'Goal', in sport, it a pretty definitive thing.
You score one. And that's a result.
In politics and business it seems to be a very different beast.
Just in the last few days I must have had a dozen press releases about someone or other setting a goal, ranging from the next few years to the next century. And, more often than not, I have seen this blatant PR faithfully trotted out in some major media.
This blog will not be one. While I can laud any worthy aim, until the evidence that it has been achieved is in, it's about worth the paper it has been emailed upon.
Showing posts with label EDITORIAL. Show all posts
Showing posts with label EDITORIAL. Show all posts
Monday, June 09, 2008
Saturday, February 09, 2008
Edit, dit, it... it isn't what you thought it was
For reasons that will soon become clear, I am highly sensitive to the accuracy of what gets served up to us by our publishers and broadcasters.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Especially when it comes to matters of 'fact', but also when subjective agendas and techniques get introduced that can at best steer the way they are viewed with subjective enhancements, or at worst plain be fiddled to fit.
And all to often it seems to get explained away airily by all sorts of excuses that simply are not good enough, with a total lack of tangible accountability or consequence to at least have some incentive not to play fast and loose again.... and again.
Worse, there seem now to be justifications based on what would once be inexcusable, simply because 'everyone does it', or the need to enhance reality to make things more 'entertaining'.
Just now I was one of the few in the nation up early enough to watch the BBC's weekly, meekly 'mea culpa' programme, Newswatch. The one where they atone in 5 minutes in a dead air slot for things that have gone out in prime time. With a successive or arrogant, defensive journalists and/or editors who are wheeled on to say they don't really see what the fuss is about.
And today my jaw was on the floor. And it was thanks to the actual footage shown, so credit to the Newswatch Editors. Basically there was a BBC TV news slot involving an ex-army chap making a comment about some issue, but whose words were then lifted and dumped elsewhere as some kind of response to a totally different story on a BBC Radio item.
Whilst grudgingly accepting the error, the morning's flak absorber airily dismissed it based on a variety of reasons that were certainly not excuses, and which we are hearing waaaay to often of late, and will doubtless continue to do for ever more unless addressed PDQ. Lack of time. Lack of money. Lack of trained staff. Ooops. This from what is meant to be a premier news organization with tens of thousands of trained bodies, funded by £3.5B of licence fee payers' money. Not blooming good enough!
There is now an all too prevalent notion that chunks of content can be used and abused to strip down and reassemble in the edit suite whatever you fancy for whatever your reasons, with truth, context and/or accuracy going out of the window so long as it makes for a 'good' story!
And they don't seem very interested in dealing with it at all, much less putting anything right, preferring to work on the (probably accurate) basis that if you leave it long enough it will all blow over.
Take this from the other day, where a possible ill-advised comment by a reporter was raised on the Newsnight blog. All I wanted, and at time of writing still want to know, is what she actually said:
1. At 08:33 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - Ms Kay made a clear statement in which she said 'thank god the Democrats have won Arkansas', she then tried to backtrack on her comment but the damage was done.
3. At 10:29 PM on 06 Feb 2008, - I didn't notice that last night and I have just re-watched it and didn't notice it then
9. At 05:34 PM on 07 Feb 2008, - May we have the 'purple box' official facts of what this reporter Ms. Kay did or did not say soon, please?
Any time you are ready. For the benefit of those who still like to weigh issues based on objective information.
There seem to be a bunch of 4th formers now in senior editorial positions more than happy to make snitty, silly rebuttals elsewhere, but on issues of cold, hard, key matters of fact they seem to suddenly scoot off elsewhere to throw their toys out of other prams.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
What a relief?
I was never too convinced about it, so I welcome the BBC climate special decision.
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
What I don't like is how it now plays out.
I don't think I'm any 'wing'. In fact I have the notion that the best way to soar higher is to have both, and evenly balanced.
