Peter will not be happy.
Keep off the grass
One can indeed get on dodgy turf weighing the economically-driven (though when it's with the truth it becomes quicksand) and the environmental.
You're (on the side of) right, they don't have a blade worth standing upon in word or deed in trying to make money from green this way.
Now, time to pop back to the travel section of this paper where, apparently, 'Angel Falls' is a must see:)
Peter is the lovely chap who pops in once a week to kick me from being creative eco-luvvie into self-sustaining business person. He thinks the two are compatible, but some compromises can and need to be made.
And as the belt tightens, I am seeing his point. Better fed than dead. And if you are fed, you can keep doing what you do... to support the family ... and, with luck, make an enviROI+ difference.
I don't think such as the Guardian is doing any damage, and in fact has a long history of keeping the green flag flying, often persuasively.
But it's just that, well, sometimes the rather overt Planet Ban-it in one corner tends to jar with the corporate money making going on a few pages over. Often it can, and is used by those who might disagree to highlight if not flaws in their advocacy, but certainly selective campaigning. I am sure many in Islington will gladly return their back lot to natures' best, but also that it will be well up on the priority list of green guilt compared to giving Angel Falls a miss.
For what it is worth, I have to say puring gunk onto weeds is not the best eco-option, but I do confess to zapping a few dandelions with something last summer, as excavating them made my lawn look the Somme.
Wednesday, April 23, 2008
One day at a time?
Is Earth Day enough to save the planet?
As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.
The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.
A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.
First click got me to the donation page.
As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.
And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.
As with all things, it is a question of degree. And the sad inevitability that what was once small, personal and intimate pretty quickly becomes big, corporate and a monumental overblown bore.
The first I knew about Earth Day was an email from one of the x zillion well funded ngos/charity newsletters I subscribe to to try and glean some worthwhile information on worthwhile things that get or can be DONE.
A banner ad in the middle informed me that ''we' didn't wait to act'. I am guessing it was meant for the US, because the picture was of the Normandy landings, and I am pretty sure 'they' did wait a wee while until nudged a bit by Adm. Yamamoto's frequent flyer programme.
First click got me to the donation page.
As I was unsure how much of my contribution would go on private jets for the management board, guest celebs and media hangers on, and how much would go on media comms budgets (plus sponsors - I was also treated to an Earth Day ad from a Fortune 500 company promoting its bleach) for awareness of their next concert, day/wheeze, I gave it a miss.
And got on with just another one of the 365 days each year I try and DO my best for my kids' futures.
Comments are now closed... no wonder!
Becuase I doubt I was the first poised to hit the keyboard!
Should you 'green' your CV?
What pure, unadulterated tripe dressed up under a question about an issue, even if mocking. Good job it's not April 1. But I still think the author has tongue well in cheek.
Shame the moderators did not see fit to let the thread even start, let alone run.
At least fish4PR got what it needed out of a 'survey'.
Should you 'green' your CV?
What pure, unadulterated tripe dressed up under a question about an issue, even if mocking. Good job it's not April 1. But I still think the author has tongue well in cheek.
Shame the moderators did not see fit to let the thread even start, let alone run.
At least fish4PR got what it needed out of a 'survey'.
Too much spin; not enough substance
Again, on the subject of wind farms I read a lot on subjective passion; very littel that allows me to add anything up.
Tutting at wind farms
Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.
However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.
I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.
I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?
Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.
Addendum:
This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.
BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.
As have added to the above to one:
This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.
Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.
However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.
And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.
Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.
BBC Green - Blow to wind power
Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?
Tutting at wind farms
Somehow this has all seemed to be devolved into some kind spat between ramblers, shredded seagulls and.. the END OF THE WORLD!!!!
Whilst all aspects - social, tourist, etc - are certainly of consideration, a few priorities are in order. Especially if we are to remain addicted to unlimited procreation and hence energy addiction in support of demand... and man-worsened negative climate change via greenhouse gas emissions goes from possible to probable to... worth doing something about.
However, in all such pieces, I would dearly love to see also included some clear ROI and enviROI figures for the relative values of the various alternative energy solutions being proposed and, it seems often championed and/or funded without question by simply not being something else.
I have to presume these numbers have been produced and show clear advantages to our futures on this planet. And if so, would be quite potent to me when being required to weigh against more local ecological or lifestyle issues.
I can see by its location and ambient weather conditions how a facility like this one does look more likely to be able to generate electricity in a 'greener' manner than some alternatives, but do all that are proposed? What about downtimes? Maintenance? Transmission logistics?
Sorry, I still feel there is a wee bit too much spin going on (from the inevitable extremes of such 'debates'), and not enough substance.
Addendum:
This is becoming the talk of the blogosphere.
BBC - Proposals to build one of Europe's biggest onshore wind farms are turned down by the Scottish Government.
As have added to the above to one:
This has stirred things up a tad, but I do wonder if in the right way, and amongst the right folk.
Some things are very hard to quantify, so I have total sympathy for those trying to place a value on something as subjective as a view.
However, as a mere MoP (member of the public) trying to wade through a morass of advocacies that may require my cross in a box one day, the whole thing seems to be maintained at a very simplistic, and emotional level.
And I for one, would REALLY like some confirmed, hard numbers on this.
Without them it all comes across as a battle of interest groups, and as belts get tightened, what (possibly incorrectly, but it's a better attitude than being against anything at all) may seem affordable indulgences for many might drop off the options list in favour of what may seem (often incorrectly) essentials.
BBC Green - Blow to wind power
Guardian - Endangered birds come first: Scottish ministers say no to huge wind farm on Lewis peatland - some numbers, but how good are they?
Earth to America .....
.... can you hear? An amusing little video clip from EcoAudit.org. Love the 'please take a minute to note the emergency exits ..... there aren't any' bit.
A simple message but quite funny.
A simple message but quite funny.
Tuesday, April 22, 2008
Saved!
Just, not sure by whom, or if in the right way.
Earth Day Roundup: Cool Things You Can Do
Rather unfortunate ad currently on this page from 'we can solve it', to this Brit at least (footage of the Normandy landings with the line 'we didn't wait'. Well, not until Pearl Harbor, anyway).
But if tactlessly put, perhaps a better message than the one from SJ Johnson at top (also currently), a family company who are working on making better the health of our family and the environment with... Windex, Pledge & Shout?
I kinda feel 'working on' and anything suffixed '-er' might best be kept in the 'Jobs in progress' file before splashing on the media spend, especially for Earth Day. Lest one be accused, however unfairly, of allowing Corporate America to co-opt and monetize it.
Your tax £ being subsidised
Father fined for overfilling bin
The law is, of course, the law.
But there is a certain lack of PR savvy in the choice of person to make an example of, and the way it has been done so far.
In one, more tabloid, account, the authoritarian protagonists seemed to be quite hung up on the fact that it was claimed to be gaping 4" when in fact they had measured it at 7".
At least it was in the silly bin, you silly billies!
There are a few areas of outstanding natural despoiling in our area where the stab-proof sporters from even the local plod don't fancy tackling the visiting inhabitants for a few weeks of each year.
They also seem to have not yet had adequate advice on the problem with too much waste, and hence seen fit to look at what can be recycled.
One question. If you do end up with an excess, even after all the recycling options have been exhausted, what are you supposed to do? Flytip?
I also wonder as to which aspect of LA funding the proceeds go? Better services? Or payroll and pensions?
Acronym-spinning time: WASTCAN (Wielding A Sledgehammer To Crack A Nut). I like that one!
The law is, of course, the law.
But there is a certain lack of PR savvy in the choice of person to make an example of, and the way it has been done so far.
In one, more tabloid, account, the authoritarian protagonists seemed to be quite hung up on the fact that it was claimed to be gaping 4" when in fact they had measured it at 7".
At least it was in the silly bin, you silly billies!
There are a few areas of outstanding natural despoiling in our area where the stab-proof sporters from even the local plod don't fancy tackling the visiting inhabitants for a few weeks of each year.
They also seem to have not yet had adequate advice on the problem with too much waste, and hence seen fit to look at what can be recycled.
One question. If you do end up with an excess, even after all the recycling options have been exhausted, what are you supposed to do? Flytip?
I also wonder as to which aspect of LA funding the proceeds go? Better services? Or payroll and pensions?
Acronym-spinning time: WASTCAN (Wielding A Sledgehammer To Crack A Nut). I like that one!
The devastating virus 0157 .......
..... otherwise known as eco-smugness.
