BBC NEWS GET IT WRONG - AGAIN!

[The B Word]

Just read this and am staggered that they can get the most basic stuff wrong on FF2020 and SDSR10:

BBC News - UK defence spending 'concerns' US Army chief Raymond Odierno (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-31688929)

The RAF will be 33,500 by 2015 and then 31,500 by 2020 - not 35,000 as they state! One would have hoped with 2 months to the election they would get basics like this right. :ugh:

The B Word

http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/71831000/gif/_71831007_army_cuts_464.gif

[Selatar]

Indeed. I doubt anyone at the BBC ever read the SDSR 10 document.

Navy to 29k by 2020 and as you say RAF to 31.5k By 2020, noting that numbers currently sit at 32k and the 2020 31.5k figure will be reached by spring 15 it seems.

It's all about the Army remember!

[swordfish41]

If you look at the online article closely you will see that the BBC credit the source of the graphic as the MOD.Where else do you expect them to go for information?

[melmothtw]

Who got it wrong?
If you look at the online article closely you will see that the BBC credit the source of the graphic as the MOD.Where else do you expect them to go for information?

Never let facts get in the way of a good rant against the media. That's the PPRuNe way.

[BillHicksRules]

Swordfish,

Do not even need to look at the article, the graphic posted here shows the source as the MOD.

[Courtney Mil]

Mel, as you well know, everything is ultimately the fault of the Press, ISIS, Social Services or the last Labour government. Oh, and Lockmart.

[Lima Juliet]

Surely "source MOD" doesn't mean they created the errant graphic? It merely means that the source data is taken from the MOD or one of its documents.

The BBC have a duty to research, verify and check its reported facts - just 2 minutes with an internet search engine would reveal that they have got their reported facts very badly wrong.

I'm afraid its the BBC's fault in my eyes...:hmm:

LJ

[BillHicksRules]

LJ,

Of course it is.

[Surplus]

I'm afraid its the BBC's fault in my eyes...Welcome | Association of Optometrists (http://www.aop.org.uk/)

[Lima Juliet]

Bill, Surplus et al

Oh do have a word with onselves...

The press is regulated by IPSO - https://www.ipso.co.uk/IPSO/cop.html

The Independent Press Standards Organisation (IPSO), as Regulator, is charged with enforcing the following Code of Practice, which was framed by the Editors' Code of Practice Committee and is enshrined in the contractual agreement between IPSO and newspaper, magazine and electronic news publishers.

The Code

All members of the press have a duty to maintain the highest professional standards. The Code, which includes this preamble and the public interest exceptions below, sets the benchmark for those ethical standards, protecting both the rights of the individual and the public's right to know. It is the cornerstone of the system of self-regulation to which the industry has made a binding commitment.

It is essential that an agreed code be honoured not only to the letter but in the full spirit. It should not be interpreted so narrowly as to compromise its commitment to respect the rights of the individual, nor so broadly that it constitutes an unnecessary interference with freedom of expression or prevents publication in the public interest.

It is the responsibility of editors and publishers to apply the Code to editorial material in both printed and online versions of publications. They should take care to ensure it is observed rigorously by all editorial staff and external contributors, including non-journalists, in printed and online versions of publications.

Editors should co-operate swiftly with the Independent Press Standards Organisation CIC (the ‘Regulator') in the resolution of complaints. Any publication judged to have breached the Code must publish the adjudication in full and with due prominence agreed by the Regulator, including headline reference to the Regulator.

Clause 1 Accuracy

i) The Press must take care not to publish inaccurate, misleading or distorted information, including pictures.

ii) A significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence, and - where appropriate - an apology published. In cases involving the Regulator, prominence should be agreed with the Regulator in advance.

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

iv) A publication must report fairly and accurately the outcome of an action for defamation to which it has been a party, unless an agreed settlement states otherwise, or an agreed statement is published.


I've highlighted in bold the bits you need to understand; for if, like Surplus, you haven't been to Specsavers recently, then you made need it...

LJ :cool:

PS. Have just read that the BBC is very handily outwith the IPSO requirements as they are internally regulated by their own BBC Trust by Royal Charter. Anyway, their Editorial Guidelines upheld by the Trust are very similar:

1.2.1 Trust

Trust is the foundation of the BBC: we are independent, impartial and honest. We are committed to achieving the highest standards of due accuracy and impartiality and strive to avoid knowingly and materially misleading our audiences.

1.2.2 Truth and Accuracy

We seek to establish the truth of what has happened and are committed to achieving due accuracy in all our output. Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right; when necessary, we will weigh relevant facts and information to get at the truth. Our output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, will be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language. We will strive to be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.

Still seems pretty clear that they have not achieved this with a 2 minute browser search and 5 minutes of reading SDSR10's main headlines!

[Lima Juliet]

PPS. The research on this lot took me about 15 minutes - maybe I should start a job as a Journo? It doesn't seem that hard!!! :ugh:

[Skeleton]

Leon, your posts have always lead me to believe you have morals, therefore you can't be a journalist, sorry.

[Fox3WheresMyBanana]

Bet he doesn't take bribes either!

As RAF FJ, he can probably meet the drinking capacity requirement though. ;)

[Lima Juliet]

Amen, brother. Buy me a Doombar and I'll write or tell you anything! :ok:

[Archimedes]

First, the graphic is recycled from a BBC story from 2013

BBC News - Top general warns over 'hollowed-out' armed forces (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25440814)

And then recycled here:

BBC News - Military cuts mean 'no US partnership', Robert Gates warns Britain (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25754870)

So the error is not new.

Second, bar the line 'Source:MOD' is there any clear evidence that the MoD has issued duff info? Fact Sheets 5 and 8 which supported the SDSR do not give these figures, and are the most obvious source for the press. The latest latest MoD stats (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/402652/MPR_January_2015.pdf) show that the RAF has 32,000 personnel.

So far, then, the balance of probability, therefore suggests that despite significant amounts of official evidence and source material from the MoD, the BBC graphic of which The B Word complains is at best based upon research conducted about 14 months ago (the first BBC story) and which paid little, if any, attention to the November 2013 stats (https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/280490/1-november-2013.pdf) which clearly give the 31,000 figure.

The key points then are:

1. The BBC is using an outdated graphic

2. There is no obvious evidence that the MoD has put duff figures out; the attribution at the foot of the graphic is meaningless, since it is a BBC-produced graphic (mis)employing data from MoD sources; it is not an MoD graphic reproduced by the BBC.

3. There is an array of regularly updated data about the figures, plus a baseline of the SDSR and the supporting factsheets and references to the results of the 3 Month exercise to suggest that the available evidence points to it being the that BBC has dropped the ball here, rather than MoD. Even if the MoD has issued one incorrect source (not the graphic), the BBC has relied upon that and not cross checked, even if only to ensure that the graphic remains accurate (which it never was).

[melmothtw]

Bet he doesn't take bribes either!

We give the bribes Fox3, we don't take them.

[LowObservable]

LJ - You're welcome to try. Starting salaries are somewhere in the $20s and your first job will involve captioning pictures of kittens.

[Ivor Fynn]

LJ - You're welcome to try. Starting salaries are somewhere in the $20s and your first job will involve captioning pictures of kittens.

simple enough - "nice pussy"

Ivor:E