I've had a response from BBC Online about their energy-saving light bulbs scare stories. Below is said response, followed by my reply. I'll report back if I get a further response... Stu ;-)
From: NewsOnline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
Date: 8 January 2008 13:47:42 GMT
Subject: FW: BBC Online stories about low-energy light bulbs
Many thanks for your message, and interest in the site.
The story about migraines was flagged up to us by the Migraine Association, the leading UK charity in the area. After this was published we were contacted about the second story - on skin complaints - by the Skin Care Campaign, who had read the migraine story, and thought we would be interested in highlighting research which had come to their attention. I have no knowledge of any orchestrated campaign of media manipulation.
With regard to your comments on inverted commas, you are correct that their use is to signify a claim, rather than a fact. I believe to be a perfectly clear, and justified device - anybody reading the stories can be in doubt about the status of the claims.
Kind regards,
Richard Warry
Health editor
BBC News website
Date: 8 January 2008 15:30:10 GMT
To: NewsOnline <newsonline@bbc.co.uk>
Subject: Re: BBC Online stories about low-energy light bulbs
Dear Mr Warry
Thank you for your quick response. I appreciate you replying with the origination of the stories and I'm relieved that they came from different sources.
However, although legitimate as these charities are, they have, in effect, lobbied you. I work in marketing and I'm very aware how news organisations are fed "stories" by the PR departments of companies/charities etc. These stories need very careful handling, and I believe that the BBC has failed in this instance.
I well understand the use of "inverted commas" in headlines, but I reject your claim that they are justifiable because readers understand that the words within are a claim. People visit BBC Online, watch BBC News, listen to BBC Radio, read CEEFAX etc because they trust the BBC to assess the truth behind news stories. By having a headline "Low-energy bulbs 'cause migraine'", the BBC is giving the impression to readers that they endorse the validity of the story. However, like the use of the term "so-called" this is a cop out to justify sloppy and sensational tabloid-style journalism and the BBC is supposedly better than that. I understand that "The PR department of a campaigning charity has given us a Press Release that claims the old kind of fluorescent bulbs may cause migraines in a very few people, but there is nothing beyond anecdotal evidence to prove it" isn't a sexy headline, but at least it would have been truthful.
Furthermore, by "reporting" on these stories with multiple sensational stories a few days apart, the BBC has now created the impression that there are whole heap of health problems connected with low-energy lightbulbs. In all three stories the reader needs to thoroughly read right to the end of the story to realise how small each so-called issue actually is.
Yesterday and today's newspapers are now full of medical panic stories about what is actually a series of single-issue, biased stories generated by special interest groups, helped by a compliant media. It's great for the Skincare Campaign ("Campaign" being the clue there) and the Migraine Association (their "press person" Karen Manning has been engaged on the phone all day and can't be contacted apart from between radio and TV interviews - "because of the BBC story" as their receptionist told me), but it's not great for truth.
Surely you acknowledge some responsibility here?
Kind regards, etc
Car glass is also instrumental in prohibiting much of the sound and debris of the road from bombarding.
Posted by: texas auto glass | May 25, 2011 at 13:08