UKH

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43966154

All fine until about halfway down. That's some fnckwit journalism and absence of editorial oversight right there

In reply to Moacs:

Not worth you bringing this up.

In reply to veteye:

You feel that the national broadcaster telling a board reach entirely the opposite of how sun factors work, in a heatwave, isn't worth bothering with? Or have I misunderstood?

In reply to Moacs:

Which bit is it that has offended you? 

In reply to Ron Rees Davies:

The bit that says factor 15 is twice as effective as factor 30

In reply to Moacs:

...and they've edited it. Perhaps the bbc complaint process does work.

In reply to if sunburn is the big issue in your life or how the BBC report it. Boy are you one lucky fella. My guess is that some frightened wee kid in Ukraone would love to just be worrying about that. 

In reply to shaun stephens:

I'd regard it as perfectly fair to be upset about horribly sloppy science editing on something public health related on a public broadcaster.

It's said more than two thousand people die every year in the UK from skin cancer, with 86% of cases being preventable.

https://www.cancerresearchuk.org/health-professional/cancer-statistics/stat...

In reply to shaun stephens:

Is this the new version of Godwin's law?

In reply to Moacs:

Well, it does double the length of time you can stay out before burning.  Also, it doesn't actually say it's twice as effective anywhere.

In reply to Moacs:

It's an easy typo to make. Mistakes happen. It's not likely they just made a load of nonsense up.

In reply to montyjohn:

There are typos and then there are inaccurate statements. In my view Moacs points still apply given the importance of accuracy on provision of public health information from a public broadcaster. The journalist should have expertise enough to have spotted it and editorial oversight should have spotted it.

In reply to montyjohn:

Yes, the usual trick is 'omission' rather than outright lies 

In reply to Offwidth:

Do we really expect everybody to have the expertise to spot that they have got the SPF ratings of suncream the wrong way round?

It's a mistake and it has been corrected, even the brightest of scientists can make mistakes.

In reply to timjones: 

Err, yes.

How do you shop for suncream?

In reply to timjones:

If you are writing an article called “how does suncream work” it does seem reasonable to expect your knowledge to be at least as good as the average supermarket customer.

At the same time, Moat’s outrage does seem a bit OTT

In reply to Stuart Williams:

I'm sympathetic to Moacs. I'm normally speaking up here for the BBC against unfair criticism (of bias etc) but editorial focus and quality does seem to me be in decline. It's vitally important on public health information. Editing of such things is not so expensive.

In reply to Offwidth:

I’m not saying Moac doesn’t have a fair point, but calling the journalist a fnckwit is a bit much over what appears to be a rapidly corrected typo. 

In reply to Offwidth:

I'm less so.  Because . . .

Editors are easy to remove when streamlining an organisation.  What do they do, and wouldn't it be cheaper and easier to have their roles split between the content creator and somebody else?  

But an editor's role can be tremendously useful.  The argument against a content creator checking their own work and then pushing the publish button is that you're not the right person to proofread your own work; you see what you think is there rather than what actually is there.  Errors creep in and something as simple as swapping two numbers around, which is easy to do if you're the one writing, can lead to someone like Moac getting his knickers in an indignant twist.  ****wit journalism?  No, just an honest mistake.  Anyone that's worked in any kind of publishing has made them; I know I have.

But stuff like this is a knock-on consequence of reducing the BBC's budget; fewer staff, more errors.  They're beyond the point where efficiency savings can be made easily.  If you value the BBC, argue for an increased budget by writing to your MP.  I trust Moac's letter will be in the post tomorrow.

T.

For information, I have never worked for the BBC.  

In reply to Tony Buckley:

Following on from that excellent second paragraph.... it's also easy when under budget pressures to cut journalists and make the remaining ones take on areas where they lack expertise.

I still don't regard such a mistake on a public health message as a typo.

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Am I the only one who has call myself such having made a similar silly mistake?

My main concern for Moacs's language is inadvertently hitting a UKC auto-ban, wasting moderator time.

In reply to Offwidth:

Heavens, times beyond counting.  I started back in the days of galley and page proofs and feel frequently that the slower pace they imposed meant that quality was higher.  There should be at least a half-hour delay between anyone pressing a publish button and something being released into the wild so that the 'D'oh!' errors can be corrected.

T.

And thank you for your comment on my second paragraph.  I didn't realise I felt that strongly about this until I'd written it.

In reply to Offwidth:

Calling yourself a fnckwit within the privacy of your own thoughts is very different to directing it at a stranger in public. Test it out in a local town centre if you aren’t convinced.

In reply to Siward:

I wish I was so cockily confident in my own infallibility!

I burn so easily that I just look for the stuff that is labelled super strength for kiddies

In reply to Stuart Williams:

Yet it was about what was written, more than the person, plus it relates to a public sector employee in part of a role... that's not the same as average stranger. Plus in my defence having sympathy isn't the same as full agreement and what was said isn't as strong as some stuff on these forums.

In reply to Offwidth:

The definition of a typo is not based on the content or t's importance.

They got the numbers the wrong way round.

It's a typo.

Everybody reading it knows they are the wrong way round.

In reply to montyjohn:

Very good.

T.

In reply to Offwidth:

It's of little consequence either way; I think it was a little bit of an over-reaction, you don't particularly, and that's fine. The main point of my original post was broadly aligned with Moac's complaint anyway.

In reply to Offwidth:

Is that not a problem with the auto-ban mechanism?  Especially as it seems to have come in without being announced on the forums?

In reply to Moacs:

BBC don't seem to be great with facts, just seen this.

The US House of Representatives committee investigating last year’s US Capitol riot is holding its third public hearing into the attack.

In reply to wintertree:

It's a grey area. Certain swearing is clearly against the site rules but I'd mqybe ask does the new asterisk detection, picking up a particular thinly disguised naughty word, actually save moderator time?....only the mods will know?! Other people still get them past detection with different disguises, my favourites being clever tricks like spoonerisms. I remain of the view that proportionate moderation is needed and that the mods here broadly get this right. I used to think the other channel had a better line but more and more I think that's down to it being a closer-knit community (and an even more male dominated one than here). 

In reply to Offwidth:

Sure, but auto-ban vs auto-bounce-the-post....

One creates more work for the moderators and one doesn't.

I'm a bit scared of putting bad words in my posts now incase I get "TiEd" up in a ban.

In reply to wintertree:

Wonderful

The forums do feel a little empTiEr now, but if you excuse a slightly forced heat pump analogy (for forum hot air) maybe less PelTiEr

In reply to wintertree:

Do we know what level of naughty word is considered as a naughty word? It's not something I'm concerned about as I generally avoid swearing (at least I think I do) but I wouldn't have thought the title of this thread would trigger anything.

In reply to timjones:

Hmm. Tends to smell of peaches and attract wasps in my experience!