tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post2903525475714950626..comments2023-10-17T15:56:22.827+01:00Comments on Velvet Glove, Iron Fist: More pro-minimum price churnalism from the BBCChristopher Snowdonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-18886559028274921132012-03-22T20:33:20.484+00:002012-03-22T20:33:20.484+00:00Chris, adjust for population growth and the rise d...Chris, adjust for population growth and the rise disappears back to about 2003. Rate per 100,000 all deaths, male and female, no significant change. The only series in this area that makes a serious attempt to be consistent. 2003/4 looks like about the peak to me. Lots of indicators going down after that. I'd expect deaths to be one of the last to turn because you don't get liver failure overnight.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-33006041496216854042012-03-22T19:40:11.613+00:002012-03-22T19:40:11.613+00:00BBC online news has featured 15 quotes from Alcoho...BBC online news has featured 15 quotes from Alcohol Concern in 2012 to date. Alcohol Concern is notable for the abysmal quality and misleading content of reports like “One on Every Corner” and “The Price is Right”. It has no known expertise in anything whatsoever so why does the BBC feel the need to foist its output on the rest of us at the rate of one quote every 5.47 days? I would really like to believe that the BBC has no agenda but its output does seem to be increasingly dictated by pressure group press releases.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-12159399924666038522012-03-22T16:48:51.219+00:002012-03-22T16:48:51.219+00:00Talking of the BBC, I've just had a reply to m...Talking of the BBC, I've just had a reply to my complaint about the reporting of Pell's latest twaddle:<br /><br />"Your comments have been referred directly to senior journalists on our health and medical team, who say they have noted the points you raise. However, they say that this was peer-reviewed research, published in a respected journal and although this is no guarantee of quality, it does show that the research passed muster with other experts. The NHS website gave details of the story and noted, "It was accurately reported by the BBC, which pointed out other factors might have influenced the results." Our online version of the story contained many caveats. Our health staff also says that although the figures for pre-term deliveries went up and down considerably, this research did look at trends over time."<br /><br />They then say if I want an independent investigation I need to contact the Editorial complaints department etc.<br /><br />Looks like lots of appeals to authority there. We all know how efficient peer review is when your peers are all frothing at the mouth antis, too.Mr Anoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-6380962432295662392012-03-22T14:51:03.238+00:002012-03-22T14:51:03.238+00:00Faithless,
It can't be proven, but the way th...Faithless,<br /><br />It can't be proven, but the way the articles are written - often with no counter-argument or opposing voice - and the sheer number of them suggest to me a deliberate attempt to push an agenda. In some cases, the BBC is the ONLY news outlet that reports these non-stories. Newspapers take an editorial line on all sorts of issues. The BBC is no different. Exactly the same thing happened in 2004-06 when any utterance by any nonentity in favour of the smoking ban was prominently reported. <br /><br />Call it an agenda, or just a case of group-think, but the coverage is so one-sided that it can't be explained by giving the people what they want. In any case, the BBC is the one news outlet that doesn't need to play to the gallery. I can almost forgive tabloids for printing junk because they need to sell papers. People have higher expectations of the Beeb and yet it is as bad as any tabloid when it comes to some of its health coverage.Christopher Snowdonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15963753745009712865noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-89697694628996784782012-03-22T13:55:48.691+00:002012-03-22T13:55:48.691+00:00Excellent demolition of this non-news, as ever, bu...Excellent demolition of this non-news, as ever, but I don't really buy the idea that the BBC do this as part of an "agenda". <br /><br />The BBC can't implement policy, so the only mechanism by which they can benefit from regurgitating this sort of crap is the approval of their readers and listeners. You can justifiably call it pandering or churnalism - you could even say it looks like a de facto campaign on the balance of the stories that it broadcasts - but when you state that it's part of a deliberate political agenda I think you wander onto shakier ground. Rightly or wrongly, they're just trying to appeal to their perceived audience aren't they?Simon Clarehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01326883617951992573noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3585028625507474093.post-5678959721940695912012-03-22T11:04:24.175+00:002012-03-22T11:04:24.175+00:00A quick search of the BBC Website reveals that min...A quick search of the BBC Website reveals that minimum pricing has featured in 80 articles over the past 6 months and over 40 in the last 2. None of these articles has really attempted to give the public an unbiased critical insight into the suggested policy and most feature sound bites from the BBCs favoured “charities”.<br /><br /> It is hard to argue that there is any reason for this article other than to push the BBCs preferred agenda. Alcohol Concern is a discredited disgrace and Andrew Langford is not an expert in anything in particular. The liver death numbers are old news and are designed for impact in that they contain no adjustment for population growth and no analysis. This is very poor journalism and might be construed as propaganda if we didn’t know the BBC better.Ivan Dhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18364023294207490403noreply@blogger.com