h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Earlier today, Ictoan posted a story on the "What news story" thread about a website that shows who is editing Wikipedia entries. As Ictoan immediately noted, " OK - the edits are by individuals and not necessarily reflective of their employers views." But that isn't the line the BBC are taking. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/6947532.stm "Wikipedia 'shows CIA page edits' By Jonathan Fildes Science and technology reporter, BBC News An online tool that claims to reveal the identity of organisations that edit Wikipedia pages has revealed that the CIA was involved in editing entries." Now, this is just irresponsible journalism but, more seriously, Mr Fildes makes absolutely no mention of the BBC edits on George Bush. Just weeks after the BBC was exposed for distorting programmes, here we have the news team deliberately distorting a news item. Can we place any faith in the BBC or other media outlets? Ictoan's post : http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/brunel/F19585?thread=502685&skip=2097&show=1

I'm not sure what you mean by "trust". The BBC story was pretty disposable if you know anything about the internet - an employee of the CIA vandalised the President of Iran's entry and an employee of the Democratic Party in the USA vandalised a rightwing US talk-show host's website. Big deal, frankly. It's a non-story as far as I'm concerned (only if the edits were sanctioned by the organisations which owned the computers would this be a story and that is both unproved and unlikely in both instances) but not an untrue one. How, exactly, has trust been breached?

"vandalised a rightwing US talk-show host's website"

for "website" read "entry".

THIS SITE NEEDS AN EDIT FUNCTION! *coughs*

I agree that the story itself is lightweight. But, in a way, the BBC have spiced it up by accusing the CIA of official involvement. In fact, that's the whole tone of the piece - official organisations deliberately altering articles out of malice or mischief.

Now this is unproveable. There is no evidence this 'journalist' has done much research beyond reading the site. Arguably, this is damaging libel against organisations who, as we here all know, in all likelihood know nothing about the activities of employees on their computers.

Further, a total blind eye is turned to the (at least) two examples on the site of BBC computers being used to insult George Bush.

"Now, this is just irresponsible journalism"

Except, if you read the entire article, it's clear that this was probably a CIA employee joking around (adding "Waaaahh!" to someone's entry is hardly subversion of the truth) and so nothing sinister was going on. The pompous response from the CIA spokesperson which is unconnected with much of what the story is about hardly helps their case, though. Similarly, the report about the computer linked to the Democratic Party editing Rush Limbaugh's entry suggests not sinister intent but childish horseplay.

My personal objection to this article is that it's a non-story - it hints at sinister intent but ends up revealing nothing of the sort. The only "trust" that has been breached here is the trust that the BBC won't waste license-payers money on providing empty "news".

"But, in a way, the BBC have spiced it up by accusing the CIA of official involvement. In fact, that's the whole tone of the piece - official organisations deliberately altering articles out of malice or mischief."

Well, it does open with that tantelising suggestion but the article reveals there's nothing to it. It then does the same for the Democratic Party and then ends up shooting blanks again. The edits regarding The Vatican and Sinn Fein look sinister until it mentions that the items removed are "no longer available" which suggests that there's been a concensus on them being removed (probably for reasons of evidence). I know enough about Wikipedia to know that people removing sections of entries is not tolerated without good reason.

"Further, a total blind eye is turned to the (at least) two examples on the site of BBC computers being used to insult George Bush."

Actually, I'll agree with you about this but I'd regard it as an oversight - the BBC is surprisingly good at mentioning their own failings as part of stories. Certainly more so than most of their rivals who have no such public-service scruples.

Its all to easy to diss. the bbc . It is not above critersism , but at the same time what would take its place if it were broken up or commercialised !!!!!!!!!
Its not perfect , but its not too shody either and good value for the license fee .

best fishes.....tod

Rather a convenient 'oversight', and one I don't buy for a second.

Made me giggle.

So, the thing with IP addresses is they don't necessarily represent individual computers. Tgus could be anyone with a laptop on the BBC's wireless network (so any of its employees most likely).

Still, its amazing what internet anonymity will make people think they can get away with saying. This stuff would never come out in real life, more's the pity.

*tgus = this

Fingers on home row...

SWL,
Seems like you're trying to stir up a storm in a teacup.

I thought the most misleading part of the BBC article was the uncritical echoing of the quote at the end:

"Wikipedia Scanner may prevent an organisation or individuals from editing articles that they're really not supposed to."

Which is, basically, a load of botox, unless no-one in the CIA or any other potentially editing organisation has a PC at home.

Storms on hootoo tend to be rather insipid affairs.

I think the context of this report is important. In the light of events within the BBC of the last few weeks, deliberate distortions and underhand practices, followed by a very public "Mea Culpa" hand-wringing exercise where every employee is urged to examine their impartiality and appreciate the ethics of broadcasting, this comes out. It's a small, fluffy story that is nonetheless distorted in such a way that the casual reader may be left with entirely the wrong impression.

If the BBC continue to distort matters of little consequence, can they be relied upon to report major events with impartiality and integrity?

Someone who can't be bothered even reading a whole article, or who has such limited comprehension that they can't really understand it might end up being misled.
Big deal. Someone like that seems likely to be perpetually underinformed or ill-informed.

The article might be poor writing, but I don't see it as biased. It's hardly underhand if anyone with a brain reading the article can come away with a good idea of what the situation is.

Are you going to start a campaign against having headlines in newspapers?

>>can they be relied upon to report major events with impartiality and integrity?<<<

Absolutely not. To be fair, the BBC were probably the last to indulge in sloppy sensationalism, and are not the worst offender by far, but I see this happening time and time again. The recent Panorama Wi-Fi 'scandal' springs to mind. The media aren't interested in reporting facts, they need to tell stories.

The worst aspect of this by far is in their reporting of science, since science rarely yields the kind of sensational new discoveries that make good headlines, so reporters rountinely draw wild conclusions from data that isn't there. The usual scenario goes: "the results indicate that activity X is associated with an increased chance of between 10% and 90% of condition Y"; "90% of people who do X will catch Y"

The cause is, I speculate, the fact that nowadays journalists are educated in media-related subjects rather than in the subject they are actually reporting on.

There was a recent example whereby the Observer regurgitated the old MMR/autism controversy by completely misreading the results of a study that was designed to look for something completely different. It turned out that the guilty reporter was the Observer's sports correspondent until the week before.

What was really enlightening was the fact that the same story, carrying the same conclusions, started to spring up all over the place, despite the original containing several serious misinterpretations, incorrect quotes from 'experts' and blatant errors. It was obvious that no-one else had done any investigative journalism at all - they merely took the Observer's story at face value and re-wrote it.

I gave up reading the papers several years ago. With TV news you need to maintain a level of scepticism, assimilate the facts and try to ignore the conclusions.

After saying dont diss the bbc , i am now going to do just that !
Watching breakfast news this morning i noticed every news item was domestic . Its getting like the USA where nothing is reported unless america is involved .

best fishes......tod

"Watching breakfast news this morning i noticed every news item was domestic"

I thought that. Well, until I realised I wasn't from Peru or Utah. Unless we've suddenly annexed a big chunk of the Americas whilst I was in bed?