Never let it be said that we don't comment on both sides of the enviro argument. This from The Times is actually quite an amusing rant against the environmental movement.
"What is becoming so fascinating about the new puritanism is not just that we are all being brainwashed to accept the inevitability of hair shirts, but also their unquestioned moral worth. That somehow or other, this life of sackcloth and bicycles is going to benefit our souls and make us all better people."
"My real problem with the eco-alarmists is the pleasure they take in austerity; their evident desire to strip away pleasure. Deep down, they disapprove of skiing, even on a Scottish scale. They dislike colour, excess and fun. They really do want to see us imprisoned in a narrow, grey, scratchy world of recycled car tyres and hemp lingerie (and no, I didn't make that up)."
Ooooo-errrrr! Something has definitely gotten up this lady's nose!
"we will chant a litany of carbon offset, recycling and composting, the buttresses of a new religion that makes radical Islam resemble Methodism."
"the thought of life in this smug, dull, joyless, labour-intensive, recycled, fair trade, waste-free world makes a woman yearn to be already dead and buried in her eco-friendly coffin, fertilising some field for methane-free cows."
Methinks she is taking something of a micro-view of the whole issue? Or maybe her hemp lingerie is itching?
Never let it be said that we don't comment on both sides of the enviro argument. This from The Times is actually quite an amusing rant against the environmental movement.
"What is becoming so fascinating about the new puritanism is not just that we are all being brainwashed to accept the inevitability of hair shirts, but also their unquestioned moral worth. That somehow or other, this life of sackcloth and bicycles is going to benefit our souls and make us all better people."
"My real problem with the eco-alarmists is the pleasure they take in austerity; their evident desire to strip away pleasure. Deep down, they disapprove of skiing, even on a Scottish scale. They dislike colour, excess and fun. They really do want to see us imprisoned in a narrow, grey, scratchy world of recycled car tyres and hemp lingerie (and no, I didn't make that up)."
Ooooo-errrrr! Something has definitely gotten up this lady's nose!
"we will chant a litany of carbon offset, recycling and composting, the buttresses of a new religion that makes radical Islam resemble Methodism."
"the thought of life in this smug, dull, joyless, labour-intensive, recycled, fair trade, waste-free world makes a woman yearn to be already dead and buried in her eco-friendly coffin, fertilising some field for methane-free cows."
Methinks she is taking something of a micro-view of the whole issue? Or maybe her hemp lingerie is itching?
Of Greentosh and Earth Day
THE EARTH DAY BLOG
We have had the hour, which worked so well. I guess some, better funded than most, have seen fit to expand with another 23. Keeps the roof over their heads I guess.
Greentosh... LOL.
I like it, especially in its less sinister incarnation. Other than this blog I would not have know it was Earth Day save for a press release advocating I ditch something I have and replace it with the new, eco version they are offering.... for the planet. Bless.
So long as they don't fib, good luck to 'em, but with one small caveat on the overall effect all this if having on the credibility and patience of the consumer.
I recall at copyriter skool the story of a Canadian canned salmon brand that was suffering because the flesh was white. The solution, which worked gangbusters, was the line 'guaranteed not to go pink'. Sex may sell, but perceived negatives can shift loyalties. Just ask the Democratic Party candidate machines.
The sad fact is that there is, very probably, a fair bit out there now that I would like to know about and act upon because it is, genuinely, better for the future of our kids. And may not even cost a premium. Sadly all but swamped by the dross.
Thanks for sharing. Cheered me up a bit.
I have to question one stat though: 'The average dustbin contains enough unrealised energy for 500 baths, 3500 showers or 5,000 hours of television.'
If it's true, then 'Back to the Future's' Doc Whassiname's Radio Shack fission plant must be closer than I thought.
As to the Howie's scheme being a lot less fun, I'd say it rather depends on who you ask. I guess if it's the agency, client, models and production crew left at T5 I guess you are right. As to getting the job done with least eco-impact and zero carbon-hypocrisy... top marks.
Speaking of which, make sure you catch the latest BBC green effort tonight. Something about kids' fashion. I got a DM piece the size of a LiLo on it last week. And it was on the Breakfast News this morning.
First point of business in boosting our awareness: flying a bunch of folk to India for what seemed like 'The Sulky Six Go 'Whatevah' in Mumbai'. You can't get irony that good any more.
Happy Earth Day.
We have had the hour, which worked so well. I guess some, better funded than most, have seen fit to expand with another 23. Keeps the roof over their heads I guess.
Greentosh... LOL.
I like it, especially in its less sinister incarnation. Other than this blog I would not have know it was Earth Day save for a press release advocating I ditch something I have and replace it with the new, eco version they are offering.... for the planet. Bless.
So long as they don't fib, good luck to 'em, but with one small caveat on the overall effect all this if having on the credibility and patience of the consumer.
I recall at copyriter skool the story of a Canadian canned salmon brand that was suffering because the flesh was white. The solution, which worked gangbusters, was the line 'guaranteed not to go pink'. Sex may sell, but perceived negatives can shift loyalties. Just ask the Democratic Party candidate machines.
The sad fact is that there is, very probably, a fair bit out there now that I would like to know about and act upon because it is, genuinely, better for the future of our kids. And may not even cost a premium. Sadly all but swamped by the dross.
Thanks for sharing. Cheered me up a bit.
I have to question one stat though: 'The average dustbin contains enough unrealised energy for 500 baths, 3500 showers or 5,000 hours of television.'
If it's true, then 'Back to the Future's' Doc Whassiname's Radio Shack fission plant must be closer than I thought.
As to the Howie's scheme being a lot less fun, I'd say it rather depends on who you ask. I guess if it's the agency, client, models and production crew left at T5 I guess you are right. As to getting the job done with least eco-impact and zero carbon-hypocrisy... top marks.
Speaking of which, make sure you catch the latest BBC green effort tonight. Something about kids' fashion. I got a DM piece the size of a LiLo on it last week. And it was on the Breakfast News this morning.
First point of business in boosting our awareness: flying a bunch of folk to India for what seemed like 'The Sulky Six Go 'Whatevah' in Mumbai'. You can't get irony that good any more.
Happy Earth Day.
Cache as cache can
And another acronym: CACA.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
An interesting take on global politics and reporting of same, courtesy of a chap evidently with no life, a worrying grasp of IT and too much time on his hands (but thank heavens for such folk):
BBC - Capitalism harms planet - Morales
Seems to have become (as no trace of the former can be found):
BBC - Leaders warn on biofuels and food
Thing is... why so coy? It's a debate worth having. I'll need to look up the definitions and hence difference between capitalism and consumerism, but it's pretty clear that economic growth almost inevitable equates to wanting, making, using and disposing of ever more stuff, and a limit might well be nigh. Then what?
Not a debate I'd fancy being within collateral damage range of, mind. I can see why they bottled... er... robustly handled it.
Olympics costs - to infinity and beyond!
Back in February, the DCMS admitted that the cost of staging the London Olympics 'could' (yes, that horrid little word again) quadruple to the staggering sum of some £9 Billion.
We mentioned on this very blog the lack of accountability and the astounding cost estimate spiral for the Olympics swimming pool complex which had been awarded to a sole bidder.
And earlier this morning I heard Tessa Jowell on Radio 5 attempting to defend the fact that the overall estimate has now reached £9.3 Billion! Not that she actually answered any of the questions directly, it was an absolute masterclass in prevarication and the avoidance of real answers.
Well, here's a piece from Sky News reporting on the fact that the Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking the view that "the British public have been "grossly misled" and the original estimate for the Olympic Games was "totally unrealistic","
Difficult to argue with that conclusion, isn't it?
"There was no initial contingency fund set aside. In other words, no allowance was made for the possibility of overspending."
An original estimate without any contingency built-in, a failure to account for VAT, and a minimal security and policing allowance (Hell's teeth! The torch relay through London cost almost £750,000 alone!).
Anybody in the real business world responsible for putting forward such an original estimate would have been sacked long ago by now. But this is our Gov, and accountability, at least at that particular level, doesn't really seem to matter anymore, does it?
We mentioned on this very blog the lack of accountability and the astounding cost estimate spiral for the Olympics swimming pool complex which had been awarded to a sole bidder.
And earlier this morning I heard Tessa Jowell on Radio 5 attempting to defend the fact that the overall estimate has now reached £9.3 Billion! Not that she actually answered any of the questions directly, it was an absolute masterclass in prevarication and the avoidance of real answers.
