5 ms·

This article is giving me a major case of Gell-Mann Amnesia. The writing follows no thread, the article contains no more information than interleaving parts of

by bschne 6y ago

This article is giving me a major case of Gell-Mann Amnesia. The writing follows no thread, the article contains no more information than interleaving parts of two press releases would give you, it's a complete mess. This would not pass for a decent writing assignment at the high-school level — and yet it's published by the BBC somehow. Even the subheadings are weirdly chosen. Was this even touched by a human?

londons_explore 6y ago
This has been BBC News style for a while. Very short paragraphs in a semi-random order, together with a smattering of out of place headings. I assume they must have some internal style document, because it applies to a good chunk of their stories on diverse topics. "The occasional quote which is unsourced, and doesn't have an end quotation mark. Questions have been asked Not unlike this comment really.
blueboo 6y ago
disagree. The first sentence is the lede. Next, a primary source backs it up with a specific quote. Then context is given for the decision. Sci-hub's perspective follows. Then you get several sentences on the police's view, and several on Sci-hub's. It's mechanically straightforward, like most news.
albertgoeswoof 6y ago
It's a press release from the UK government, it's not actual reporting. The BBC tend to release these kind of things a couple of days before a policy announcement. Here's an example: Mar 14 "Ageing equipment puts Army at risk, MPs warn British army armoured vehicle. The British army is likely to find itself "outgunned" in any conflict with Russian forces" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446 Then 3 days later a new UK foreign policy increasing military spending https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391994. The fact check here from the BBC is interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56417924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56417924 What happens here is that voters see the first article, it sits in their mind a bit and they think "well maybe we should increase military spending, we need a good armed forces" then lo and behold their wish comes true a few days later. We're just living in an real world Yes Minister episode.
mcbutterbunz 6y ago
> "illegally access", "removes all barriers", "very expensive", "derail" I suck at writing in general but it just seems so odd to me that the article quotes such short phrases.

by bschne 6y ago

londons_explore 6y ago

This has been BBC News style for a while. Very short paragraphs in a semi-random order, together with a smattering of out of place headings. I assume they must have some internal style document, because it applies to a good chunk of their stories on diverse topics. "The occasional quote which is unsourced, and doesn't have an end quotation mark. Questions have been asked Not unlike this comment really.

blueboo 6y ago

disagree. The first sentence is the lede. Next, a primary source backs it up with a specific quote. Then context is given for the decision. Sci-hub's perspective follows. Then you get several sentences on the police's view, and several on Sci-hub's. It's mechanically straightforward, like most news.

albertgoeswoof 6y ago

It's a press release from the UK government, it's not actual reporting. The BBC tend to release these kind of things a couple of days before a policy announcement. Here's an example: Mar 14 "Ageing equipment puts Army at risk, MPs warn British army armoured vehicle. The British army is likely to find itself "outgunned" in any conflict with Russian forces" https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-56386446 Then 3 days later a new UK foreign policy increasing military spending https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391994 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-56391994. The fact check here from the BBC is interesting: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56417924 https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/56417924 What happens here is that voters see the first article, it sits in their mind a bit and they think "well maybe we should increase military spending, we need a good armed forces" then lo and behold their wish comes true a few days later. We're just living in an real world Yes Minister episode.

mcbutterbunz 6y ago

> "illegally access", "removes all barriers", "very expensive", "derail" I suck at writing in general but it just seems so odd to me that the article quotes such short phrases.