won't allow the same day, but they will allow another place, so I got on the phone and asked the family to get ready as we were going to Plymouth that night. Nothing quiet like spontaneity.
For me it was a long day and a lot of travel (hey, i know, but don't blame me. And it does get worse... sorry), but we ended up in the fair city of Plymouth in time for a slap up seafood dinner and a very nice night on a last minute deal at the China Fleet Club.
Next morning we popped back across Tamar Bridge and arrived in good order at the venue, which was the Aquarium. Wow, what a place. Worth it just for that.
Surprisingly, not many people had signed up, so I was soon schedule din later that morning as the judges had all swanned off in boredom. So we really scoped the place out with the kids. And then I went off to rehearse my revised talk, complete with timers.
I really thought it was quite good, (see previous blog) but again blew out. That will teach me not to read the brief. They want people who want to be science reporters. Now I'm up for that, but I was, am more interested in people who are trying to make a difference by understanding the science and not letting buggers who would try to blind us with it use science to pull the wool over our eyes. So I am bigger on digging out answers to questions than having pat replies served up. As I say, a journey to be embarked upon together than a review served up from a limited, and agenda strewn viewpiont. But to win against the system you have to play it, and I did not do that. More fool me.
I am encouraged. For the judges comments there is no doubting my ability to conjure a story... but I just need to have one that has a neat beginning, middle and end. Mine was to open to satisfy.
But I appreciate the process and the opportunity. You can always improve and learn, and improve some more. And try again. So I am going to keep plugging away, like Robert the Bruce's spider. There are a couple more to go, and I think I will tackle them.
It will be hard, but next time I think I will not bang on on the environment. And just spin a story about a lobster, which I read on a panel at the aquarium. It was very interesting, and I have a lovely lady called Amanda who worked there to thank for fleshing the facts out into what I think could be a winner on the basis the programme is seeking to fulfil.
And once I win, then I set about changing the system. From within.
Weekend (of planet) report
I wrote this for here: Insert “swindle” joke here.
Shame to waste, as it will pretty much serve to explain what I was up to all weekend.
I usually figure it's not worth posting by the time blog replies hit a hundred, because if I cannot be bothered to read past the first few score (I just did, before hitting 'submit', and realise that about half a dozen folk are just lobbing entrenched viewpoints to and fro, backed by ever more unscientific 'support' for arguments) why would anyone do the same to get as far as mine?
But as I have been away, it is topical to what I was doing and, goshdarnit, it's good practice for my blog, so it's not really a total waste after all. At least for me.
This weekend I was in both Cardiff and Plymouth, pitching in a NESTA competition called FameLab, which is all about bringing science, and an appreciation of same, to the viewing public. So, inspired in no small measure by the IPCC report, the Channel 4 doco and the discussion on this very blog a few days ago, as I had nothing else prepared I decided to spout forth on 'Sick Planet Syndrome; Myths and Facts. Causes and Cures'.
The first day was an unmitigated disaster, as I hadn't prepared very well and also had an arc lamp in my eyes for the precise 3 minutes one got to hold forth, and hence failed to see the 20' countdown signal, thus missing my conclusion.
This was that, at present, either camp could be right. Or wrong... evidently, at least as far as the masses might be concerned. (I have a personal view, of course).
Sadly, getting this in when I did manage to say it the next day didn't help much. I even wore a black cowboy hat for 'big oil climate denying science' and a jaunty white eco-hat for 'we're toast, green taxes all round' science, to make my point that not all science (especially green) was, could be or should be black or white, pro or con, with nothing allowed in between. On reflection, it may also have not helped that for the former viewpoint I also said a big 'Yee-haa!" to camera and big-upped the doco, as Ch4 is one of the sponsors.
And speaking of not helping, I also opined it certainly wasn't doing much of value knocking spots off each other by such methods - used by opposing groups, and played up by a compliant if not complicit media - as attacking the person, or who is backing them or whatever, and not the facts.
My jury (or rather judging panel) of eminent scientists and TV producers were still not impressed. For this show they wanted... needed a conclusion. A solution as I had promised. That was my whole point. I had offered one, at least as I saw it, which was accepting there WAS NOT always a definitive conclusion, and you can often need to act before you have one, on the best you've got. I guess that's the Civil Engineer in me kicking in. We prefer things not to fall over and will move to shore things up before they topple, Tower of Pisa notwithstanding.
So much in science is a journey rather than a destination, and it can be fun to share the ride rather than dispense a unidirectional commentary.