Well, here's a piece from Sky News reporting on the fact that the Commons Public Accounts Committee is taking the view that "the British public have been "grossly misled" and the original estimate for the Olympic Games was "totally unrealistic","
Difficult to argue with that conclusion, isn't it?
"There was no initial contingency fund set aside. In other words, no allowance was made for the possibility of overspending."
An original estimate without any contingency built-in, a failure to account for VAT, and a minimal security and policing allowance (Hell's teeth! The torch relay through London cost almost £750,000 alone!).
Anybody in the real business world responsible for putting forward such an original estimate would have been sacked long ago by now. But this is our Gov, and accountability, at least at that particular level, doesn't really seem to matter anymore, does it?
More on Greenwashing
A very 'across the pond' perspective, from PRWatch, but with very common parallels over here in the UK.
Plus a link to SourceWatch, which provides examples of Greenwashing from all around the planet.
Plus a link to SourceWatch, which provides examples of Greenwashing from all around the planet.
Quote of the day - You say tomatoes, others might say rampant porkies
In the Indy - Head of E.ON UK, the British arm of Europe's biggest supplier of wind power, Paul Golby:
"The politicians have not been entirely honest about the cost of our renewables commitment, and so the public don't really know what's coming their way."
"The politicians have not been entirely honest about the cost of our renewables commitment, and so the public don't really know what's coming their way."
Something has got up the nose of the Newsnight editor
Some may say I might not be the only one. At least, so far, no one can excuse them of overt censorship, yet...
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
Further to an earlier post... Blogging - a new era
6. At 09:01 am on 19 Apr 2008, PeterBarron wrote: Oh come on Junkkmale (4), give it a chance. It's only been going for a day.
Oh... I am sorry that you appear frustrated at my lack of enthusiasm and support... well, for the additional 'improvements' to the blogging experience made in addition/complement to the infamous error codes. Now sorted, if I may repeat my congrats on that at least.
How much of a chance do you need? The same the BBC gave BA and the T5 planners for things that had a fair old while and a healthy wadge of wonga to get right, and yet...
It's just that when asked/invited to give an opinion I naturally assumed that one is going to be expected... even if aspects might be unfavourable. Maybe specifying a minimum time window to allow for settling in would have been helpful? Oh, but then there's that 'comments closed' situation. Hence an upper limit too. So a window of posting opportunity maybe? Dilemmas abound.
Might I be allowed to ask what IS the rationale for closing a comment thread? Looking back a few it seems not to be based on a simple time period.
I also like to know if I can about who I am chatting with, so I clicked the link to check and find out more on your name. Sadly, just this, as far as I could locate: Blog Network Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers. User Profile Listed below are comments made by between and across all BBC Blogs. « NewerOlder »
My pointing out that live links was an unfortunate deletion was a feedback suggestion by the way, though if it was causing problems maybe there was good reason for deleting this option. I am sure that might have been noticed and discussed when this was planned...right? It just all seems to have been coming as a bit of a surprise to you.
And there do now seem a lot fewer folk than there used to be, along with the off-page redirections to further sources I appreciated.
Anyway, I am glad to see this thread is still allowed to remain active. But I'll have to remember the latest bit of nuSpeek to add to all the others of our age: '...as I understand it the new features are there in order to manage the huge workload robustly, not to stifle debate.'
Rather Clintonian. 'As you understand it'? Don't you KNOW? It is your programme's site blog is it not?
I concede that I may be in a minority, though I take some comfort in the experiences and opinions shared by some others.... in a total of 16 comments (so far - 1 from me and 4 from you guys, so at least we're now in double digits) on fundamental changes to the blog thread page of one of the last serious news programmes of the broadcaster to a nation of 60 million.
In my line, advertising, a critique from a customer who cares enough to write is the most valuable thing you can get, and should be cherished. And embraced. But I'm afraid by deed and tone you and and your organisation often make me feel that is not high on the agenda where you work, managing huge workloads, um, 'robustly'.
That's for whom... again?
ADDENDUM 1
Talk about Newsnight: Comment guidelines
Talk about Newsnight is a blog which aims to bring the programme team closer to its audience by providing an insight into our production process and offering a platform for review, analysis and debate of the subjects we are covering.
When joining in debates and responding to blog entries we are happy for you to criticise the programme and to ask serious questions about our coverage. Where we can we will respond.
...etc...
ADDENDUM 2
Can't fault him for not replying, and in fact quite graciously (though perhaps with tongue in cheek:):
I wasn't intending to be rude or defensive - of course I embrace and cherish your comments, and I'm pleased at the very least that 2-way communication is working better than before.
The "give it a chance" referred to your comment that user numbers were smaller than before - it will take a while to get the numbers up, but I hope that the ease of commenting will help.
I agree entirely on the live links, which I hope will be available soon.
The reason for my Clintonian defence is that the blog fix has been done across the BBC by a team not under Newsnight's direct control.
So we are finding our way with it too.
I remain concerned that so many aspects of this revamp involved deletions of things that, to me, encouraged open debate. I still have no answer as the the rationale behind having a 'comments closed' shutter. And also that the editorial aspects of the blog fix seem to have been carried out with little or no input from the Newsnight editor.
Peter (19) - thank you for your considered reply.
And with the welcome addition of Cloe-F at least we're up to a 22-way conversation now:)
I am sure this may well steadily rise as existing posters get to grips with the new system (I ended up with a 'name' I'd forgotten about thanks to some registration/cookie combo when I signed on to the BBC site ages ago), and possibly new friends now the infamous 502 is consigned to history.
However, Cloe_F's tech feedback might prove enough to dissuade many in this 'data-available' concerned age. Another aspect one might have hoped had been raised at pre-planning stage?
But I am sure that now it is shared it will be addressed. You do indeed have access to some very well informed folk, with valuable experiences to share, especially in some pertinent areas of expertise. Which is what I would be sorry to lose.
It is a shame that your team had no, or little input on the mechanisms for feedback on the work you do. As journalists and editors I am sure you are usually more than interested in every aspect of how news and opinion is gleaned and disseminated. And blanket impositions, even with good intentions, can often end up pleasing none of the people, none of the time.
Moderation is a tricky path. It's not just what gets said, but whether something is allowed in ... or out... and why. Or for how long. As those involved elsewhere with such as 'Have Your Say' for instance might have found. I don't bother with these efforts because, beyond anonymous venting in the wind, there is little incentive or reward for investing the thought and time. And the result is all too often a highlighted 'soundbite' chosen to suit.
Clearly, this thread is looking quite healthy for open debate in this regard so far and, with luck, will improve even more.
But what did prompt my original concerns back last week (16/17 April) was the 'comment closed' time out, the rationale for which (if it is to stay as an option) still remains unclear. I've noticed it elsewhere, in such as Guardian CiF, and can't see a good reason for it, considering the internet/web's ability to allow information to expand with the interest and demand it stimulates.
With this 'new', robust system, and the clearly re-energised moderating team it has empowered, I am sure leaving things open to accommodate the odd subsequent follow-up commentary is technically and administratively possible if the will is there.
24/04
It's the little things.
Some days have passed. I already have a sense that a few things might be addressed. But others might be quietly ignored. Like links to poster's URLs.
Giving them the benefit of the doubt, I noticed that the advisory on the nature of moderation (pre/post - oddly not a field that one change applies throughout) was a tad erratic and informed them.
It has now been changed.
You're welcome, BBC. Oddly no acknowledgement, so to subsequent posters I might appear to be to be incorrect in my advice. Just rude, or spiteful taboot? Thank heavens for the cache. Like I say, it's the little things, and they do mount up.
NEWS/GO3 PR - bare?
Introducing Thread.I need another designation. This came from the PR on behalf of the BBC, so it's not commercial, but it doesn't quite seem to sit right under the section for gov, local gov and ngos/charities either.
I think it must be because I am not that big on fashion as, almost by definition, it seems to suggest moving on (and hence spending) quite quickly from one thing to the next for no clear reason except to be different. And speaking as one whose wardrobe evolves at a glacial pace, I find it hard to reconcile anything planet-saving with stick thin models and their caravans of hangers on scooting round the world selling ever more bizarre stuff at silly money... even if on (very rare, and hence fashionable) occasion it might be a tad greener than some.
