A reply from the BBC !
Discussion
I sent an email to the BBC Look East program regarding their news article on speed cameras, as i considered it very one sided in favour of cameras, and here is their reply......
Dear ledfoot
Thankyou for your email regarding our story last night on speed cameras.
We did not set out last night to do a story about whether speed cameras were good or bad. We were reporting the fact that there had been a dramatic fall in casualties in Suffolk and the claim by the local camera partnership that this was all down to speed cameras. We were also reporting the fact that a massive number of people were still being caught speeding despite the cameras' widespread use. This, says the partnership, is largely due to motorists not knowing what the correct speed limit is, something I have never heard used as an explanation before. The piece probably did come across as one sided but we were unable to find anyone who spoke for any official or unofficial group who wanted to comment on the story. We have a list of people who attack cameras and feel they are unfair but none of them were either appropriate to this story or wanted to speak to us.
To try to "balance" the piece we sent a reporter to services on the M1 (not a supermarket car park) where she spent a good half hour interviewing motorists (and yes they were motorists). She could not find anyone who was opposed to cameras - except for one person whose views did not make sense. That did surprise me but perhaps it is a sign of changing views among motorists and I said that in my report. I must say that I know very few people these days who feel they are a bad thing - most believe they are a necessary evil. You may be interested to know that one of the interviewees we showed had just received points for speeding - yet he still thought cameras were a good idea!
It is a very fair argument and a widely held view that these cameras are used soley to raise revenue. We have covered this in some detail before and when we interviewed the head of the partnership at lunchtime we tackled him on this. Given that his answer was the same as always ("no we are not - we are there to help people drive safely") and given that there was a finite amount of time for the report, I chose to leave this out of my 6.30 piece.
If you are a regular Look East viewer you will know that we have done a number of pieces on the rights and wrongs of speed cameras. Last night's was not such a piece it was reporting a new set of statistics which no one is arguing with. Of course if someone brings out a report saying that speed cameras are bad or dangerous we will be quick to cover it.
I accept that in the world of news how we report something, what we put in, what we leave out, is very much down to a matter of personal judgement and I'm always keen to hear whether viewers think we got it right or wrong. Clearly you feel we did get it wrong last night, I hope this rather lengthy reply has given you an insight into why we did what we did yesterday.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write.
Andrew Sinclair
Senior Reporter - BBC EAST
The Forum
Millenium Plain
Norwich NR2 1BH
www.bbc.co.uk/
>>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 21st January 23:21
Dear ledfoot
Thankyou for your email regarding our story last night on speed cameras.
We did not set out last night to do a story about whether speed cameras were good or bad. We were reporting the fact that there had been a dramatic fall in casualties in Suffolk and the claim by the local camera partnership that this was all down to speed cameras. We were also reporting the fact that a massive number of people were still being caught speeding despite the cameras' widespread use. This, says the partnership, is largely due to motorists not knowing what the correct speed limit is, something I have never heard used as an explanation before. The piece probably did come across as one sided but we were unable to find anyone who spoke for any official or unofficial group who wanted to comment on the story. We have a list of people who attack cameras and feel they are unfair but none of them were either appropriate to this story or wanted to speak to us.
To try to "balance" the piece we sent a reporter to services on the M1 (not a supermarket car park) where she spent a good half hour interviewing motorists (and yes they were motorists). She could not find anyone who was opposed to cameras - except for one person whose views did not make sense. That did surprise me but perhaps it is a sign of changing views among motorists and I said that in my report. I must say that I know very few people these days who feel they are a bad thing - most believe they are a necessary evil. You may be interested to know that one of the interviewees we showed had just received points for speeding - yet he still thought cameras were a good idea!
It is a very fair argument and a widely held view that these cameras are used soley to raise revenue. We have covered this in some detail before and when we interviewed the head of the partnership at lunchtime we tackled him on this. Given that his answer was the same as always ("no we are not - we are there to help people drive safely") and given that there was a finite amount of time for the report, I chose to leave this out of my 6.30 piece.
If you are a regular Look East viewer you will know that we have done a number of pieces on the rights and wrongs of speed cameras. Last night's was not such a piece it was reporting a new set of statistics which no one is arguing with. Of course if someone brings out a report saying that speed cameras are bad or dangerous we will be quick to cover it.
I accept that in the world of news how we report something, what we put in, what we leave out, is very much down to a matter of personal judgement and I'm always keen to hear whether viewers think we got it right or wrong. Clearly you feel we did get it wrong last night, I hope this rather lengthy reply has given you an insight into why we did what we did yesterday.
Thanks for taking the trouble to write.