But if the train is rattling around a bit maybe I believe it would be best to stop the rocking (I would say of the boat, but that would be a mixed metaphor too far) and simply work together on stabilising it now, rather than keeping thrashing about trying to prove who is right or wrong on whether it will fall off the rails before getting to the end-point.
No, it seems quick fixes, soundbites and being seen to be 'righter and brighter' rather than just doing better is the order of the day. Questions being posed and left open are not favoured when answers abound, even if they are poorly founded ones. Or, possibly, just plain wrong. Delivery, with a neat opening, middle and ending that leaves nothing for the imagination, or the individual to ponder or discover for themselves, is to be ruthlessly enforced. It seems that the last thing anyone from the [insert (profession)-elite here] wants is the masses actually having an opinion or trying to influence how their lives are directed rather than those who know better.
I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.
I'd like to wish all well and scoot off to another place where I can work with those from science and media (and government and commerce, and...) who are more concerned with moving on whilst trying to locate a tangible negotiated result, rather than staying still to bully through unconditional, theoretical Pyrrhic victories. But sadly the venue options on this planet are looking limited. And just getting there may open up a whole new can of worms.
Seems I might owe Richard Branson an apology. Maybe Virgin Galactic is the best chance we've got. But bumping some billionaire from his Kodak moment atop a cloud of greenhouse gasses seems such a compromised way of doing it, and there is the small matter of effecting the swap.
Bad Science. Naughty Science. No wonder the majority of the public switches off. And of those who do try to stay with it, like my mate Nick (a computer science grad), when both sides get in the gutter the more optimistic option being espoused often gets a more willing ear. So now I have to work a bit harder to keep him of the view that waiting until the Durkin's of this world are proved 100% wrong may not be the best plan for now. Or, indeed, the future. What are my chances?
STOP PRESS: Here's the promo in my in-box from the nation's broadcaster for tonight:
MONDAY 12 MARCH 22:30 GMT - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER
CLIMATE CHANGE
As Gordon Brown and David Cameron compete on being greener-than-thou, we examine the science once again. Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?
ADDENDUM:
I remain impressed with the principle of Bad Science, and for sure a lot of the intellectual firepower, but sadly not so much the practice. There is too much a sense of being 'in with the in crowd', which to me weakens the objectivity of the comments, and I think reflects poorly on the moderator which, in this case, is the principal.
I'm intrigued.
Firstly that anyone still checks back this far, and secondly would post at 5:52pm to ask someone who last posted at 12.47pm to give up, when there have been several posts subsequently. Unless that tricky in/out missing post thing has cropped up again to catch the likes of me out too.
But mainly I'm interested in why EssTee may be deemed to be embarrassing themselves and, hence, why they should be required to give up.
I may not agree with some or indeed all of what they are saying, but there are some interesting points being made that I will take the time to assess, along with others.
And having been witness to, and indeed too often (for my blood pressure) a participant in escalating flame wars, I can't see some of the accusations that have managed to gang up on poor old EssTee to be entirely warranted.
To this infrequent, though interested visitor, it's coming across as rather too cosy a club, and a rather one-sided one at that.
Which does not seem very healthy for debate.
EssTee, for what's it's worth, as far as I am concerned you can keep on banging away. I'd avoid addressing anything other than the facts, and rising to the bait of those who would tempt you in venturing into unproductive areas.
But when you are on the facts, please try and ensure that they are as good as you can make them, with appropriate attribution, and let them speak for themselves.
With luck, and reasoned arguments put forward by those with differing opinions, I may come to a reasonable opinion of my own.
I may even decide such a forum is worth adding it to. I admire your courage, if not your standpoint and aspects of style, because this is not a playing field that seems very level, and the ball is too easily threatened with retraction should one look like playing for any but the home team.
ADD-ADDENDUM
A pleasant enough reply overnight. Actually, the point made got me to thinking about the function of and difference between a Blog with comments and a Forum. Junkk.com has both. I must confess to being woeful at dipping in to our own Forum and due to time constraints rather shamefully leave it to others. I am trying to solicit a team of moderators.
Because, with the obvious concern on accusations of agenda-driven 'censorship', I appreciate the role of the originator in keeping things on track. I, for one, would not allow attacking the person rather than the message without comment and even censure.
Thanks Deano,
I didn't know about the Forum. I just get the odd email from Ben with a link, and this one was a major flag to click on for me. What comments are meant for posting here then?
And while I came to it only late in the day I couldn't resist pitching in to this one (it is quite topical in the news as most will gather, and my major concern is the consuming public's take on it all). And again later as I did feel that very good rebuttals of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras were being eroded by sharing a sea of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras.