But by virtue of trying to do a bunch of stuff to help my kids' futures, I guess I could be thought of as an 'Environmental campaigner' of sorts. My thoughts on the decision were however not solicited. Who activist and writer Mark Lynas is and what qualifies him to speak on behalf of those who 'do care more than others' (I would not presume, hoping we all do equally) about our planet and its direction is not clear.
And while I may be vociferous, and small, I am not a climate 'sceptic' lobbying against taking action.
I just thought this effort sounded like another, misconceived green elite luvvie jolly like the last one. And like that it sucked big time whilst not helping me at all in my mission to inspire the public to see environmentally good practice not as a chore, or a guilt-trip or a nanny-duty, but as a bit of collective (we're in this together) fun and often a way to save some money. If I can sneak in a bit of reduction (ie: self-sacrifice), I will try though. Sneaky like that.
Hence to the point that 'poor ratings in the UK and elsewhere for July's Live Earth concert fuelled the internal belief that the public do not like being "lectured to" on climate change', it was hard to see how the new effort was going to improve matters. From the moment I switched on Live Earth the choice of Mr. Ross as presenter, and his musings, along with those 'guests' wheeled in to do the 'I recycle and offset' mantra whilst 'not quite finding it practical to cut back personally, as such' on the trappings only immense wealth and celebrity can bring, I felt most of the messengers were ill serving the message. That a Spice took but one week to go from 'doing it for her baby' to getting a personal private jet (as reported) kinda sealed the notion thereafter. And handed papers (tab and broad of all hues) a blinder that eclipsed most else.
Hence I think we might value again such as one Mr. Geldof's views on just how much more 'awareness' and 'consciousness-raising' of this nature we can cope with. Or the planet afford.
I happen to share the idea that elevated levels of greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning and land clearance may well be raising temperatures around the world, and believe that clear, honest education, balanced information, example and incentive are the ways to sway public opinion and behaviour to help mitigate it. It is all urgent, so the temptation to cut corners 'for our own good' exists, but in this new media age whatever temporary gain you may get from 'enhanced truth', it will be set back tenfold when it gets caught out. As it does and will.
A ratings fest with a 'green elite only' green room that most outside the jetset and its reporting chums won't be invited to, on top of the last, was not my top choice for the money and logistical expertise that could be brought to bear, sorry.
So to try and plonk me in some group just because I have other, 'not ours' views certainly ain't helping the cause. Argue with me for sure, but only as you also get on and 'do' something real to mitigate or reduce the production of unnecessary green house gasses that doesn't owe more to massive self/career interest. Falling back on invoking a collection of 'ing's', 'ist's' and 'zi's' as the toys don't get put back in the pram won't get me on side one jot.
If, that is, your primary concern really is helping make a better future.
ADDENDUM:
I'd missed this before - No line - the comments are telling. The usual 'tis/t'isn't selective hyperlink quoting BOFDI/GAAC exchanges to be sure, but an awful lot who just don't like to be patronised. I'd have loved to have been here - How green is TV?. The synopsis end line sums it up.
ADDENDUM 2:
This... sucks: Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - I can live with the line they are taking; that's their prerogative and how I accord value to the paper's place in the debate. But that most of this front page piece was either lifted from the same PR as the BBC version, or lifted from that if it was the originator, is just plain shoddy journalism and editorial. And proves some claims that this is a mantra to be chanted and not an issue to be considered.
My respect for the Indy, and trust that it's MMGW reporting can be viewed in any way as objective, is shot.
It's so depressing. This issue is tearing folk apart, but I have to say that the main culprits are those who thing they know better, will brook no critique, and savage any in the most childish terms if they don't get their way. I would have hoped those genuine in a desire to help save this planet would not so easily find themselves amongst them.
Guardian - Getting the balance wrong - Funny the word 'balance' is used
I had to reply, and hence evolved a prvious post:
At least I can rely on CiF, between the post and a mix of subsequent comments, to try and suss out a bit of balance.