It didn't start well. Actually, it almost didn't start at all. A dirty great envelope arrived with some anorexic yoof model (the strapline is 'Fashion Without Victim, but this is a different 'cause du jour' and hence I guess OK by not being that department) on the front wearing a T-shirt shouting 'Save the Future'. And out of this fell an equally vast magazine, publicised using 100% this and that, with more of the same. Three words and one picture a page with various moody teens wearing stuff I thought just looked like jeans and t-shirts but I suspect have pricer labels on account of not coming from a charity shop or Primark.
So I nearly passed, as helping the BBC flog trendy new publications, especially rather 'inefficient' one's of dodgy enviROI, in the name of green really ain't my... Katherine Hamnett... bag.
Anyhooo...
It's not a magazine and it's not for sale. I am just not sure who it benefits and who and what the cost was/is.
Here's the blurb, as provided, E&EO (new acronym: Edited (for space and/or often rampant, redundant client-laden unnecessary verbiage)) & Eyebrow-cranked (if I think some claims may be a tad over-egged:) Often:
BBC LAUNCHES ONLINE ETHICAL FASHION MAGAZINE ‘THREAD’
AS ONE IN THREE YOUNG PEOPLE TURNS ECO-GLAM
As ethical fashion promises to be the next big thing, the BBC has launched ‘Thread’: a new online magazine for fashion conscious people who care about where their clothes come from.
New research conducted for Thread among 16-30 year olds has shown that ethical fashion is no longer a fringe movement; almost one in three (31%) intends to buy more [in addition to... or instead of... the next big things?] ethical fashion in the future. Young shoppers believe ethical fashion is a worthwhile cause, yet do not know where to turn for information on how to be sustainable and stylish [Hmnn... not sure I think that is true, or fair. But maybe it's that they haven't had a greenish guilt-assuaging article in the glossies for a few weeks and it's time to get another bandwagon-jumping box-ticking, profit centre-creating going? Sorry, that's just cynical. There are many with, good intentions, such as TRAID, gracing the pages of... Junkk.com!]
The Thread research highlighted that young people are actively seeking information on ethical fashion and are keen to put pressure on fashion retailers to provide information on eco-credentials of the clothing they sell.
Half (50%) want information on the working conditions of people manufacturing the items
43% would like to see organic labelling on clothes
41% are concerned about the use of pesticides and toxic chemicals which are currently not disclosed
36% want advice on how to dispose of used clothing and its packaging
31% would like ‘fashion miles’ declared by retailers disclosing the distance and form of transport used to get the item to the shop floor
30% want information on the energy usage involved in production
Katherine Hamnett, designer and supporter of Thread says:
“Thread is great because ethical fashion promises to be the next big thing and not just a passing fad. Young people are really interested in these issues.” [Bless. I wrote the bit above before getting to this. Sorry, what I wrote stands. How much was her effort again? Verus just using a few bog standard reuseable bags and investing money in high enviROI eco-efforts]
Thread will cut to the heart of what ‘ethical fashion’ means, covering a range of issues from the environmental footprint of clothing manufacture, to the impact of the fashion industry on human and animal rights and why the choices we make as clothes shoppers make a real difference. [OK, and why this is even being published here, I will support anything that shares information, but I really have my eyebrow cranked as to how much is about making informed choices and how much is using a niche notion to get a lot of sheep-like luvvies new avenues to gush over, and those with more money than sense or sincerity a 'get out of guilt free' pass for simply wanting money and fame or the next best thing to occupy their lives and minds].
First and foremost Thread is dedicated to showcasing the latest in eco-fabulous style. The magazine shows you how to get the look you want in an eco-glam way through a unique mix of affordable fashion, exclusive celebrity videos and interviews, photo galleries and thought-provoking features. [I am afraid that if this is the first and foremost way to help save the future, I will need to remain on the floor until the stomach cramps pass as I can't seem to stop... the darn.. hysterical... laughing... I await with sick certainty that there will be, inevitably, much overseas travel involved ' in the cause'*]
It will also offer ideas and information on how to give your wardrobe an ethical makeover through a mix of shopping for new or vintage clothes, to swapping clothes with friends and customising existing clothes. Thread is proof that there are ethical options to suit your style, your budget and your views. [Phew... Mitigation!]
BBC Radio 1 DJ, Nihal, a reporter for Thread magazine said:
“Organic cotton, fair trade, restyling, vintage wear… ethical fashion is this year’s carbon footprint in eco terms but it’s still a new concept that we’re all trying to get to grips with. The perception of ethical fashion as being ugly, expensive clothes for hippies is changing, it’s so much more than that – I can’t see myself in a hemp poncho any time soon! Ethical fashion is about affordable style, with substance.
“There are now loads of places, both online and on the high street, where you can find clothes that are produced in a way that looks after people and the environment as well as giving you the edge in the style stakes. Thread is the place to find them. It is a place where fashion conscious people can tap into the latest trends and get the low-down on how to adopt ethical fashion into their lives in a fun and stylish way. ”
Thread magazine launches in conjunction with ‘Blood, Sweat and T-Shirts’, a new four-part series on BBC Three starting on 22nd April in which six young fashion lovers will swap shopping for the factories and back streets of India [*bingo!]** to make clothes for the British High Street, offering a unique insight into how our clothes are made. Over the next six months Thread will also be at the heart of further fashion events and programming across BBC TV, radio and online.
Notes:
Thread has been produced by BBC Learning which delivers campaigns that aim to inspire and empower individuals to take action - action that changes their lives, benefits communities and helps to transform society. BBC Learning sits within BBC Knowledge and provides specialist learning content, formal and informal, for children and adults.
Thread aims to make ethical fashion the next big thing [until the next big thing, presumably], change consumer attitudes and behavior and demonstrate that being ethical is easy as well as affordable and desirable.
The BBC commissioned research using representative samples of 550 people (Research conducted by Voodoo research)
Thread magazine will be supported across BBC Channels: BBC Three, Radio 1, 1 Xtra, Asian Network, 6 music and BBC Blast.
And it's out in the nation's closet and up and running... tomorrow! Your licence fee at work:) Let's see what it manages to do.
**ADDENDUM - Missed the programme (or maybe it is tonight), which was last night, so I must be careful with my comments, but I just watched the sofa surfer set at BBC Breakfast with two of the girls. Sorry, this was Famous Six Go Moody in Mumbai meets Big Brother. The quote that set the scene was from one girl that She 'thought it was just going to be a big holiday'. Sorry, this has done little to convince me that it is much more than a a way to get some footage that has a greenish association more coverage than it might. As to creating changes in behaviour that come close to offsetting what was consumed creating all this... But at least they got awareness.
Indy - High fashion, low budget: Why hard times needn’t mean a fashion crisis - Ooo, poor people, how totally radical. Shut up!!! This all seems less about the environment, and more about managing expectations (well, post-rationalisations) of an economic downturn. 'I'm not doing this 'cos I is broke, I am making a statement about the ethical state of the planet.... well, 'til I can afford not to again'.
Monday, April 21, 2008
It must have been something in my drinking water
A wee while ago I made suggestion/posed a question to BBC Newswatch about the handling of a piece of reporting/editorial that had a acquired a bit of notoriety in the blogosphere:
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
COMMENTS: I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin. In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage. Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
They have been gracious enough to now reply:
'It's an interesting point, but my view in writing that introduction was that we shouldn't take at face value something that appears on the internet. It was a private conversation published by one side and could have been altered. That's why the first question to Roger Harrabin was to ascertain if the published version was actually true...'
As followers of this blog will recall, I was quite keen that the facts were first established before passions were stirred. Hopefully they will grant me that. I must confess that, after the Clintonian reply from Newsnight's Peter Barron a few blogs previously, I still am slightly unclear on the actual facts, which I had sought from the protagonists:
It's a view I fully accept. Which is why, when the silage hit the windmill I participated in several blog exchanges that had long since passed the point of being concerned about verification, simply to ask if, at all, there was any confirmation that the more 'damaging' phrasing had actually been by him, in these words. I am still struggling to get to this in a form I can take as accurate, but from what you write may I take it that it was/is? Sadly in this day and age, conversations, and especially written ones fired over the ether to unknown correspondents, are seldom as private as we might wish. Maybe Ms. Abbess was a trusted source to this point? But it is good to know that the BBC at least has reporting and editorial standards still that would mean such confidences would never be breached, even without clearly stated guidelines, caveats and immediate flagging as to whether potentially controversial asides should be on or off record before being broadcast.
Now, I wonder, is what I wrote to them 'between us'. No mention made. Equally, what I got back. I hope it is therefore OK to share.
