Re: well, there goes the BBC, too
- From: Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:15:58 +0100
Adrian Tuddenham wrote:
> Pooh Bear <rabbitsfriendsandrelations@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > John Larkin wrote:
> >
> > > >I've no reason to suppose that American science journalists are much
> > > >better -
> > >
> > > Hardly. The scientific illiteracy and innumeracy are astounding; I'm
> > > just disappointed that the BBC is slipping in that direction, too. If
> > > people can't understand simple mechanics and math ("million" seems
> > > generally interchangable with "billion"), how can we trust their
> > > opinions on economic or social issues?
> >
> > Strictly speaking the BBC has no *opinion* per se. It does provide a
> > platform for the often diverse opinions of various journalists and
> > correspondents though.
>
> ...but a responsible organisation should have a competent editor
> somewhere who can spot blunders like that and query them with the
> journalist before publication.
>
> [I know, I'm showing my age]
I agree actually. I've seen a couple of examples that really should never
have got that far on account of simple factual errors / omissions / whatever.
Doesn't happen often thankfully and usually gets corrected too. Maybe the
'day staff' review what's been going on while they were in their beds ?
Graham
.
- References:
- well, there goes the BBC, too
- From: John Larkin
- Re: well, there goes the BBC, too
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: well, there goes the BBC, too
- From: Pooh Bear
- well, there goes the BBC, too
- Prev by Date: Re: PLL Lock to an Offset Frequency
- Next by Date: Re: Voltage ratings of SM resistors
- Previous by thread: Re: well, there goes the BBC, too
- Next by thread: Re: well, there goes the BBC, too
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
