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

I think we must be speaking a different language Zagreb (or should I call you Humpty Dumpty?).

To my mind, the sentence "28 day limit inadequate" would mean that the 28 day limit was inadequate right now, not that it might be inadequate at some unspecified time in the future. Now, the actual sentence used is "28 day limit 'inadequate'" which changes the meaning to imply that this is the conclusion of the report itself rather than the opinion of the BBC. To me, the meaning of the sentence is clear and unambiguous.

So, let's move on to your deduction. The words used are "entirely possible" and "perhaps increasingly likely". Thus it is possible that new evidence at some unspecified time in the future might lead to a different conclusion (but of course, because of the meaning of the word possible, it's also possible that the opposite is true). The report then goes on to say that the 28 day limit "may well prove inadequate in the future" (but again, from the meaning of the words involved, it may not).

From all these heavily qualified, highly speculative statements, you are happy to write "Hence "28 day limit 'inadequate'"". My understanding of the word "hence" is that it implies a logical deduction: from the truth of the preceding statement(s), the following statement is true. Clearly you can't deduce that the limit is inadequate now from the mere possibility that it might be inadequate in the future.

So the only way I can resolve this is to ask: do you think that the title "28 day limit 'inadequate'" means only that the word 'inadequate' has been used in a sentence in a report about the 28 day limit? If so, the title "28 day limit 'sufficient'" would be equally applicable. I propose that if two sentences which appear to be diametrically opposed are both equally acceptable, then neither sentence means anything, and the BBC may as well have written "All mimsy were the borogoves" as the title.

Some technical background on the issue of the 28-day limit
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/07/06/90_days_terror_law_analysis/

I saw an interview recently with Kate Adie , where she bemoaned the quality of news reporting in general.

When she was doing reports from abroad, she was sent out to find a story and report back. For instance, gorilla poaching in Africa. She would be expected to present an in-depth half-hour report within a few weeks - a 45 second vox for the news and the rest in a documentary style.

With the advent of 24 hr news and portable satellite links, the pressure is on reporters to report *something* to fill airtime - and to be able to do so several times a day. Inevitably, the reporter has no time to do any research or indeed utilising any journalistic ability. Under these strictures, is it any wonder that the quality of reporting has fallen through the floor.

Paxman was a novelty at first - a presenter who aggressively interviewed politicians, wow!! His initial interviews showed up unprepared politicians as bumbling fools. But the politicians soon got wise to this so Paxman has resorted to just being downright rude and hectoring. His sneering, superior manner gets right up my nose.

"I think we must be speaking a different language Zagreb (or should I call you Humpty Dumpty?)."

If you're going to insult me then I'm going to choose to ignore you.

"To my mind, the sentence "28 day limit inadequate" would mean that the 28 day limit was inadequate right now, not that it might be inadequate at some unspecified time in the future. Now, the actual sentence used is "28 day limit 'inadequate'" which changes the meaning to imply that this is the conclusion of the report itself rather than the opinion of the BBC. To me, the meaning of the sentence is clear and unambiguous."

The headline quotes something in the report. This is standard practice for BBC online news. It puts quote marks around it identifying it as a quote and thus making it clear to most people that it is not a statement of fact.

The report itself (the important thing in news, not the headlines) makes clear that the "inadequate" part is only a quote. The report gives full details of what the report says and what those who agree and disagree with it say. It is a clear report that doesn't push any sort of line. This doesn't seem to be good enough for you.

You have read your own reading into the headline, insisted only one interpretation (yours) can be made and then insult the headline writer accusing him of being an "idiot" or an "ideologue" - no possible alternative seems to offer itself up to you. Has it occured to you that headline writers at BBCi have to do hundreds of these a week (if not a day) and simply create snappy headlines like this (bit of info followed by a quote) all the time? Has it occured to you that they can't really be bothered to think of devious "slants" to add to them which would be completely pointless given that the news report itself contains none? Has it occured to you that your sophistry is exactly as ridiculous as those that claimed that the way BBC reporters pronounced Paul Wolfwitz's name was evidence of an anti-semitic conspiracy? They could "prove" it with a lot of wind and insinuation too and I've long since written them off as cranks.

"So the only way I can resolve this is to ask: do you think that the title "28 day limit 'inadequate'" means only that the word 'inadequate' has been used in a sentence in a report about the 28 day limit? If so, the title "28 day limit 'sufficient'" would be equally applicable. I propose that if two sentences which appear to be diametrically opposed are both equally acceptable, then neither sentence means anything, and the BBC may as well have written "All mimsy were the borogoves" as the title."

I'd do what most people do and read the report. The headline, as I've tried to say, is just that. Its content is fairly meaningless next to the report.

If the report itself contained obvious bias then you would most certainly have a point. As it is, as I've said, you seem to be pushing the same sort of line that anti-BBC media often do: using sophistry and nitpicking to create bias and conspiracy where there is none.

To further my point about BBCi headlines:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/5162416.stm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5163912.stm

a few words followed by a quote is standard practice. There's loads of headlines like this every day. The headline writers probably churn them out at their desks looking through the report for the "key" two words and then a quote to create the impression of an interesting story to lead the reading into reading the whole report ("why was the missile test a failure, I wonder, who said it was a failure?").