Andrew Sinclair
Senior Reporter - BBC EAST
The Forum
Millenium Plain
Norwich NR2 1BH
www.bbc.co.uk/
>>> Edited by ledfoot on Friday 21st January 23:21
Nice one for getting in touch and letting them know your views about their coverage of this. Since Tiny Bliar has got Aunty bending over a barrel with her knickers down after the Shipman and Other Sundry Whitewash Reports, the reply isn't surprising. With a few notable exceptions, BBC personnel have to keep a detailed mental map of the Bliar colon to get their job.
Ere we swapped places Steve - odd things happening at Ted Towers
Ere we swapped places Steve - odd things happening at Ted Towers
BBC said:
We did not set out last night to do a story about whether speed cameras were good or bad. We were reporting the fact that there had been a dramatic fall in casualties in Suffolk and the claim by the local camera partnership that this was all down to speed cameras. We were also reporting the fact that a massive number of people were still being caught speeding despite the cameras' widespread use. This, says the partnership, is largely due to motorists not knowing what the correct speed limit is, something I have never heard used as an explanation before.
Er...the casualties are down, and people are still speeding?
Does not sound like the excess speed is causing accidents then! Especially if they are speeding because "they don't know what the speed limit is either! (Why's that anyway - short of signs and paint?)
Bit like they are saying confirming speed does not cause accidents. More like the people are more alert to hazards despite driving a bit over a abitrary limit!
To say "speed cameras are saving lives and a massive number of people are still breaking the speed limit"
does not prove that the casualties are down because of the cameras. It does not prove anything in fact!
BBC said:
To try to "balance" the piece we sent a reporter to services on the M1 (not a supermarket car park) where she spent a good half hour interviewing motorists (and yes they were motorists). She could not find anyone who was opposed to cameras - except for one person whose views did not make sense. That did surprise me but perhaps it is a sign of changing views among motorists and I said that in my report. I must say that I know very few people these days who feel they are a bad thing - most believe they are a necessary evil. You may be interested to know that one of the interviewees we showed had just received points for speeding - yet he still thought cameras were a good idea!
I find that very difficult to believe. bet if I did the same exercise tomorrow - my straw poll would be be much more skewed to the "revenue" raising side.
Bet the reporter avoided the reps (who would not be so daft as to drink the m/way coffee anyway. You'd need gallons of that overpriced luke warm water to get the right amount of caffeine to wake you up any way!)
Me thinks a bit of seleective "random" interview techniques! And some careful editing! You are not telling me PC Daniels did not stutter in his ticking offs on Monday!
I've made the family videos to send to relatives abroad. I know all about how many times you do it to get it "right" and show the well-behaved
bits!
BBC said:
I accept that in the world of news how we report something, what we put in, what we leave out, is very much down to a matter of personal judgement and I'm always keen to hear whether viewers think we got it right or wrong. Clearly you feel we did get it wrong last night, I hope this rather lengthy reply has given you an insight into why we did what we did yesterday.
Reading between the lines - sounds like the BBC man, Andrew S is not 100% convinced of the story either!
ledfoot said:
I sent an email to the BBC Look East program regarding their news article on speed cameras, as i considered it very one sided in favour of cameras, and here is their reply......
[...]
The piece probably did come across as one sided but we were unable to find anyone who spoke for any official or unofficial group who wanted to comment on the story.
Andrew Sinclair
Can you please pass me his telephone number or email address? I'm make sure he can't use THAT excuse again!
*anyone* who drives in Suffolk will instantly tell you as to why there is "massive speeding" in Suffolk.
They *love* low Speed limits. Villages are chock a block full of 20 mph speed limits ; almost anywhere they can.
The most ludicrous act was to reduce the speed limit of the A140 between Ipswich and Diss to 50 mph for its entire length (in Suffolk).
The claim is it is dangerous ; and some of it is ; the bits that go through the unbypassed villages and a few junctions on bends - like the A1120 intersection at Stonham Parva.
However most of it is dead straight. If you look at in
Even Norfolk's Scamera mob (who do the other half of the A140) and Transport Department panned it.
They *love* low Speed limits. Villages are chock a block full of 20 mph speed limits ; almost anywhere they can.
The most ludicrous act was to reduce the speed limit of the A140 between Ipswich and Diss to 50 mph for its entire length (in Suffolk).
The claim is it is dangerous ; and some of it is ; the bits that go through the unbypassed villages and a few junctions on bends - like the A1120 intersection at Stonham Parva.
However most of it is dead straight. If you look at in
Even Norfolk's Scamera mob (who do the other half of the A140) and Transport Department panned it.
