Feeding The Fish

Just watched some crap reporting on the embryology bill on the BBC. Hybrid embryos are apparently made by mixing human and animal DNA….really? Here I was thinking it it’s just human DNA in an animal cell with maybe a tiny tiny bit of animal DNA floating around (which is more than likely identical to some part of the human genone anyway), as opposed to mad scientists making humans with elephant trunks for giggles.

The debate on abortion was in it’s entirety an image of a fetus at twenty weeks, telling us that campaigners saying the limit should be reduced to 20 weeks and some scientists say this shouldn’t happen (doubtless because they’re mean and hate babies). Naturally, no explanation as to why they think 24 weeks is preferable i.e. that there has been no increase in survival rates for infants born before 24 weeks in the last decade, that some life threatening abnormalities can’t be detected until the 20-21st week and so on. That there are real practical reasons for 24 weeks apparently doesn’t match up to a neat video, nor apparently does the fact that some campaigning for a reduction have openly spoken in favor of an even lower limit (15 weeks or so) and that their support for 20 weeks isn’t a result of a practical change but more a case of what they think they can sell people on this time round. It’s really amazing how every time something like this comes around it’s the lying opportunists who almost always get seen as the principled ones as opposed to those immoral, shiftless scientists who insist on supporting their position with, you know, actual evidence.

Then there’s some rewording over IVF treatment which legally recognizes same-sex couples as parents of children conceived during their relationship. This section was dominated by concerns over ‘traditional’ family… because as we well know that, just as the existence of gay marriage threatens the very existence of heterosexual marriage, gay people raising children means that no straight people will bother any more, there’ll be anarchy in the streets, cats and dogs together at last, a Tory government, etc.

And because posts with a one line remark at the end always seem more reasonable, here one is.

Following on from my last post, Technovia found a different phrasing problem in the same article:

 “Watch… Mother’s reaction” just feels wrong. It feels voyeuristic, in a completely nasty way. Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t want to watch a mother come to terms with her fifteen year old daughter having been raped and killed. And the way that this is phrased makes it feel like the cameras were there, recording her reaction when she was told. It just feels wrong.

On the plus side, the next article dropped the offending punctuation altogether.

Previously I blogged about what was either an abuse of the English language or a marginalisation of rape in a BBC headline, that same headline editor must be back on giving us this zinger: BBC NEWS - Police arrest man over Goa ‘rape’.

Let’s recap:

“Rape” - This case is now investigating (or is associated with) a rape even if no official charges have been given yet.

‘Rape’ - He’s in on something, but it can’t be rape, rape isn’t a real thing. Only un-real things get put in inverted commas. Or sarcastic things. Either way, it’s not rape.

Don’t we all feel better for learning?

I’m switching between The revived News At Ten and the Ten O’clock News. First story on ITV? An exclusive about Princess Diana! Quality and relevent journalism right from the start. Turn over to BBC? John Simpson is broadcasting live from inside Zimbabwe (where, remember the BBC is banned) and in addition to the sheer balls of that, the story was a real and important one.

So….on Day One? BBC 1 - ITV 0

The BBC Editors also got a little snip in earlier in the day on their blog:

But an inkling of potential differences might be found in a remark by an ITN senior executive, Deborah Turness. She said News at Ten’s “And finally…” item should have this effect, “‘We want people go to bed with a smile on their face or a tear in their eye”. I’d prefer to say that the BBC’s News is all made to make you think.

Ouche.

(Ooh, ITV did just raise the game by broadcasting LIVE AND IN LIVING COLOUR from under a glacier in Antarctica, which I guess is cool and all…but are they banned from Antarctica? Are there penguin death squads out searching for them? I think not! )

BBC NEWS - British women ‘raped’ in Jordan.

This may be a symptom of the fact that this heading writer is unsure on when to use apostrophises or quote marks but what does that title say to you? I’m getting “It wasn’t rape really” or “well…that’s what they said”.

There are a million ways to do this heading better. I understand that as nothing has been proven as such yet so ‘British women raped by THESE SPECIFIC MEN’ might be pushing it, but what was wrong with ‘British women raped in Jordan’? What really are the chances they’d make it up? Hell, ‘British women claim rape in Jordan’ still sounds better. Another one: ‘Jordanian men charged with rape of British women.’ See? Factually accurate without being dismissing! ‘British women ‘raped’ in Jordan’ just conveys the impression that rape isn’t a real thing or that something happened, but no no, that wasn’t rape!

The article doesn’t say if they were drunk, but if they were that definitely excuses it. Everyone knows it’s not rape and entirely their fault if they were drinking. That’s practically law.

This guy on the BBC website is converting to the logoless life and to get there he’s burning all his branded products:

I now realise that it’s these damn brands that are the source of the pain. For every new status symbol I acquire, for every new extension to my identity that I buy, I lose a piece of myself to the brands. I placed my trust, even some love with these companies, and what have I had in return for my loyalty and my faith? Absolutely nothing. How could they, they’re just brands.

So, this is why I am burning all my stuff. To find real happiness, to find the real me, I must get rid of it all and start again, a brand-free life, if that is indeed possible. Perhaps if I consume on the basis of need instead of want, on utility instead of status, I might start to value material things for the right reasons. For the time being, I can only hope.

Of course, there might be better ways to deal with it.

Instead of burning it why not give it to a charity shop, so at least some one else can benefit from this stunt!It wouldnt take much effort to bag everything up. In fact I’m sure they wouldnt even mind collecting it from you, if you have too much stuff to do it yourself.
Jules, UK

One small point, instead of burning his unwanted branded goods perhaps Neil Boorman could give them to a charity or recycle them instead. Burning them is such a waste and bad for the climate. Perhaps it might support Neil’s plan if his Gucci or Nike was recycled into something unbranded or was given to someone who just needs shoes/clothes of any type, branded or not.
Joe Hale, York, North Yorkshire

Don’t burn it, you idiot. Give it away. That’ll be a bigger gesture, and avoid an appalling waste.
Maggie,

I can’t believe you are going to burn all your branded belongings. PLEASE auction them on e-bay with all the profits going to a charity, or at the very least take them to a few charity shops who can sell them to raise money. I can’t bear to think that no-one else will be able to benefit from your project. Perhaps burn your one favourite item if you have to, but not all of them!!
Annie, Suffolk, UK

And they probably have a point.