Fishing/ reporting :rolleyes:

[angleseydiver]

BBC NEWS | UK | Fish stocks report is published

A report on the status of fish stocks in the oceans around Europe is due to be published.
The International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES) is expected to say there has been a slight recovery in cod stocks in some areas.

Is it just me... or is the reporting of what is expected to be in a report which is due to be published a bit wrong? Especially following a headline where the "Report is published"!
Where is the BBC going just now? It's probably full of wankers just ticking their boxes and collecting their wage ( Sorry!- Salary!) with no regard to factuality- box ticked, done my bit, filled the quota... might throw a sicky next week, all this stress having to tick boxes...
no wonder the country is F*cked!

[PeeBee]

what it shows is how gullible the press are and how much we accept what they say/write. Someone writes a big multipage report with some horrendous facts in it, gives it to the PR guys who sift through it and find the few nuggets of good or spinnable news, they then release a press release purporting to summarise the "facts" and only mentioning the good stuff. The press can't be arsed to read the report and so announce the good news. Once it's in the public domain no-0ne believes the doom mongers who have taken the trouble to read the whole report and the press won't pick up on it because it would prove they were too lazy to do their job properly in the first place.

Cynical, Moi?

[Jay_Benson]

One of the main problems with the media in general (I know I shouldn't generalise but sometimes the urge if just too strong) is that the don't know anything beyond, at best, GCSE Science. The trouble is that with a GCSE in science you automatically become the science correspodant and are duty bound to report it in a sensationalised manner - as you will realise they excel at that.

The synopsis is the most you can expect to get them to read and that has to be in Janet and John style writing. Apologies to anyone called Janet and / or John.

If the author of a report has a particular ax to grind, e.g. Andrew Watson who started the MMR debate - they are given credance far beyond that which is reasonable - never mind what evidence there is. Other "experts" are more like rent a quote charecters - this is true outside the science areas as well.

The main problem for science is that the reports tend to be rather dry and fact laden. Too many facts seem to upset some journalists.

PS - I am not a journalist

[Gavin Yates]

Originally Posted by Jay_Benson

PS - I am not a journalist

I am. Have been for 20 years and have covered complicated political, science, ecology and even fishing stories. Some might say I've even done it well. One thing's for sure is i reported it straight, using numerous sources and different expert opinions.

The problem is not just some journalists. It's the market.

Let's face it - many more people read the Sun, Mirror and Mail rather than the Telegraph, Indie or Grauniad.

The newspaper industry is dumbing down - journalists have complained about it for years but increasingly the entire market is on a downward spiral.

We might think that everyone wants to read or watch an honest exposition of the facts about global warming, MMR or fishing but most people watch and read shite by choice.

Blame the newspapers and broadcasters - but also blame the nation of fuckwits that would rather be 'infotained' than informed.

If I could stop anything it would be phone-in shows. Who wants to listen to the rancid, racist views of a taxi-driver called Geoff from Barking about anything? Let's get back to the days when broadcasters broadcast and people listened, rather than thinking that their view was more important. If I wanted to listen to the rantings of morons I'd buy the Daily Mail.

[nickb]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

If I wanted to listen to the rantings of morons I'd buy the Daily Mail.

Or or check out the Speakers' Corner forum on YD from time-to-time

[Jay_Benson]

Originally Posted by Gavin Yates

If I could stop anything it would be phone-in shows. Who wants to listen to the rancid, racist views of a taxi-driver called Geoff from Barking about anything? Let's get back to the days when broadcasters broadcast and people listened, rather than thinking that their view was more important. If I wanted to listen to the rantings of morons I'd buy the Daily Mail.

I had to check who posted this - for a second I thought it was my wife whenever she catches 606 on Radio 5.

One of the problems with some of the more opinionated journalists is that they think that their opinion is the most important. Obviously mine is more important.

Ravings of morons - yep the Daily Mail would seem to be an ideal fit.

As you have carried out extensive research and have obviously thought through your reports I would like to doff my cap to you (looks in drawer for cap but can only find woolly hat). You are doing the job properly and are a credit to your profession.

Can you extend your stop list to include "reality" TV? It bears no resemblance to my reality.