At least the guy comes across as fairly balanced and doesn't seem drawn in by the pro scamera propaganda.
www.bbc.co.uk/england/lookeast/biog_andrew_sinclair.shtml
His generic e-mail is look.east@bbc.co.uk although they usually use the format first.last@bbc.co.uk so I'm pretty sure you could get him directly if you wanted
www.bbc.co.uk/england/lookeast/biog_andrew_sinclair.shtml
His generic e-mail is look.east@bbc.co.uk although they usually use the format first.last@bbc.co.uk so I'm pretty sure you could get him directly if you wanted
ledfoot said:
To try to "balance" the piece we sent a reporter to services on the M1...she could not find anyone who was opposed to cameras - except for one person whose views did not make sense. That did surprise me but perhaps it is a sign of changing views among motorists...I must say that I know very few people these days who feel they are a bad thing - most believe they are a necessary evil. You may be interested to know that one of the interviewees we showed had just received points for speeding - yet he still thought cameras were a good idea!
Hmmm...
This is the problem: the mass media present a commonly held truth in reverse, as it were ~ funny how people seem to come over all politically correct and liberalese when a reporter stuffs their mike under the chin and points a camera mugwards...
I'm really sure that the person just benefitting from his three points and a fine when, on realising the significance of the flash in his mirrors, did not utter forth an instinctive "f@cking bastard scamera w@nking back door tax hiking robbing tw@ts," no: they will, instead, have thought "hey-ho, at least the roads are safer for the essential ranks of eco-warriors and cyclists who, although figments of some socialist utopian's deranged wet dream, must be encouraged and me punished for daring to benefit from the progress of man and development of technology per se."
These reporters are basically left wingers with preconceived notions of how things should be and their agenda is obvious.
Worrying.
I don't buy this. Where are the questions about HOW the scameraship can PROVE this. Honestly if a drug company made a claim like "we have launched a new drug and deaths are down due tov our new drug" they would be laughed off the face of the planet. Yet this is exactly what the scameraship is claiming. As MM said more people caugh speeding perhaps proves that speed doesn't kill?
I also thought reporters had researches? I'm sure a researcher could have found either Paul Smith from safe speed or ADB.
Balanced views such as ask the public depend on how the question is phased.
I also thought reporters had researches? I'm sure a researcher could have found either Paul Smith from safe speed or ADB.
Balanced views such as ask the public depend on how the question is phased.
On 27th October 04, 6-30 Look East had a report by Anthony Bartram from Luton & Dunstable Hosp, regarding Hospital Infections.Was not really listening--AB went on to say the hospital was a leader on the subject, which Killed 72,000 people in the UK each year--------The Same as are Killed on our Roads!!!!!!!!!
I thought I had miss heard, so put a video on for the 10-30pm repeat and it Was correct.
Sent a mail to Look East, putting ABD as I am a member, asking How they got to this figure, when days before Bliars had said-3509 deaths.
Received a reply from AB, saying sorry about the Mistake , the L&D Hospital stats were usually good!!!.Does it not show that -Any figures are used and Spoken, without any Brain use, in questioning such info.ALL part of the complete ongoing Brainwash.
I copied to ABD.Seems BBC need to receive a few hundred mails and letters, suggesting contacting ABD for future Drivers side of Balanced opinion.
The programme called NewsWatch on BBC, looks at Viewers complaints such as these, the latest needs to be sent to them-they get the producer on , and do the Biz for biased reporting.
I thought I had miss heard, so put a video on for the 10-30pm repeat and it Was correct.
Sent a mail to Look East, putting ABD as I am a member, asking How they got to this figure, when days before Bliars had said-3509 deaths.
Received a reply from AB, saying sorry about the Mistake , the L&D Hospital stats were usually good!!!.Does it not show that -Any figures are used and Spoken, without any Brain use, in questioning such info.ALL part of the complete ongoing Brainwash.
I copied to ABD.Seems BBC need to receive a few hundred mails and letters, suggesting contacting ABD for future Drivers side of Balanced opinion.
The programme called NewsWatch on BBC, looks at Viewers complaints such as these, the latest needs to be sent to them-they get the producer on , and do the Biz for biased reporting.
I wouldn't trust many people to be honest when interviwed and recorded as to their views on speed cameras.
Most people I guess are scared they'll be targetted if seen to be against them on such an open forum.
Similarly, when stopped for speeding, I guess most are "...sorry officer, yes sir no sir three bags full sir..."
Most people I guess are scared they'll be targetted if seen to be against them on such an open forum.
Similarly, when stopped for speeding, I guess most are "...sorry officer, yes sir no sir three bags full sir..."
Seems his reply is all but begging for someone to step forward and offer an alternative opinion. The style of most local reporting, be it on the box or in a paper, is _not_ to give the interviewee a hard time a la Paxman, but to get several interviewees who will offer differing opinions. If they can't find someone who isn't foaming at the mouth to make the anti-camera case, what are they supposed to do? Regional TV have bugger all resources. They don't have teams of researchers hanging around. As a resul, a great deal of the "news" they present is the rehashing of other people's press releases.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff