Stuff too silly or unformed for his blog but too long for Twitter
This Independent article makes it sound like the BBC have made some sort of decision to replace Daivd Attenborough as "the voice of BBC nature films, as part of a bid to appeal to a large international market.
If not actively wrong, the tone of the headline and opening paragraphs is certainly misleading.
It seems that the BBC is re-editing footage from the series "Life", which Attenborough narrated, into a cinema film, which Craig will narrate.
But this isn't new. Blue Planet and Planet Earth were both re-edited into films, which were released in the cinema as Deep Blue and Earth respectively. Michael Gambon narrated Deep Blue, and Patrick Stewart narrated Earth in the UK. Both were released internationally.
When the piece says that the film uses "footage from the acclaimed BBC series Life, which has been hosted by Sir David since it first appeared as Life On Earth in 1979", that's wrong. LIfe was a series that aired in 2009. It was narrated by Attenborough, but confusingly doesn't actually count as part of his so-called "Life" series, which ran from Life on Earth to Life in Cold Blood. (Blue Planet and Planet Earth, even though they were narrated by Attenborough, don't count as part of this collection either - I think it comes down to how involved Attenborough is during the production of each series.)
So basically, the big man of British wildlife film is still the big man of British wildlife film.
Fire ants assemble into living rafts
Just as Will and Kate will join hands in matrimony to sail into the future, colonies of 8,000 fire ants can stay afloat by joining claws to form a waterproof raft…
IQ scores reflect motivation as well as ‘intelligence’
According to a new study, IQ scores reflect motivation to take IQ tests as well as intelligence, just as Prince William’s boyish grin reflects his love for his fiancée as well as centuries of inbreeding and privilege…
The many yous in you – what Lydia Fairchild has in common with a sponge and an anemone
Some sponges and anemones are chimeras, created from fusions of individuals that are closely related but just genetically distinct enough to tell apart, just as Wil… oh come on, that’s cheap, even for me…
Divided by language, united by gut bacteria – people have three common gut types
Just as Will and Kate come from different backgrounds and are united by their love for each other, people from different countries and backgrounds can be united by having the same types of gut bacteria…
Kukrisnakes fight for turtle nests with dagger teeth, forked penises and false heads
Female kukrisnakes find and capture turtle nests with their dagger-like teeth, just as Kate Middleton has captured the nation’s heart with her winning smile…
Orchid flowers fool flat-footed flies by faking fungus-infected foliage
The lady’s slipper orchid lures in pollinating flies by mimicking the fungus that they like to eat, just as Will and Kate have lured in the media of the world by mimicking things that are worth giving a toss about…
And so on...
There. See how awful that is? Now, for the love of all that is good, please make it stop. If one more unbearably tedious thing happens this week, I'm going to.. OH GOD.
Not Exactly Rocket Science - http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/
BUT WHAT DOES IT MEAN???
I like to think that the authors knew full well what they were doing.
Here’s an amusing series of emails, exchanged last night and this morning after I came across a press release that looked interesting. Regular readers will know that I don’t write from press releases, so I did what I always do – I asked for a copy of the paper. All details have been redacted as the embargo hasn’t lifted yet.
Me: Can I please get a copy of the paper described in “TITLE”? I will abide by the embargo of DATE.
Press officer: Article attached. This is a descriptive item for JOURNAL NAME. The actual paper with all the technical details hasn't been published yet. I hope this helps.
Me: Do you know when it might be published?
PO: No, but the JOURNAL NAME article was peer reviewed using the data. They just wanted to run a feature about the research. I probably won't run a press release when it is published, as I've done one now.
A bit odd. I rarely see press releases based on feature articles, much less peer-reviewed feature articles. And while I have no problem with doing “upstream” reporting, I have no interest in writing a second-hand account of something based on someone else’s upstream reporting. If the actual data isn’t available, then what I really need to do is to talk to the author. Unfortunately, Google seems to be unusually useless in this instance, as does the author’s institution’s website. I thought it would be quicker if I just asked:
Do you have contact details for LEAD AUTHOR?
Which returned the following reply:
I think you have all you need for a blog.
Ooookay. And that’s a first. I can’t really think that many press officers feel the ability to tell journalists when they’ve had enough material for their reporting, but perhaps this is a “you’re not a journalist, you’re a blogger” thing. At this point, I’ve lost all interest in this story, but this attitude is intriguing. I replied:
Interesting. Do you often tell journalists when you think they've had enough material for their reporting?
And the response:
No, but I sometimes have to prioritise requests, particularly where academics are reluctant participants and I have already asked LEAD AUTHOR to do a number of interviews. If you want to email any specific questions, I'm happy to pass them on.
That’s probably fair enough, although that might have been a better initial response. Never mind – we’re all busy etc. I was happy to leave it here but then I got the following without any further prompting:
For information, I was a journalist for 15 years, which included being a newspaper editor and a magazine publisher. I am therefore suitably qualified to advise journalists. Your blog articles are about half the length of my press release and certainly a lot shorter than the JOURNAL paper, hence why I wondered why you needed yet more information. Still, I'm willing to forward any specific questions you might have as per my previous email but please don't try to patronise me. I'm a bit too long in the tooth.
A treasure trove, this. Firstly, the press release in question is 530 words long and my average blog posts are 800-1000. Unless somehow my correspondent has confused “half” with “double”, I can only think that he’s looked at the front page of the blog and failed to see the “Read the rest of the entry” links.
Secondly, if I ever try to further a conversation by citing my CV, someone please shoot me.
But finally, I think this boils down to a fundamental difference of opinion about the role of a journalist. I’m not a stenographer. I don’t care about this chap’s press release. I want to review the information for myself. That’s why I asked for the paper and that’s why I want to chat to the scientist. All of this really should be obvious to someone who spent 15 years as a journalist but never mind - plenty of other things to write about.
I plan on using this in future comment responses. In the meantime, here's the science: http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/notrocketscience/2011/02/02/monkey-see-monkey-facepalm/
Theme created for Posterous by Obox
