5 ms·

> This headline is very misleading. Intentionally so. That's the most worrisome part. > This isn't a "mostly vegetarian" diet as most people would understand

by qiskit 4y ago

> This headline is very misleading. Intentionally so. That's the most worrisome part. > This isn't a "mostly vegetarian" diet as most people would understand "vegetarian". Amazing how they turned, "anglo-saxon kings ate a human diet ( meat, dairy, vegetables, grains, fruits, etc )" into "anglo-saxon kings ate a mostly vegetarian diet". I admit I'm not a fan of the bbc, but if they are willing to be this misleading about vegetarian diets, how misleading are they on other stories.

thablackbull 4y ago
Quite a lot actually. > The BBC misrepresented my views this morning, and I admit I'm stunned. [...] I spent three years doing field research on that myth and wrote an Oxford University Press book debunking it. [1] [1] http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2021/12/bbc-misrepresents-my-views-on-debt-trap.html http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2021/12/bbc-misrepresent...
- ALittleLight 4y ago
  In high school an essay was returned to me with a word I had used, "probably", struck out in red. I went to ask the teacher about it and she told me that I should not use the word "probably" when writing as it did not sound confident. My writing would be better without the word. I reread the sentence and it did sound more assertive and direct without "probably." I then asked my teacher what I should write if I meant to convey that something was probably true, but that I actually wasn't certain or all that confident about it. She was stumped. I can easily see how advice like that leads to "reporting" like this. Some editor goes "Hey, cut this segment, we can't use this, it's confusing, and the story will sound better without it." The author's postscript, where he seems to forgive the BBC, is also pretty bad. Imagine what the editor will learn - "I edited a story to make it clearer and punchier. The expert complained, but the complaint went away when we said 'Sorry'. " If the editor realizes he inverted the meaning of his expert and completely got away with it - well, that will be a counter-productive lesson from the standpoint of accuracy in news. The news has the incentive to be interesting, simple, engaging - all that. None of this nuance stuff. If editors get carte blanche for being new... I don't think that even a new editor should have trouble with the concept of "Don't invert what your expert says."
  - bumbledraven 4y ago
    > I then asked my teacher what I should write if I meant to convey that something was probably true, but that I actually wasn't certain or all that confident about it. Not for school papers, but how about: "I guess [something]."
    - ALittleLight 4y ago
      I think the right choice is to quantify or bound what you mean. "The chance of X is 52%" sounds pretty confident and assertive. If you can't be that precise, then "For reasons X, Y, and Z this is likely, though not certain." I think "probably" is completely fine though.

by qiskit 4y ago

thablackbull 4y ago

Quite a lot actually. > The BBC misrepresented my views this morning, and I admit I'm stunned. [...] I spent three years doing field research on that myth and wrote an Oxford University Press book debunking it. [1] [1] http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2021/12/bbc-misrepresents-my-views-on-debt-trap.html http://www.chinaafricarealstory.com/2021/12/bbc-misrepresent...

ALittleLight 4y ago
In high school an essay was returned to me with a word I had used, "probably", struck out in red. I went to ask the teacher about it and she told me that I should not use the word "probably" when writing as it did not sound confident. My writing would be better without the word. I reread the sentence and it did sound more assertive and direct without "probably." I then asked my teacher what I should write if I meant to convey that something was probably true, but that I actually wasn't certain or all that confident about it. She was stumped. I can easily see how advice like that leads to "reporting" like this. Some editor goes "Hey, cut this segment, we can't use this, it's confusing, and the story will sound better without it." The author's postscript, where he seems to forgive the BBC, is also pretty bad. Imagine what the editor will learn - "I edited a story to make it clearer and punchier. The expert complained, but the complaint went away when we said 'Sorry'. " If the editor realizes he inverted the meaning of his expert and completely got away with it - well, that will be a counter-productive lesson from the standpoint of accuracy in news. The news has the incentive to be interesting, simple, engaging - all that. None of this nuance stuff. If editors get carte blanche for being new... I don't think that even a new editor should have trouble with the concept of "Don't invert what your expert says."
- bumbledraven 4y ago
  > I then asked my teacher what I should write if I meant to convey that something was probably true, but that I actually wasn't certain or all that confident about it. Not for school papers, but how about: "I guess [something]."
  - ALittleLight 4y ago
    I think the right choice is to quantify or bound what you mean. "The chance of X is 52%" sounds pretty confident and assertive. If you can't be that precise, then "For reasons X, Y, and Z this is likely, though not certain." I think "probably" is completely fine though.