So actually, I now have a lot to worry about. I already spend waaaaay too much time on major media blogs and forums sifting away in the hope (frequently satisfied, more often than not frustrated) of sensible debate and worthwhile information and directions to tangible areas of worthwhile activity.
I rather suspect, and the evidence here presents a concern, that anything that does not toe a majority line may need to stand ready for a 'robust' challenge - which may well be warranted and even demanded - and one can only hope that this will be the facts and not the person or pejorative groupings.
Sadly, despite this it looks like a rich seam, so there goes the social life even more!
Shame to waste, as it will pretty much serve to explain what I was up to all weekend.
I usually figure it's not worth posting by the time blog replies hit a hundred, because if I cannot be bothered to read past the first few score (I just did, before hitting 'submit', and realise that about half a dozen folk are just lobbing entrenched viewpoints to and fro, backed by ever more unscientific 'support' for arguments) why would anyone do the same to get as far as mine?
But as I have been away, it is topical to what I was doing and, goshdarnit, it's good practice for my blog, so it's not really a total waste after all. At least for me.
This weekend I was in both Cardiff and Plymouth, pitching in a NESTA competition called FameLab, which is all about bringing science, and an appreciation of same, to the viewing public. So, inspired in no small measure by the IPCC report, the Channel 4 doco and the discussion on this very blog a few days ago, as I had nothing else prepared I decided to spout forth on 'Sick Planet Syndrome; Myths and Facts. Causes and Cures'.
The first day was an unmitigated disaster, as I hadn't prepared very well and also had an arc lamp in my eyes for the precise 3 minutes one got to hold forth, and hence failed to see the 20' countdown signal, thus missing my conclusion.
This was that, at present, either camp could be right. Or wrong... evidently, at least as far as the masses might be concerned. (I have a personal view, of course).
Sadly, getting this in when I did manage to say it the next day didn't help much. I even wore a black cowboy hat for 'big oil climate denying science' and a jaunty white eco-hat for 'we're toast, green taxes all round' science, to make my point that not all science (especially green) was, could be or should be black or white, pro or con, with nothing allowed in between. On reflection, it may also have not helped that for the former viewpoint I also said a big 'Yee-haa!" to camera and big-upped the doco, as Ch4 is one of the sponsors.
And speaking of not helping, I also opined it certainly wasn't doing much of value knocking spots off each other by such methods - used by opposing groups, and played up by a compliant if not complicit media - as attacking the person, or who is backing them or whatever, and not the facts.
My jury (or rather judging panel) of eminent scientists and TV producers were still not impressed. For this show they wanted... needed a conclusion. A solution as I had promised. That was my whole point. I had offered one, at least as I saw it, which was accepting there WAS NOT always a definitive conclusion, and you can often need to act before you have one, on the best you've got. I guess that's the Civil Engineer in me kicking in. We prefer things not to fall over and will move to shore things up before they topple, Tower of Pisa notwithstanding.
So much in science is a journey rather than a destination, and it can be fun to share the ride rather than dispense a unidirectional commentary.
But if the train is rattling around a bit maybe I believe it would be best to stop the rocking (I would say of the boat, but that would be a mixed metaphor too far) and simply work together on stabilising it now, rather than keeping thrashing about trying to prove who is right or wrong on whether it will fall off the rails before getting to the end-point.
No, it seems quick fixes, soundbites and being seen to be 'righter and brighter' rather than just doing better is the order of the day. Questions being posed and left open are not favoured when answers abound, even if they are poorly founded ones. Or, possibly, just plain wrong. Delivery, with a neat opening, middle and ending that leaves nothing for the imagination, or the individual to ponder or discover for themselves, is to be ruthlessly enforced. It seems that the last thing anyone from the [insert (profession)-elite here] wants is the masses actually having an opinion or trying to influence how their lives are directed rather than those who know better.
I think I understand now why I get so agitated by science reporting these days. These guys are not required by a huge 'system' to allow anything trouble the viewer by way of loose ends. Hence with climate change: 'the planet is doomed... for this reason'. Period. Or, 'the planet is fine... for this reason'. Period. Nice soundbite. Nice headline. Nice ratings.
Not awfully helpful, though, when we're not too sure.
I'd like to wish all well and scoot off to another place where I can work with those from science and media (and government and commerce, and...) who are more concerned with moving on whilst trying to locate a tangible negotiated result, rather than staying still to bully through unconditional, theoretical Pyrrhic victories. But sadly the venue options on this planet are looking limited. And just getting there may open up a whole new can of worms.
Seems I might owe Richard Branson an apology. Maybe Virgin Galactic is the best chance we've got. But bumping some billionaire from his Kodak moment atop a cloud of greenhouse gasses seems such a compromised way of doing it, and there is the small matter of effecting the swap.