LAST WORD?:
At least one fact is now confirmed, if not from the actual horse's mouth, at least his jockey/trainer/stable owner (you know what I mean). Quick, too:
I think yes, the exchange was accurate (though perhaps not all that took place) but I thought it sensible to hear it confirmed from the horse's mouth...
Quote of the day - Maybe the BBC will believe me
I tried it on my wife (the beer belly has rather spread). No luck.
From a commenter with perhaps a less sympathetic view of this awful condition, in a blog with a perhaps less than doe-eyed view of this government and how much it does, and doesn't do gets reported (or not) by our noble, objective news media:
'Is Bulimia a disease of auto suggestion and as such contagious? I only ask, because for the past couple of days, each time I hear or see [ex DPM] Prescott ['s reference's] about some non-existent 'condition' in order to gain public sympathy and sell a book, I have an overwhelming desire to throw up all over the carpet.
Almost lost my lunch, mind, so who knows?
From a commenter with perhaps a less sympathetic view of this awful condition, in a blog with a perhaps less than doe-eyed view of this government and how much it does, and doesn't do gets reported (or not) by our noble, objective news media:
'Is Bulimia a disease of auto suggestion and as such contagious? I only ask, because for the past couple of days, each time I hear or see [ex DPM] Prescott ['s reference's] about some non-existent 'condition' in order to gain public sympathy and sell a book, I have an overwhelming desire to throw up all over the carpet.
Almost lost my lunch, mind, so who knows?
Of Food Prices, Population Growth, Climate Change, Biofuels and even Malthus!
A very interesting article from FinFacts covering, well, just about everything you could care to mention! And some fascinating facts........
"we now consume about fifty thousand times as much energy as our ancestors once did" Wow!
And have you heard of Norman Borlaug? They reckon that he has "saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived." Gosh! And I've never even heard of him before!
"US stocks of wheat are at a 60-year low and world rice stocks are at a 25-year low."
"The rise in the price of oil has resulted in the US diverting 20% of its maize/corn production for biofuels and the European Union 68% of its vegetable oil production."
Meanwhile, looking at the world's population figures:-
AD 0001 ~300 Million
AD 1000 ~310 Million (Yes, that's a 10 million increase in 1000 years!)
AD 1500 ~450 Million
AD 1804 ~1 Billion
AD 1927 ~2 Billion
AD 1960 ~3 Billion
AD 1975 ~4 Billion
AD 1989 ~5 Billion
AD 2000 ~6 Billion (Yes, that's a 1 Billion increase in 11 years!)
Today ~6,662,731,966 (At midday today - probably several 100 thousand more in a few hours!)
AD 2010? ~7 Billion?
AD 2050? ~9.2 Billion+?
From a 10 Million increase in a thousand years, to a 10 Million increase over a matter of days! Maybe Malthus wasn't so crazy after all, simply a little ahead of his time. It doesn't look too good really, does it?
Addendum:
At least it looks as if the EU is going to revue the biofuels targets - from the Guardian.
"we now consume about fifty thousand times as much energy as our ancestors once did" Wow!
And have you heard of Norman Borlaug? They reckon that he has "saved more lives than any other person who has ever lived." Gosh! And I've never even heard of him before!
"US stocks of wheat are at a 60-year low and world rice stocks are at a 25-year low."
"The rise in the price of oil has resulted in the US diverting 20% of its maize/corn production for biofuels and the European Union 68% of its vegetable oil production."
Meanwhile, looking at the world's population figures:-
AD 0001 ~300 Million
AD 1000 ~310 Million (Yes, that's a 10 million increase in 1000 years!)
AD 1500 ~450 Million
AD 1804 ~1 Billion
AD 1927 ~2 Billion
AD 1960 ~3 Billion
AD 1975 ~4 Billion
AD 1989 ~5 Billion
AD 2000 ~6 Billion (Yes, that's a 1 Billion increase in 11 years!)
Today ~6,662,731,966 (At midday today - probably several 100 thousand more in a few hours!)
AD 2010? ~7 Billion?
AD 2050? ~9.2 Billion+?
From a 10 Million increase in a thousand years, to a 10 Million increase over a matter of days! Maybe Malthus wasn't so crazy after all, simply a little ahead of his time. It doesn't look too good really, does it?
Addendum:
At least it looks as if the EU is going to revue the biofuels targets - from the Guardian.
The Fat Bush Theory
Is described in the International Herald Tribune. It is an hysterically funny analogy to explain Dubya's stance on reducing the growth rate of greenhouse gas emissions.
I wish I'd thought of it first!
I wish I'd thought of it first!
Wet measures
Forget carbon: you should be checking your water footprint
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
There is actually something to this.
However, as it comes out at the same time as a few other labelling proposals I can only imagine what the poor consumer might face trying to make an informed judgement as they look at the pack of cakes on aisle 4.
waterfootprint.org - I must check to see how a bottle of water stacks up to the favoured tipple, one suspects, of those most vocal in luvvieland most vocal in advocating its banning. I am pretty sure their tables often sport a currently guilt-free glass of vino, which up to now seems...'different'.
NEWS/Commercial PR - Basking in glory
You know how much I like polls. Well, here's one I have decided to share, because it makes where I hang out look spiffy (and we use the commissioner's stuff, 'cos it's oodles cheaper as well as eco).
PR as received, with edits for length:
WE WON’T PAY THROUGH THE NOSE TO SAVE THE PLANET!
A study* has revealed that more than nine out of 10 of us are actively looking for environmentally-friendly products! But, when it comes to our everyday shopping, 45 per cent of us are not prepared to pay a premium to prevent global warming. An ICM poll conducted on behalf of Cartridge World, revealed that a quarter of us will automatically choose the ‘greenest’ option. Only six per cent admit to deliberately avoiding the environmentally-friendly choice. [Which is why I am not a big fan of polls... it's actually astounding that a person would actively deny any care for the planet, so pinches of salt all round on those who see no problem when they claim to. Deeds vs. words!]
For 67 per cent of us, there are other factors which we take into consideration. As well as nearly half of us checking the price tag to ensure we’re paying the same or only a little more, 22 per cent need to be confident that choosing the environmentally-friendly alternative does not require a compromise on quality. [Fair dos, and smart. I'd add one more... does it actually help the environment???].
The survey provided an insight into regional and demographic variations in shopping habits. Though 27 per cent of females immediately choose the green option (compared to 23 per cent of males), 47 per cent of males will go green once they’ve checked they’re paying the same, or only a little extra to do so (compared to 43 per cent of females) [Hey, my sex is looking uncharacteristically thoughtful in this, too. For once].
In each age range, fewer than one in 10 respondents said they would never go green. The least green age group were 18 to 24 year olds, followed closely by the over 65s. The greenest age group are those between 25 and 34 with only four per cent responding that they never choose the green alternative. Wales and the South West are home to the greenest shoppers with 30 per cent always choosing the most environmentally-friendly products, while Scotland is home to the highest number of cynics. There nine per cent admit to actively avoiding greener alternatives. Nearly three in 10 (29 per cent) in the south-east state that quality is as important as being green, while more than half of northerners (51 per cent) will check the price tag to ensure they’re not paying extra for the privilege of saving the planet.
*conducted by ICM over three days in April 2008, questioning 1006 people; a fair sample.
PR as received, with edits for length:
WE WON’T PAY THROUGH THE NOSE TO SAVE THE PLANET!
A study* has revealed that more than nine out of 10 of us are actively looking for environmentally-friendly products! But, when it comes to our everyday shopping, 45 per cent of us are not prepared to pay a premium to prevent global warming. An ICM poll conducted on behalf of Cartridge World, revealed that a quarter of us will automatically choose the ‘greenest’ option. Only six per cent admit to deliberately avoiding the environmentally-friendly choice. [Which is why I am not a big fan of polls... it's actually astounding that a person would actively deny any care for the planet, so pinches of salt all round on those who see no problem when they claim to. Deeds vs. words!]
For 67 per cent of us, there are other factors which we take into consideration. As well as nearly half of us checking the price tag to ensure we’re paying the same or only a little more, 22 per cent need to be confident that choosing the environmentally-friendly alternative does not require a compromise on quality. [Fair dos, and smart. I'd add one more... does it actually help the environment???].
The survey provided an insight into regional and demographic variations in shopping habits. Though 27 per cent of females immediately choose the green option (compared to 23 per cent of males), 47 per cent of males will go green once they’ve checked they’re paying the same, or only a little extra to do so (compared to 43 per cent of females) [Hey, my sex is looking uncharacteristically thoughtful in this, too. For once].