Not so sure about elsewhere.
http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
The text seems to be almost interchangeable with the BBC Online piece:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Where did this originate (I'm presuming the BBC piece) that it is shared so (pretty lazy journalism by the Indy, in which case) between these separate media entities?
I remain less than impressed that any criticism of this particular jolly gets such dismissal as a 'right wing conspiracy', and to try and paint it that way is serving the environmental cause poorly.
There were many, like me, who just didn't feel this was the best way to do it. From the moment I read Ross was top billing, after his and his mates' efforts before, I knew whatever it was about, helping my kids' future was not top of the agenda. And, as noted... it bombed. Badly. I was dubious before, took no pleasure in seeing the fall out, but made a reasoned call on this effort to consider the likely outcome of the next in its planned form, as outlined by those proposing it (who now are throwing a load of toys around with near zero self-analysis of what has taken place, is happening and how they could evolve their strategy to better assist their aims in future).
I have a really vain hope this will not simply turn into an excuse for yet another fruitless slanging match between those who have massive agendas pro and con the notion of MMGW, with selective facts and cited hyperlinks that 'prove' whatever you fancy, and ways to mitigate adverse effects, at the expense of reasoned ways to discuss, move on and DO something that can have an impact that can still work within the current climate of debate... or debate of climate.
Telling me what I am, when I am not, especially in knee-jerk frustration, is not the best way to do it. I'd like to think the BBC made an editorial call on certain pertinent facts of science, life and the media world.... not in response to 'pressure' from boogey men.
I personally think the climate IS changing.
And whatever man is doing, we are not likely to be helping (6 billion and counting folk with improving economies will need to live on something, eat something else and doubtless travel a lot socially and/or professionally to do it all. There has to be a tipping point logically as the area of land and volume of air is finite to cope with such hyperbolic growth and consequent poll... emissions).
Hence, I figure a bit of mitigation, if not reduction is not a bad thing to get on board with now.
However, we live on a mostly free planet with a bunch of connected folk with their own opinions.
So they need to be persuaded. democratically and with balanced argument. Not by telling them they are deluded. And certainly not by patronising them or cherry-picking what they get to decide with, 'for their own good'.
And certainly not by dishing up an already discredited notion to serve a bunch of less than credible messengers to parrot a message that many seem unable to live by example personally, as, 'well, it's not really practical, y'know'.
Then sulking for England when a green room/elite jolly doesn't get the rapturous support expected, and often demanded without question in the name of gr..atings. It may play well with Prius Person, but I didn't see it sway Fiesta Family much. And they need to be invited on board as they are still the majority, don't all have 4x4s, don't live next a tube or all night bus and usually only buy bottled water when they are flooded.
But stuff, for sure, does (I believe) need doing.
So where in all this are the political establishment? Or is the Nu-, and so far highly successful, strategy of saying nothing and being nowhere (save non-controversial or feel-good events), paralysing those voted in to lead, and handle the course of our futures?
Guardian - Impartiality is a turn-off
'...audiences sit up and take notice. If that means more work for Jonathan Ross, then sign the cheque.'
If this is referring to Planet Relief R.I.P, one would rather question the wisdom of pitching it in the first place on the back of the actual results derived in 'making audiences sit up and take notice' (much less acting) that was Live Earth. Anchored, as I recall, by one less than inspiring (by way of example) cheque-cashing celeb.
I rather think the way most of the general public viewed this new green jolly, punted for the exclusive benefit of the luvvies in entertainment-related PR and their media hangers-on, was the reason it died. Not any lack of desire to do right by our kids' futures.
Missing that point puts most crying into their Fairtrade lattes at the loss of yet another 'awareness opportunity' right out of step with the reality most folk face... but are prepared to act upon sensibly to rectify.
I believe the BBC feedback was that most people simply wanted to be better informed. Not told what some feel is good for them.
BBC -
"(Only fair to say that the Independent was critical of the BBCs decision to drop Planet Relief - they must have felt very let down.)"
Global warming: Too hot to handle for the BBC - http://environment.independent.co.uk/climate_change/article2934318.ece
Well, yes. But they did have some things in common:
The BBC climate special decision - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6979596.stm
Replete with such choice shared comments as this:
"The only reason why this became an issue is that there is a small but vociferous group of climate 'sceptics' lobbying against taking action.'
Nothing to do with Live Earth being a total bomb, and the new version being pitched imaginatively as a total duplicate, replete with the 'line-up' of celebrity presenters to really get the common folk to empathise with their glowing examples of restraint. So I would suggest there were other reasons, and some of the loudest voices came from those truly concerned with getting consensus on positive, practical actions to mitigate possible catastrophic climate change before any tipping point may be reached. I can live with 'told you so' if I'm wrong for erring on the side of caution. But 'living with' anything may be tricky if such as I get entitled to say it instead.
Finally, if I am right this 'toys out of pram' reaction ignores either feedback or maybe even a poll of viewers to the effect that they'd like to get the facts, ta very much, and not another luvvie green-in to further boost the 'awareness'.
BBC - Relief relief
ADDENDUM - NEW - Planet Relief redux
Thursday, July 12, 2007
Edit, or?
This from Newsday, or is it night (it seems they can now be one in the same)? The Queen and the BBC
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Not long ago I had a pathetic, insincere, form (I have had others that are lifted from the same template - sorry for the delay, we know it's important, we've had a check, so we screwed up, so what, yadayada...) 'apology' from the BBC following a complaint about a piece where what I had written got 'edited' to make it the exact reverse of what I said.
Having just had a complaint to OFCOM about an edit that featured me and my company - which turned black into white - upheld, SKY has replied in its defence to the effect that because it was only a few seconds long it doesn't matter (so showing Fidel Castro on the Grassy Knoll would be fine), and in any case it would set 'a bad precedent' for reality TV shows to accurately represent, er, reality. Astounding.
And to show this extends to every level of our current media, this is the Editor's full reply in my local paper to a letter from a reader (rightly) complaining that they edited his letter to completely change its meaning: 'Apologies to... It is not our normal practice to alter the sense of letters.'
Well all I can say is that it seems to be a pretty prevalent, abnormal practice nowadays across the whole sorry industry (even news, apparently), and getting more and more frequent as ever more sad ways are sought to drive up ratings through 'enhancing' actuality. Bear in mind that when they say 'Tell us what you think..' and you do so, that what they say you think may end up a very different version in this edit-obsessed, unaccountable, fake media age.
And now, on top of Blue Peter, etc, we have this.
I created a while ago a category on my blog called tushtissue. It refers to the gobsmacking front to try and weasel out of the fact that you were caught with your pants down. More appropriately, with them round your ankles deliberately trying to score a cheap rating, or political point, or column inch by conveying something totally untrue. And then denying it.
So, who would like to take a bet that no one, anywhere, will be found to carry the can, or bear the consequences? A myriad fingers will point in every direction, and the whole thing will get lost in the 'What's?'.
It's a sad, sad state we are in. Thanks Tony. Thanks Gordon. Thanks BBC. Thanks Fleet Street. Thanks every miserable overpaid 'senior executive' out there who laps the cream but will never shoulder the pain - of their own sorry actions.
I am sure we can look forward to a bumper edition of Newswatch, where all three of those up at dawn at the weekend can review the arrogant troupe of executive 'mea not blooming culpas' for whopping abuses of editorial standards broadcast to millions during prime time, fobbing off Uncle Ray during his cozy file-size chat with the usual 'it wasn't me, or if it was it wasn't that bad, or if it was it didn't matter, or if it does who cares?'
BBC Trust? Interesting, oxymoronic choice of words.
You cannot lie and expect to get away with it. Repeat. You should not be able to lie and get away with it. Repeat. You can lie and get away with it.
Now that's what I call editing.
Daily Mail - BBC's grovelling apology to Queen over 'tantrum' film - Well, they had to, really. It's the DM, after all. And read the comments. Not one cares about the changing of facts.
Times - Crisis of trust after BBC says sorry again - And sorry seems to be the easiest word...
I'm sure there 'll be more...
Guardian - Fincham: I'm staying put - there's a surprise: BBC exec not going to accept consequences shock. Plus the footage. Sweet. And not a thing ... yet... in CiF
Indy - Now we are really not amused: BBC forced to apologise for claiming Queen had a tantrum - Which would be, let's see... an outright lie? No, we really should leave it be and move on now.
Telegraph - Should the controller of BBC1 step down over the Queen gaffe?
Telegraph - Trust, the BBC and the Queen
BBC Newsnight - Putting things in order - the first (very well articulated) comment says it all.
Me, I'm a gobby sod:
Post 1 from Mike S clearly, factually and with great eloquence, pretty much answers your end question, I'd say.
That a viewer who was a live part of this 'process' feels this way I'd hazard shows the meaning was a bit more than 'remotely' affected by the dis-order.
Nice try.
'Maintaining standards of honesty, accuracy and fairness throw up various dilemmas which programme editors have to grapple with on a daily basis.'
But in maintaining those standards, grappling with the ethics of using the edit suite to alter a meaning really shouldn't be the greatest dilemma, now, should it?
Nice try.
'...claiming the chronology of two events were out of sequence and as such misrepresented the events.'
Is it really accurate to call it a claim if, in fact, this is/was precisely the case?
Nice try.
'However unlike the incident with the footage of the Queen, whichever order the events had been shown the meaning would remain the same.'
Um, or not. See above.
Nice try.
Glad for all concerned that at least it 'didn’t breach any of the BBC’s producer guidelines.' Wouldn't want to breach a guideline in doing an ethical, professional, honest job, now would we?
Not sure, having read this, whether some viewers' trust factors in the BBC or its news operatives' standards will have improved, though.
And this is such a shame. And makes the point. Having now watched the story, without that Achilles Heel (which was so subtle I honestly had trouble appreciating it), it was a telling piece for all the other 'imagery', if not facts conveyed.
I really don't know what to believe, so maybe it's best to believe none of it. Which is a pity, as black-suited press munchkins and jobsworth plods creating a wall of silence around our shy leader (as opposed to an opposition version who has amazing spontaneous total recall of relative camera sizes) does come across as a worry. None of it seemed real. And surely, as press with greater access (as alluded to, a form of editing in its own right) than the public will ever enjoy, it is for you to cut through all this spin and give us the clear, unvarnished truth.
In the 'war games' that rather bizarrely seem to exist - if only for the entertainment of those who play them - between accredited press and our elected representatives, in theory conducted on 'our' behalf to inform and allow us to form views we can carry to the polling booth, this is more than a worry.
BBC Breakfast 14/07
I just watched your comment piece on the BBC 'Queen' edit.
At risk of finding my comments here edited, I have to take issue with some of the things said.
It is astounding that any justification could be spun out of the culture of reality shows being 'known' to be... er... not real. And that this is accepted by the chattering classes is a real worry.
Fiction is fiction. Reality is reality. There are no blurred boundaries, from 'entertainment' to hard news. No exceptions.
I have an upheld complaint with OFCOM underway based on this very point.
GUARDIAN - BBC orders inquiry as pressure mounts
Cif - Don't believe everything you see - some amazing stuff about the Blue Peter issue I didn't know before. The rest of the posts show all that's wrong with blogging.
Indy - Pressure on BBC1 chief mounts over Queen slur
Times - BBC chief knew Queen footage was misleading 17 hours before apology
Telegraph - Behaving badly... the BBC and Fincham
Telegraph - Fincham should stay
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)