Bad Science. Naughty Science. No wonder the majority of the public switches off. And of those who do try to stay with it, like my mate Nick (a computer science grad), when both sides get in the gutter the more optimistic option being espoused often gets a more willing ear. So now I have to work a bit harder to keep him of the view that waiting until the Durkin's of this world are proved 100% wrong may not be the best plan for now. Or, indeed, the future. What are my chances?
STOP PRESS: Here's the promo in my in-box from the nation's broadcaster for tonight:
MONDAY 12 MARCH 22:30 GMT - BBC TWO
FROM GAVIN ESLER
CLIMATE CHANGE
As Gordon Brown and David Cameron compete on being greener-than-thou, we examine the science once again. Despite the fact that most reputable scientists agree that human activity in raising carbon emissions is leading to global warming, could they - in fact - be wrong?
ADDENDUM:
I remain impressed with the principle of Bad Science, and for sure a lot of the intellectual firepower, but sadly not so much the practice. There is too much a sense of being 'in with the in crowd', which to me weakens the objectivity of the comments, and I think reflects poorly on the moderator which, in this case, is the principal.
I'm intrigued.
Firstly that anyone still checks back this far, and secondly would post at 5:52pm to ask someone who last posted at 12.47pm to give up, when there have been several posts subsequently. Unless that tricky in/out missing post thing has cropped up again to catch the likes of me out too.
But mainly I'm interested in why EssTee may be deemed to be embarrassing themselves and, hence, why they should be required to give up.
I may not agree with some or indeed all of what they are saying, but there are some interesting points being made that I will take the time to assess, along with others.
And having been witness to, and indeed too often (for my blood pressure) a participant in escalating flame wars, I can't see some of the accusations that have managed to gang up on poor old EssTee to be entirely warranted.
To this infrequent, though interested visitor, it's coming across as rather too cosy a club, and a rather one-sided one at that.
Which does not seem very healthy for debate.
EssTee, for what's it's worth, as far as I am concerned you can keep on banging away. I'd avoid addressing anything other than the facts, and rising to the bait of those who would tempt you in venturing into unproductive areas.
But when you are on the facts, please try and ensure that they are as good as you can make them, with appropriate attribution, and let them speak for themselves.
With luck, and reasoned arguments put forward by those with differing opinions, I may come to a reasonable opinion of my own.
I may even decide such a forum is worth adding it to. I admire your courage, if not your standpoint and aspects of style, because this is not a playing field that seems very level, and the ball is too easily threatened with retraction should one look like playing for any but the home team.
ADD-ADDENDUM
A pleasant enough reply overnight. Actually, the point made got me to thinking about the function of and difference between a Blog with comments and a Forum. Junkk.com has both. I must confess to being woeful at dipping in to our own Forum and due to time constraints rather shamefully leave it to others. I am trying to solicit a team of moderators.
Because, with the obvious concern on accusations of agenda-driven 'censorship', I appreciate the role of the originator in keeping things on track. I, for one, would not allow attacking the person rather than the message without comment and even censure.
Thanks Deano,
I didn't know about the Forum. I just get the odd email from Ben with a link, and this one was a major flag to click on for me. What comments are meant for posting here then?
And while I came to it only late in the day I couldn't resist pitching in to this one (it is quite topical in the news as most will gather, and my major concern is the consuming public's take on it all). And again later as I did feel that very good rebuttals of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras were being eroded by sharing a sea of poor, over-edited or agenda-driven mantras.
So actually, I now have a lot to worry about. I already spend waaaaay too much time on major media blogs and forums sifting away in the hope (frequently satisfied, more often than not frustrated) of sensible debate and worthwhile information and directions to tangible areas of worthwhile activity.
I rather suspect, and the evidence here presents a concern, that anything that does not toe a majority line may need to stand ready for a 'robust' challenge - which may well be warranted and even demanded - and one can only hope that this will be the facts and not the person or pejorative groupings.
Sadly, despite this it looks like a rich seam, so there goes the social life even more!
Indy, Indy, on the floor, what green nonsenseee is being talked today... and not just by Gore
That latter.... may.... not be quite fair.
However, as a read around a few other bits 'n bobs would indicate that you cannot be considered a true e-martyr unless you have questions the gods of e-dom and had their minions shout at you to repent. So I guess it's worth it.
Being a man, and hence incapable of multitasking, I'll have to get on today's Indy right away or I'll forget.
Politicians step up the battle to secure the green vote
Mr Cameron... stole a march on ministers yesterday by announcing plans for a set of "environmental taxes" intended to curb air travel.