The "28 days" report was almost certainly exactly the same. I can't think of a single credible reason why some BBCi minion would care enough to give himself more work in order to create a political slant that would be negaded by the thoroughness of the article. However, I can imagine said minion thinking the "inadequate" quote was the one that would do and leaving it at that.

Of course, a better headline could arguably be created that more fully-reflects the full report but that's not the point. For starters, BBCi workers shouldn't have to create headlines that can be thoroughly politically vetted or the Sun and Daily Mail would have a Beeb-bashing field-day. Secondly, you don't merely claim that the headline could be misleading (which is true, as with many headlines) you accuse the writer of being either an "idiot" or an "ideologue" therefore accusing him of being hopeless at his job (which I would say is untrue and if your exacting standards were applied nobody would want to work for BBCi because the anti-BBC press would have a field day) or of having deliberately created the headline for devious political purposes (unprovable and, as I argued above) absurd.

"So the only way I can resolve this is to ask: do you think that the title "28 day limit 'inadequate'" means only that the word 'inadequate' has been used in a sentence in a report about the 28 day limit? If so, the title "28 day limit 'sufficient'" would be equally applicable. I propose that if two sentences which appear to be diametrically opposed are both equally acceptable, then neither sentence means anything, and the BBC may as well have written "All mimsy were the borogoves" as the title."

If someone could be quoted as having said the 28 days limit was "sufficient" then that could indeed have been used as the headline. But the full story is in the article which, as I've said, is what the BBC is reporting. The headline is just that, a headline to draw people into reading the full article. Nit-picking over which quote should be in the headline is absurd. In the theoretical case you cite, either headline would have done. They appear diametrically opposed only because of those they quote are. And since the headlines are presenting a quote as just that (ie not a fact) the headline is not, in fact, taking a solid point of view. So, rather than being two headlines taking a different point of view they would be the same headline ending on a different quote and the person quoted would have a different point of view rather than the headline.

Quotes in a headline cannot be taken as stating fact. In fact, quotation marks are widely taken as removing something's solid legitimacy.

Which of these headlines sounds like it's stating a fact?

PRIME MINISTER WINS STUNNING VICTORY

PRIME MINISTER "WINS STUNNING VICTORY"

The second of these is clearly quoting someone. The first is clearly making a statement of what the writer believes to be fact. In fact the second one plays-down the victory, even if it is genuinely stunning. It even be seen as mocking. (consider how words like "freedom" and "democracy" are placed in quotes by people mocking them or the use of them in context)

To go back to your accusations, if the headline had been "28 DAYS INADEQUATE" you would have been in your rights to accuse BBCi of distorting the report since that is a statement of fact whilst the "inadequate" in the report is a selected quote from a part of it. Since it is presented as a quote it cannot be accused of bias or of distorting the report. As you say, a better headline could be created but it's unfair on BBCi headline-writers to expect them to carefully vet every single headline for potential bias. As I said, this sort of nit-picking is what one expects from the obsessive anti-BBC media.

The BBC's job is to report news in a full, impartial and unbiased way. It largely manages this and remains one of the best news sources in the world. If we are going to be concerned about bias in the BBC it should be at obvious bias in a full report, not the choice of a mere quote in a mere headline to a perfectly good article. This sort of thing does not encourage good standards, it encourages people to throw up their arms in frustration. If you really want to encourage good standards in journalism then point out glaring bias in full reports - the end result that people read or hear. There are examples of this (I cited the BBC's reporting of the Islamist militia capturing Mogadishu in Somalia as a good example of poor and arguably biased reporting) that need to be rooted out.

Zagreb,

I agree that this is a small thing in isolation. What I worry about is that it isn't happening in isolation. My personal opinion is that since the Beeb got in trouble over the David Kelly business they have been reflexively subservient to authority. This finds expression in many small ways, of which the example we're talking about here is one. The headline writer hasn't understood the article he's writing a headline for, and has written a headline whose sense is the opposite of what it should be. Given that the article is very clear, you have to assume he didn't even read it. He probably flicked his eyes over it and saw the word 'inadequate'. Since the government wants it to be true that the 28 day limit is inadequate, writing "28 day limit 'inadequate'" feels safe to him. Thus, errors tend to be favourable to the government's position.

"If someone could be quoted as having said the 28 days limit was "sufficient" then that could indeed have been used as the headline."

Well, the select committee report itself says this. Not directly of course. It asks whether the 28 day limit is 'sufficient' and then answers yes.

"If you really want to encourage good standards in journalism then point out glaring bias in full reports - the end result that people read or hear."

The Beeb largely avoids glaring bias because it's easy to spot. There are many other sorts of bias which are less easy to spot which it doesn't avoid. The independent report they commissioned into their Middle East reporting details some of this.

Dogster - I made the same comment on the David Kelly affair, but lost it due to server downtime, and I'm not online much at the moment. The BBC has pretty much been vindicated by future events over what it was villified for at the time - in my opinion.

I think we're seeeing another form of Government censorship, and the BBC is reacting to the perceived threat it feels. I think this shows in what doesn't make the news, as well as what's in it.

I agree, and even at the time it was pretty obvious that the BBC was in the right and that the government was getting them on a technicality.