BBC fail (again)

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Nov 2013, 08:49

How the BBC got it wrong on carbon emissions and global warming again http://biffvernon.blogspot.co.uk/

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 01 Nov 2013, 14:06

31st November?

emordnilap · Post by **emordnilap** » 01 Nov 2013, 14:10

Biff also wrote:the BBC failed again on it is coverage

Good piece though.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 01 Nov 2013, 16:55

cubes wrote:31st November?

October

It's had 186 views so far today and you're the first to point that out. I've changed it now. Thanks.

cubes · Post by **cubes** » 02 Nov 2013, 15:39

There are much worse mistakes to make...

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 02 Nov 2013, 17:47

Yes but The Ambassadors is good and painfully topical!

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Nov 2013, 07:48

And again.

Here's what I've just written to the Environment Agency:

This morning on the BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, the Medmerry scheme was, twice, described as protecting against a one in a thousand year flood. Of course, given global warming related sea level rise we are in no position to give such an assurance and I can find no mention of '1 in 1000' in the extensive documentation on your website. Did the 1 in 1000 figure originate from yourselves or did the BBC invent it?
The importance of this question lies in the alleged systematic under-reporting of the significance of global warming by the BBC.
I look forward to your reply.
Biff Vernon
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ho ... 09062.aspx

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 04 Nov 2013, 09:21

biffvernon wrote:
cubes wrote:31st November?

October

It's had 186 views so far today and you're the first to point that out. I've changed it now. Thanks.

Have you tried making a comment on your site, Biff. I have tried twice, but there doesn't seem to be a post button after the captcha thing,

Peter.

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 Nov 2013, 14:05

I've just put one up. I clicked on the blue horizontal line above where it says "atom".

I think you can guess what I said...

(sorry Biff it was just a test comment: feel free to exponge it if you want!)

Blue Peter · Post by **Blue Peter** » 04 Nov 2013, 14:23

RenewableCandy wrote:I've just put one up. I clicked on the blue horizontal line above where it says "atom".

I think you can guess what I said...

(sorry Biff it was just a test comment: feel free to exponge it if you want!)

Ah, didn't see that. Plus, when you get it wrong (as I uinvariably do), even the little blue line then disappears off the bottom of the screen...

Peter.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 04 Nov 2013, 19:17

RenewableCandy wrote:I've just put one up. I clicked on the blue horizontal line above where it says "atom".

I think you can guess what I said...

(sorry Biff it was just a test comment: feel free to exponge it if you want!)

Oh it was you was it. Bloody pedant.

What's an exponge? Something you used to wash with?

RenewableCandy · Post by **RenewableCandy** » 04 Nov 2013, 19:43

To exponge means to wipe out. Using a (virtual in this case) sponge. It was a word often used by my French teacher.

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 04 Nov 2013, 20:27

Expunge means to erase or wipe out, exponge is a spelling mistake.

biffvernon · Post by **biffvernon** » 18 Nov 2013, 21:15

I got an e-mail from Auntie

Dear Mr Vernon

Reference CAS-2391442-X8LC96

Thanks for contacting us regarding BBC News on BBC Radio 4.

We note you believe we inaccurately covered the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre report on trends in global emissions.

You’ve only provided one example of 18:02 on 31 October, but this story wasn’t reported on the ‘Six O’clock News’ at this time – the story didn’t appear until almost 24 minutes into the programme, where we made clear that the rate in CO2 emissions was slowing down, not that that CO2 emissions were declining. We also made clear that the researchers suggested this could be due to the increase use of hydro power in China and shale gas in America.

We therefore believe we accurately covered on the Netherlands Environment Assessment Agency and the European Commission's Joint Research Centre report.

It is not always possible or practical to reflect all the different opinions on a subject within individual programmes. Editors are charged to ensure that over a reasonable period they reflect the range of significant views, opinions and trends in their subject area. The BBC does not seek to denigrate any view, nor to promote any view. It seeks rather to identify all significant views, and to test them rigorously and fairly on behalf of the audience. Among other evidence, audience research indicates widespread confidence in the impartiality of the BBC's reporting.

We’d add that fracking is a subject we’ve covered comprehensively across our news programming and will continue to do so.

Nonetheless, we acknowledged, with regret, that we failed to meet your expectations on this occasion. With your disappointment in mind we’d assure you your concerns have been registered on our audience log, which is a daily report of audience feedback that’s made available to many BBC staff, including members of the BBC Executive Board, channel controllers and other senior managers.

The audience logs are seen as important documents that can help shape decisions about future programming and content.

Thanks again for taking the trouble to contact us.

Kind Regards

Lucia Fortucci

BBC Complaints

www.bbc.co.uk/complaints

NB This is sent from an outgoing account only which is not monitored. You cannot reply to this email address but if necessary please contact us via our webform quoting any case number we provided.

I returned with this billet doux

woodburner · Post by **woodburner** » 18 Nov 2013, 21:46

Did you mean to say

......confounding your continuing failure.......

, or should it have been "compounding"?