What I heard made quite a lot of sense, which is more than I can say for the BBC blonde's attempt to spin it otherwise. Shame about the green laces nonsense, though.
The Chancellor will call today for a "new world order" ....
No, really, that's how it's being pitched? Who writes their stuff? Because if that's what comes first then what comes next, no matter how rational, is not getting read. By me at least (ok, I will. I have too).
The rest was so much hogwash. If they are still banging on about Dave's turbine, the Indy needs to wake up in this decade and smell the Fairtrade herbal tea from the back allotment.
Which political party is the greenest?
Er... the Green party?
No, seriously. Last time I looked, they were a political party and do seem pretty, well' green.
As to whether that's enough to be in power, or indeed to be trusted with running a country and balance the enviro-stuff is another matter. But still.
Tony Juniper: This new political battleground is welcome
FoE he's a Jolly good fellow!
Guardian - Labour to set legal limit on UK carbon emissions
Guardian - Brown and Cameron battle over green air travel and phasing out old-style light bulbs
Guardian - Scientists give cautious welcome to environmental initiatives - In light of a lot else recently, what, exactly, are 'scientists' ? I'm betting a few chaps whose numbers they know and are good for a quick quote.
However, as a read around a few other bits 'n bobs would indicate that you cannot be considered a true e-martyr unless you have questions the gods of e-dom and had their minions shout at you to repent. So I guess it's worth it.
Being a man, and hence incapable of multitasking, I'll have to get on today's Indy right away or I'll forget.
Politicians step up the battle to secure the green vote
Mr Cameron... stole a march on ministers yesterday by announcing plans for a set of "environmental taxes" intended to curb air travel.
What I heard made quite a lot of sense, which is more than I can say for the BBC blonde's attempt to spin it otherwise. Shame about the green laces nonsense, though.
The Chancellor will call today for a "new world order" ....
No, really, that's how it's being pitched? Who writes their stuff? Because if that's what comes first then what comes next, no matter how rational, is not getting read. By me at least (ok, I will. I have too).
The rest was so much hogwash. If they are still banging on about Dave's turbine, the Indy needs to wake up in this decade and smell the Fairtrade herbal tea from the back allotment.
Which political party is the greenest?
Er... the Green party?
No, seriously. Last time I looked, they were a political party and do seem pretty, well' green.
As to whether that's enough to be in power, or indeed to be trusted with running a country and balance the enviro-stuff is another matter. But still.
Tony Juniper: This new political battleground is welcome
FoE he's a Jolly good fellow!
Guardian - Labour to set legal limit on UK carbon emissions
Guardian - Brown and Cameron battle over green air travel and phasing out old-style light bulbs
Guardian - Scientists give cautious welcome to environmental initiatives - In light of a lot else recently, what, exactly, are 'scientists' ? I'm betting a few chaps whose numbers they know and are good for a quick quote.
The best answers come from better questions
Where to start, where to start?
The last several days have been a blur, in every way possible. Time. Location. Thoughts.
The last time I felt remotely rational was Thursday, and since then... wow.
There is a temptation to go back and try and pick up from that point. And though I do intend to blog on what has transpired, I think I'll start on something from today that in many ways sums up the highs and lows I have experienced of late.
Today I actually bought a paper as I walked back from dropping the boys at school. It was the Indy. One look at the cover should tell you why I felt so moved.
As I turned from the newsagents a lady called me back to tell me I'd dropped something. I thought it was ironic what. The dog poo was not it. Though that was ironic, too. And I have to say in the Indy's defence it did not slide from its pages. The other two bits did. The ads for the airline destinations and 4x4s stayed inside, by the way. I find them ironic as well..
Anyway I am, here, going to make no detailed comment on the content (though I will later), as it is just the headline and that alone which I have read so far. And that, and that alone, has already given me pause for thought and reason to comment here.
I DO NOT GIVE A MONKEYS WHO IS GREENEST!!!!!!!
What. The. Heck. Does. That. Mean?
As will be explained in subsequent blogs, I have been in front of and at the receiving end of a large number of folk of late, from cynical business persons to grazing academics, to hard-nosed media producers... and it has not been pretty.
But one thing I do know is what I should have remembered from my ad days: GIGO. Garbage In = Garbage Out. And does that ever have an extra twist in matters enviROI.
Also, as will be explained, there are more gulfs out there than a pro golf tournament's (or Al Gore's) private airstrip.
Science and Media. Pols and Science. Media and Pols. Business and Everyone. Oh, and lets not forget the poor sods just trying to get on with their day in average Joeville.
No wonder this place is in a mess. And I don't just mean the poo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)