16 July 2007
Essential difference between fact and opinion
One of the basic principles in writing or presenting news is that you should make it easy for the reader to distinguish between fact and opinion.
It’s particularly important when contentious issues are being reported. So I was disappointed to read the other day in a news story in the online Telegraph about a climate change survey that “the UK is in denial about the consequences of global warming”.
The phrase “in denial” implies a refusal to believe something that is self-evident. In fact the consequences of any global warming are so many and various that there is plenty of room for discussion and differences of opinion. The causes of climate change, which is probably what the reporter was really talking about, are also unsettled.
Bad enough, but worse is to come. Lower down the story comes the sentence: “The survey found that more than half (of those who responded) thought scientists were divided on climate change when in fact there is a scientific consensus.”
This is the reporter’s view, and not one shared by more than half the people surveyed. It is certainly not undisputed fact.
In truth there is not a scientific consensus: in this country there is pretty much a political consensus and even more a media consensus, and if that doesn’t worry you, it probably should. But plenty of distinguished scientists harbour significant doubts. Some have resigned from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; others have stayed on it but disagree with its conclusions; still others have had nothing to do with it.
Some scientists, of course, have no doubts at all. For example, the man from the UEA who appeared on Look East a while back and responded to a question about scientists who didn’t agree with him about global warming by replying: “They aren’t really scientists.”
It says much for the way journalism is going that the TV presenters simply let this arrogance pass. In fact they almost encouraged it.
Time was when reporters asked meaningful questions, but that’s consensus for you. No wonder people are suspicious of it.
White lines safer than cameras
The usual definition of an accident is something that happens unintentionally or unexpectedly. So it is not entirely clear why the Norwich coroner is unwilling to use the word in referring to fatalities on the road. People rarely intend to have accidents, and despite their relentless occurrence, they are not usually expected.
The coroner argues that they are not really accidents because someone causes them, but everything that happens has a cause, even if it is not obvious. Perhaps we should not use the word at all. Shall we start referring to home collisions or factory crashes?
Surely just about every accident is avoidable one way or another. The coroner may wish to spare the feelings of victims of road accidents, and it is kind of him to do so, but calling accidents something else is not going to change anything.
Only proper driver education and sensible road safety policies will do that. If only the coroner could make that kind of change.
Coincidentally, a survey of UK road casualty figures has just found that painting in white lines on the road to indicate right or left turns is eight times more effective in cutting crashes than using speed cameras. Just renewing old markings is well over three times as effective. White Line Partnership, anyone?
Where there's equine residue, there's even more brass
You have to get out into the countryside to arrive at a proper perspective on life. I was taking a short walk down Marriott’s Way just outside Reepham not long ago when I paused to peer over a parapet. There below me at the side of the road was the following notice:
Horse muck 40p Equine residue 50p Poo des chevaux £1.00
As my very wise father-in-law used to say, you get what you pay for.
No sign of sense yet
The introduction of No Smoking notices into places where no-one ever smoked anyway – such as churches – has encouraged Norfolk legend and druid Henry (Fred) “Shrimp” Houseago to diversify yet again.
His company Houseago Inc, based at Erpingham, has started producing a wide range of notices that he hopes the Government or some other busybody will make compulsory.
“I can see a trend as soon as the next man,” he said. “People don’t want to make up their minds any more. They want to be told, even when it seems obvious.”
Areas he has already identified for his signs are: No sex – churches and supermarkets No swimming – high streets Do not open umbrellas – phone boxes No sleeping – discos No dancing – libraries No cycling – swimming pools No combine harvesters – woods or forests No flying – railways No picnics – public conveniences.
A research department, headed by Len “Kissme” Hardy of Hindolveston, is believed to be investigating a wide range of other possibilities, such as “No democracy” for the Autonomous Republic of Hingham and “No penguins” for the UEA.
“We are extremely optimistic,” he said late last night.
Our boys done good again
In a cricket match held at Jokingapart, near Ludham, an all-East Anglian team selected by radical cleric the Rev Nick Repps-cum-Bastwick was narrowly beaten by a foreign team.
After winning the toss and choosing to bat, the East Anglians scored 11, with Mr Repps-cum-Bastwick out for what is known in Norfolk as a Wymondham duck. In reply the foreign team took more than two balls to reach 12 for 0.
Asked if the result was a total disaster, Mr Repps-cum-Bastwick said his young team would learn from experiences like this.
He added: “There has been a lot of hard work put in behind the scenes. We will learn from our mistakes.”
Pushed on exactly when they would start learning, he added: “We lost today, but there were a lot of positives. No-one got injured, and most of our bowlers didn’t bowl, so they are very fresh. We will come back from this.”
The interview was abandoned at this point because of bad light.