In each age range, fewer than one in 10 respondents said they would never go green. The least green age group were 18 to 24 year olds, followed closely by the over 65s. The greenest age group are those between 25 and 34 with only four per cent responding that they never choose the green alternative. Wales and the South West are home to the greenest shoppers with 30 per cent always choosing the most environmentally-friendly products, while Scotland is home to the highest number of cynics. There nine per cent admit to actively avoiding greener alternatives. Nearly three in 10 (29 per cent) in the south-east state that quality is as important as being green, while more than half of northerners (51 per cent) will check the price tag to ensure they’re not paying extra for the privilege of saving the planet.
*conducted by ICM over three days in April 2008, questioning 1006 people; a fair sample.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Special know-who
Media software firms go to US on government-backed mission
One wishes them well. But there is also a whistful ponder as to what got this particular bunch government-backing, and the extent of such largess.
Plus who is funding the evident caravan in tow.
With a few exceptions, from the summaries provided, if stuck in a lift for 30' with most of these guys, if I was a VC I'd be asleep by the the 3rd floor.
If I remember and can find it, the progress of this merry band might be educational.
One wishes them well. But there is also a whistful ponder as to what got this particular bunch government-backing, and the extent of such largess.
Plus who is funding the evident caravan in tow.
With a few exceptions, from the summaries provided, if stuck in a lift for 30' with most of these guys, if I was a VC I'd be asleep by the the 3rd floor.
If I remember and can find it, the progress of this merry band might be educational.
Something rotten in the state of IT
Prequel: It's a fairly prevalent and worrying trend across many major media. I illustrate a story on the Observer 20/04 where the comments have been closed before any got/get made.I've always been in awe of the world of IT. From just a 0 or a 1, our whole current existence plays out and, worryingly, depends.
Because it is seldom that clearcut.
The might of Google is still, after several days, 'working on' the fact that this blog's Spellchecker seems to have exploded and died. And, if you look at the Help Forum, it has done so with a lot (and I mean a LOT) else.
And it can be more than frustrating.
Take a recent, and as yet unfulfilled foray of mine on the Newsnight blog. Actually a couple running at present, but this one will do.
I saw a piece that even their editors posting the original had up 3 times, which is indicative of getting an error message and reposting. Which is bad enough. But can also be embarassing when it did go up and now you look silly for the duplicate, or, as here, multiples.
So I saw this as a chance to make a point. Little did I suspect the irony would currently be descending into farce. I am now on my 4th attempt to post this:
Nice to see even the site owners can have trouble posting, and/or (not) knowing if they have or not.
3 duplicates of this at time of my post. If it survives.
Attempt 2, and now 3:
There's a surprise
______
Text only
502
Service not available.
Unfortunately a server error occured whilst trying to retrieve this page:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/cgi-perl/mt/mt-comments.cgi
We are currently working to correct this
______
And at attempt 4, a day later, I note 2 postings listed on the main page, but still only one actually up and visible here.
Not the easiest system to engage with, nor the most satisfactory, really.
Actually, more than that, I really think it's a disgrace.
Postscript:
I just checked the other one I posted on, where I was a little less than impressed that, at the time of writing, a clear point of fact in a matter of serious contention had not be clarified even though it would have been easy to do so. And lo, it is now up:
May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
If not, I am sure there are plenty of archive-rich sites I can go to, but would rather get it from the national broadcaster.
3.45pm Thu 7 - at first attempt to post
Server Error 502 - 17.19 at 2nd
The clarification still remains to be provided.
BBBC - A post, followed by some (unverified/able) explanations I don't much like thinking about. This is a public service broadcaster, paid (in part) by some who they don't seem to think need access by virtue of not agreeing with them in discussions that might not fit the editorial narrative.
Newsnight - It's not kicking off too well:
There's a certain irony that, when I check the post yesterday on the new blogging system, it advises thus:
_______
Blog fix imminent
Newsnight 16 Apr 08, 04:32 PM
This post is closed to new comments.
________
ANY would have been a good start. As there seem to be... zero.
Hence I do regret to advise that I am already having some problems with the new system. And maybe it is having some problems with itself?
I also suspect the time code is an hour out, too.
No more 502 Error so far, which is good, but there is no more preview, and the overt 'moderation' cloud now hangs even more darkly. But what REALLY sucks is this new 'Closed to new comments' deal. What's that all about? You can no longer ponder a day before posting. Catch the 24 hr PC catch-up? Or come back in rebuttal. And there is the slight suspicion that if things do not progress according to plan things will get 'pulled' on a whim. Can't say I am that enthused thus far, and this goes beyond IT 'teething problems'.
14. At 6:59 pm on 17 Apr 2008, PeterBarron
The technical aspects of the new system seem, so far, to be excellent.
However, I am less impressed with the design and operational changes that have been introduced in 'complement'.
As the invitation was made at the end of the original post above this comment is still relevant in this thread, but I would have thought this and all others would have been much more appropriate under the preceding one, dedicated to Blog 'fixes'. And there was value in keeping it open for such debate, rather than being closed before any could be made.
It seems to me a few things were also 'fixed' that were not broke.
I also miss having the opportunity of checking via the top link other commenters' personal sites if they have made a good point and seem worth bookmarking. Now it appears to go nowhere... well, stays within the BBC fold. But I do notice a 'User Profile' option, but none so far seem to have one. Perhaps it's worth sharing how to upload one?
It's good to share, but without such an opportunity well-informed contributors may well see this now more as vanity publishing (in terms of personal benefits - the BBC does of course gain 'content') and the quality of input could suffer as a result. Certainly the quantity.
But them maybe that was/is the intention?
Newsnight - Blogging - a new era - But a rather familiar rationalisation, especially to any familiar with Newswatch: 'Many of you have already commented on how it's working and one or two have suggested it's designed to introduce more censorship. That's certainly not our intention. The aim is to encourage much more open discussion about the programme and much more interaction with the programme-makers.' It's a classic; a bit of mea culpa followed by a lot of ''we don't see a problem'. Actually it's a very clever thing they've done. Thanks to the loss of the accreditation I see no great reason to give them the benefit of my thoughtful input. So those who remain will be the likes of the poster, oddly credited , whose every post starts with 'Brilliant show tonight...' and just likes to see their name mentioned.
Maybe one should start with 'Brilliant rationalising tonight!' ... quite worthy of Newswatch at its 'minor mea culpa followed by major 'we think it's spiffy, and it's sweet you think we're going to do much about it now'' best.
The new system certainly now works technically, which was all that was ever wrong. Why impose all the logistical/stylistic changes at the same time? I recall no comments asking for these.
It has certainly worked on cutting down on quantity (3, so far, here at time of writing. Less than 10 for Friday with all to comment upon there). As to quality...? I wonder where those whose balanced input and interesting links I so value will be posting now? I'll lurk here a while I guess, but not sure whether it's worth investing much time any more to writing.
Better dash off this quick knee-jerk soundbite feedback - at the expense of considered input designed to stimulate further discourse and off-blog engagement - before this thread gets closed. So... job done then national, and publicly-funded broadcaster... job done?
Saturday, April 19, 2008
'Green' Oil?
Probably the best oxymoron I've ever heard! But that is genuinely a term used in this interesting article from TechNewsWorld.
Whilst we are rapidly running out of sources of sweet light crude oil, our little planet has a surfeit of heavy crude, which is difficult and expensive to make easy use of. So the development of a process that turns heavy crude into useful light oil sounds like a major breakthrough, and could well extend the time that humanity has to continue to utilise petroleum based products as the primary fuel of our modern way of living.
Be interesting to understand just just what potential EnviROI such a process has though.
"Genoil considers its process that converts heavy oil into light oil as environmentally sound. Lifschultz tells me, "Genoil's upgrading technology not only converts heavy oil into light oil, but also removes over 90 percent of the sulfur and a majority of the nitrogen which cause greenhouse gases that pollute the environment. In that sense, Genoil makes the oil green, or at least greener.""
But to describe oil as 'green'! Sorry, that's one of the worst attempts at greenwash I've ever seen. In fact its complete boll**ks!
Whilst we are rapidly running out of sources of sweet light crude oil, our little planet has a surfeit of heavy crude, which is difficult and expensive to make easy use of. So the development of a process that turns heavy crude into useful light oil sounds like a major breakthrough, and could well extend the time that humanity has to continue to utilise petroleum based products as the primary fuel of our modern way of living.
Be interesting to understand just just what potential EnviROI such a process has though.
"Genoil considers its process that converts heavy oil into light oil as environmentally sound. Lifschultz tells me, "Genoil's upgrading technology not only converts heavy oil into light oil, but also removes over 90 percent of the sulfur and a majority of the nitrogen which cause greenhouse gases that pollute the environment. In that sense, Genoil makes the oil green, or at least greener.""
But to describe oil as 'green'! Sorry, that's one of the worst attempts at greenwash I've ever seen. In fact its complete boll**ks!
Of wolves and moose .....
... a fascinating article on the delicate balance between the wolf and moose populations on Isle Royale on Lake Superior's north-western side; reported by the National Examiner. As neither species was indigenous to the Archipelago it has been a fascinating ongoing biological study site for decades.
Well worth a read as it clearly indicates just what a delicate balance there is between conflicting species. Until the wolves arrived over an ice bridge, the moose population expanded so rapidly that they almost overgrazed the islands and starved to death. Perhaps its an example that could mirror what may happen as mankind's population continues to expand at an ever increasing rate?
Well worth a read as it clearly indicates just what a delicate balance there is between conflicting species. Until the wolves arrived over an ice bridge, the moose population expanded so rapidly that they almost overgrazed the islands and starved to death. Perhaps its an example that could mirror what may happen as mankind's population continues to expand at an ever increasing rate?
Been edited out on Wicked Pedia?
Seems that 'unfair' editing, moderation and censorship are quite the norm on Wikipedia too, as this from the National Post points out.
"The Wikipedia site in this way has become a paragon of modern propaganda, operating under the illusion of Internet openness and respect for democratic process, while in reality inhabiting a fantasy world in which up is down and words mean whatever you want them to mean."
Pretty damning! Interesting that the author permitted Wikidpedia 'editors' to post a rebuttal on the National Post blog without moderation, or deletion! And there are some good reasons not to use your real name on Wikipedia too!
I have to confess that I've personally had experience of additions/edits on wikipedia being removed. In my case, simply because the so-called 'experts' do not believe that solar dehumidifiers are actual errrmm, dehumidifiers. The fact that they work waaaayyyy better than mains powered dehumidifiers seems to escape their attention. But, if it is not a bit of equipment that blows air over a condenser to condense out water vapour, then it is not a dehumidifier! And no discussion permitted, they even edited out my discussion posts!
What at first sight appears to be open and public isn't necessarily so! Censorship, moderation and editing appear to be the norm, even in the allegedly 'open' world of t'internet.
"The Wikipedia site in this way has become a paragon of modern propaganda, operating under the illusion of Internet openness and respect for democratic process, while in reality inhabiting a fantasy world in which up is down and words mean whatever you want them to mean."
Pretty damning! Interesting that the author permitted Wikidpedia 'editors' to post a rebuttal on the National Post blog without moderation, or deletion! And there are some good reasons not to use your real name on Wikipedia too!
I have to confess that I've personally had experience of additions/edits on wikipedia being removed. In my case, simply because the so-called 'experts' do not believe that solar dehumidifiers are actual errrmm, dehumidifiers. The fact that they work waaaayyyy better than mains powered dehumidifiers seems to escape their attention. But, if it is not a bit of equipment that blows air over a condenser to condense out water vapour, then it is not a dehumidifier! And no discussion permitted, they even edited out my discussion posts!
What at first sight appears to be open and public isn't necessarily so! Censorship, moderation and editing appear to be the norm, even in the allegedly 'open' world of t'internet.
Let me tell you what I.. er.. you think
Prequel: Suggesting a new form of journalistic/editorial action for when something factual but deemed 'unsuitable' by some gets changed to suit agenda pressures: it gets 'harraBINNED'.
I haven't mentioned this 'til now as it honestly seemed like an April Fool, but as it has got as far as Nature*:
Heated row over cooling article
Depending on where you read, the BBC has either not commented, or seen merit in brevity to the point of being a tad terse, as evidenced in the explanatory quote here.
I have had my eyebrow cocked over this since the first 'outing' a few days ago, if only having seen the extent of the exchanges, the speed of replies, the response time of the changes... and that this whole tidy bundle went up verbatim courtesy, I presume, of the proud heroine.
But is there any confirmation yet, preferably from Mr. Harrabin, that this exchange - as shared on many blogs verbatim - is in fact what went down?
The facts of the original vs. subsequent posts are already beyond doubt, sadly, for public trust in news reporting and editorial standards when 'passionate agendas' are at involved. Sorry, I can live with the original and still think the weather is acting damn strange, so it don't need 'clarifying' for me. Just another piece in the jigsaw.
But if proven, I fear the work of those of a more balanced viewpoint just got heaps harder in advocating that if things are as bad as some are saying (I don't take phrases like 'The most serious threat to mankind...' from major international public figures lightly) then some mitigating actions should be embraced, when such activities between protagonists like a minor activist and major medium end up splattered around like this.
The more you seek to suppress inconvenient views (even, or especially if they are possibly ready to be found wanting), the more you will make them attractive. The best action, surely, is to share, and debate, openly. It is a concern that highly significant data is subject to the interpretation and vetting of such a limited number of persons of questionable analytical qualifications in a huge, objective-by-charter media outlet. Who else, beyond Mr. Harrabin, decides what is or is not put up, changed or removed? And what science training and ethical objectivity is in place to guide them on 'our' behalves? Especially if so easily swayed by a lone voice with a different take?
I freely confess I don't know yet what is going on with Probably Man-Worsened Negative Climate Change, but in making judgements I certainly don't feel too on board with the notion that what I am getting fed is being pre-adjusted by such as my national broadcaster... to help with my understanding in a 'better' direction.
I will be very interested in how this plays... or possibly fizzles out. But whatever happens, if as described I suspect it will lurk as a rather potent card should the reporting of significant state-backed media ever be cited in support of contentious science issues.
The Spectator - An emerging truth
ADDENDUM - I have given it a wee while, but regret that, at time of writing, my comment to Nature's blog has not passed muster, and hence I have now had to designate it 'Moderated Out'. I can think of no obvious reason from the content I provided, which is a pity. I also note that there are no other comments posted either at present.
BBC - NEW - Climate change debate - A reply, of sorts, if not a very convincing explanation, and not quite from the author, but a sort of one from a BBC Editor. Interestingly, vindication is drawn mainly from, surprise, the Nature article that seemed unable to carry my comment.
I have no desire to get into a climate argument, pro or con. I know what I know. And I know what a bunch of people think I need to believe, 'pro' and 'con'.
My greater concern is with how such as our national broadcaster dishes up its 'objective' news reports and, more critically, how these get received by its audience... from those ready to pounce to those who could honestly give a monkeys. So, do I believe a word of this 'explanation'... not so much. It is hard to get around such as the 'is that better for you?' reply from the author to the activist, and the timings of changes. And I doubt the rather bland effort here will do much to blunt the more 'passionate' critics of AGM... and the BBC... and its reporting of the issue.
I also maintain an ongoing concern about news sources' comfort with the why and how of making subsequent changes without much by way of sharing the trail or the reasons for them. In an era when the earlier versions seem easily retained and subsequently shared in comparison, it seems foolish not to admit to all previous attempts and own the high ground of why they have come to be revised. Otherwise you simply feed fuel to fires that often need not flare up as much as some have... and often with reason.
If this denialist bunker mentality is maintained between such as the government and the BBC, I see real problems ahead if those who are being talked to cease to have any faith in what is being said.
No comments to this piece at time of writing (Sat 12 April, 17.30) and much as I am tempted I don't feel like pitching in first. Mind you, with the other trust-inducing aspect of our licence fee funded 4th estate - the glitchy and selectively moderated blog system - working so well still, I doubt much beyond glowing accolades will get posted anyway. Sad.
And, in this case, much as the tone of the piece would seem to suggest the stable door is again neatly closed and balance regained, that horse is long gone.
JunkScience - What did the WMO say and when did they say it? - While the blog is hardly CP, there is an interesting thread post that I think shares some of my own views and amplifies on my points. The notion of a double agent (the poor lady - who it should be remembered is only a minor activist who acted rather foolishly in pride at having effected, she believed, a result - has rather done a bit of damage, if only as a catalyst. I was, I must confess rather flabbergasted to learn from the BBC that the exchange was in fact as it was first advised) is rather delicious and may set a whole new set of conspiracy theorists off. Not to mention attempts all round to create the next.
Both sides (and such as myself) should take note: there is a fine, if not impossible to identify and navigate line between having an opinion and seeking to make others change theirs (almost all activists and AGM-related blogs, CP or CO, ultimately review what is written, said and/or broadcast for 'signs' of erring in favour of one view or other, and then apply pressure to 'correct' it).
That is why it is so critical that major media does all it can to be, and seen to be, objective.
The Register - The BBC, the UN, and climate bullying - There are few posts with contrary/explanatory views around, especially from those media of a more CP bent. I guess they are adopting the Brown 'Hunker in a Bunker' Defence 'til it blows over.
Newswatch - I have written:
I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin.
In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage.
Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
For all the good it will do me.
I actually have some respect for Ray Snoddy, but just about everything about the show is the stuff of a bad joke, from its graveyard scheduling to the endless line of rather irritated journos/editors who have been dragged out of bed early to say: 'It didn't happen. Well, if it did, it didn't matter. Well if it does... so what? I/we think it doesn't matter, it's too late ... and what are... can you do about it anyway?'.
An attitude that now seems to have spread throughout the whole feedback system that was in theory instigated to engage in frank and honest dialogue with the audience. For instance, the new blog posting system may have solved the 502 errors, but it's also chopping out the volume and variety of considered feedback to such as Editor's, Newsnight, etc.
Not so much death by a thousand cuts, but regaining control by driving those with better things to do away through dumbing down, looking for short, slick soundbites and pulling the plug before stuff gets going... and interesting.
And, frankly, simply still knowing they can get away with pretty much anything because there is nothing that can be DONE about it.
I have never been so disillusioned with the state of public service and how it gets conducted in this country, as I am now.
I haven't mentioned this 'til now as it honestly seemed like an April Fool, but as it has got as far as Nature*:
Heated row over cooling article
Depending on where you read, the BBC has either not commented, or seen merit in brevity to the point of being a tad terse, as evidenced in the explanatory quote here.
I have had my eyebrow cocked over this since the first 'outing' a few days ago, if only having seen the extent of the exchanges, the speed of replies, the response time of the changes... and that this whole tidy bundle went up verbatim courtesy, I presume, of the proud heroine.
But is there any confirmation yet, preferably from Mr. Harrabin, that this exchange - as shared on many blogs verbatim - is in fact what went down?
The facts of the original vs. subsequent posts are already beyond doubt, sadly, for public trust in news reporting and editorial standards when 'passionate agendas' are at involved. Sorry, I can live with the original and still think the weather is acting damn strange, so it don't need 'clarifying' for me. Just another piece in the jigsaw.
But if proven, I fear the work of those of a more balanced viewpoint just got heaps harder in advocating that if things are as bad as some are saying (I don't take phrases like 'The most serious threat to mankind...' from major international public figures lightly) then some mitigating actions should be embraced, when such activities between protagonists like a minor activist and major medium end up splattered around like this.
The more you seek to suppress inconvenient views (even, or especially if they are possibly ready to be found wanting), the more you will make them attractive. The best action, surely, is to share, and debate, openly. It is a concern that highly significant data is subject to the interpretation and vetting of such a limited number of persons of questionable analytical qualifications in a huge, objective-by-charter media outlet. Who else, beyond Mr. Harrabin, decides what is or is not put up, changed or removed? And what science training and ethical objectivity is in place to guide them on 'our' behalves? Especially if so easily swayed by a lone voice with a different take?
I freely confess I don't know yet what is going on with Probably Man-Worsened Negative Climate Change, but in making judgements I certainly don't feel too on board with the notion that what I am getting fed is being pre-adjusted by such as my national broadcaster... to help with my understanding in a 'better' direction.
I will be very interested in how this plays... or possibly fizzles out. But whatever happens, if as described I suspect it will lurk as a rather potent card should the reporting of significant state-backed media ever be cited in support of contentious science issues.
The Spectator - An emerging truth
ADDENDUM - I have given it a wee while, but regret that, at time of writing, my comment to Nature's blog has not passed muster, and hence I have now had to designate it 'Moderated Out'. I can think of no obvious reason from the content I provided, which is a pity. I also note that there are no other comments posted either at present.
BBC - NEW - Climate change debate - A reply, of sorts, if not a very convincing explanation, and not quite from the author, but a sort of one from a BBC Editor. Interestingly, vindication is drawn mainly from, surprise, the Nature article that seemed unable to carry my comment.
I have no desire to get into a climate argument, pro or con. I know what I know. And I know what a bunch of people think I need to believe, 'pro' and 'con'.
My greater concern is with how such as our national broadcaster dishes up its 'objective' news reports and, more critically, how these get received by its audience... from those ready to pounce to those who could honestly give a monkeys. So, do I believe a word of this 'explanation'... not so much. It is hard to get around such as the 'is that better for you?' reply from the author to the activist, and the timings of changes. And I doubt the rather bland effort here will do much to blunt the more 'passionate' critics of AGM... and the BBC... and its reporting of the issue.
I also maintain an ongoing concern about news sources' comfort with the why and how of making subsequent changes without much by way of sharing the trail or the reasons for them. In an era when the earlier versions seem easily retained and subsequently shared in comparison, it seems foolish not to admit to all previous attempts and own the high ground of why they have come to be revised. Otherwise you simply feed fuel to fires that often need not flare up as much as some have... and often with reason.
If this denialist bunker mentality is maintained between such as the government and the BBC, I see real problems ahead if those who are being talked to cease to have any faith in what is being said.
No comments to this piece at time of writing (Sat 12 April, 17.30) and much as I am tempted I don't feel like pitching in first. Mind you, with the other trust-inducing aspect of our licence fee funded 4th estate - the glitchy and selectively moderated blog system - working so well still, I doubt much beyond glowing accolades will get posted anyway. Sad.
And, in this case, much as the tone of the piece would seem to suggest the stable door is again neatly closed and balance regained, that horse is long gone.
JunkScience - What did the WMO say and when did they say it? - While the blog is hardly CP, there is an interesting thread post that I think shares some of my own views and amplifies on my points. The notion of a double agent (the poor lady - who it should be remembered is only a minor activist who acted rather foolishly in pride at having effected, she believed, a result - has rather done a bit of damage, if only as a catalyst. I was, I must confess rather flabbergasted to learn from the BBC that the exchange was in fact as it was first advised) is rather delicious and may set a whole new set of conspiracy theorists off. Not to mention attempts all round to create the next.
Both sides (and such as myself) should take note: there is a fine, if not impossible to identify and navigate line between having an opinion and seeking to make others change theirs (almost all activists and AGM-related blogs, CP or CO, ultimately review what is written, said and/or broadcast for 'signs' of erring in favour of one view or other, and then apply pressure to 'correct' it).
That is why it is so critical that major media does all it can to be, and seen to be, objective.
The Register - The BBC, the UN, and climate bullying - There are few posts with contrary/explanatory views around, especially from those media of a more CP bent. I guess they are adopting the Brown 'Hunker in a Bunker' Defence 'til it blows over.
Newswatch - I have written:
I have just watched today's programme regarding the actions (or not) of Roger Harrabin.
In the introduction to this piece, which revolves around the interpretation of facts and what did or did not take place as a result of an exchange of emails, the host suggests that the main protagonist '... is SAID to have replied...' at one stage.
Bearing in mind it has been accepted that these emails are freely available on the internet, and I am looking now at what WAS written, is there not a danger that Newswatch is rather making the point for the critics of the BBC, who suggest there can be 'interesting' ways in which what should be objective information gets shared with its audience?
For all the good it will do me.
I actually have some respect for Ray Snoddy, but just about everything about the show is the stuff of a bad joke, from its graveyard scheduling to the endless line of rather irritated journos/editors who have been dragged out of bed early to say: 'It didn't happen. Well, if it did, it didn't matter. Well if it does... so what? I/we think it doesn't matter, it's too late ... and what are... can you do about it anyway?'.
An attitude that now seems to have spread throughout the whole feedback system that was in theory instigated to engage in frank and honest dialogue with the audience. For instance, the new blog posting system may have solved the 502 errors, but it's also chopping out the volume and variety of considered feedback to such as Editor's, Newsnight, etc.
Not so much death by a thousand cuts, but regaining control by driving those with better things to do away through dumbing down, looking for short, slick soundbites and pulling the plug before stuff gets going... and interesting.
And, frankly, simply still knowing they can get away with pretty much anything because there is nothing that can be DONE about it.
I have never been so disillusioned with the state of public service and how it gets conducted in this country, as I am now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)