What's new

back to the same old bullshit

steffijade

steffijade

Achiever
Joined
Jul 11, 2012
Messages
3,405
So after the relatively positive portrayal of vaping on that trust me I'm a doctor thing, normal service is resumed :

BBC News - How often is 'antifreeze' added to food and drink?

A misleading headline that inevitably links to eliquid, with the differentiation between diethylene glycol and propylene glycol buried halfway into the article.

It's going to be a long old slog to try and wean the mainstream media off this scaremongering, misleading, sensationalised approach when it comes to negative portrayal of vaping.
 
Last edited:
already twittered about this bullshit article
war on PG = "antifreeze" bollox chunt-fuckery
 
Aye, I've put a complaint in to BBC about the article asking them to change the title to 'Media hysteria leads to misconception about safe substance'.

I've also requested that they request comment from ECITA before publishing content that relates to eliquids.. if they did that, it would at least give Kath a chance to offer a balanced perspective, like they're supposed to do as part of their charter iirc.
 
 
Since when did the bbc ever tell the truth ??
The whole point in journalism is to create discussion, not to tell the truth.
 
Blackhack said:
Since when did the bbc ever tell the truth ??
The whole point in journalism is to create discussion, not to tell the truth.
Click to expand...

The BBC isn't supposed to be run like a tabloid newspaper.

Quotes from BBC editorial guidelines :


There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion. Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC's impartiality. In such cases, we should continue to report where the consensus lies and give it due weight. However, even if it may be neither necessary nor appropriate to seek out voices of opposition, our reporting should resist the temptation to use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident.

We must challenge our own assumptions and experiences and also those which may be commonly held by parts of our audience. BBC output should avoid reinforcing generalisations which lack relevant evidence, especially when applying them to specific circumstances. This might occur in the fields of politics, race, charity, science, technology, medicine or elsewhere. These can present some of the most difficult challenges to asserting that the BBC does not hold its own opinion. Care should be taken to treat areas of apparent consensus with proper rigour. Where necessary, consult Editorial Policy.

News in whatever form must be treated with due impartiality, giving due weight to events, opinion and main strands of argument. The approach and tone of news stories must always reflect our editorial values, including our commitment to impartiality.

Using quotation marks as a vehicle to denote irony might be fine for the likes of me, but I'm not a publicly funded corporation with a charter. The BBC IS and we should expect better from them.

I realise that they are wide open for coercion by those holding the purse strings (the current government) and as such, they seem to be more of a propaganda vehicle for current government policy of late, but that doesn't mean that they can't be brought under public scrutiny and challenged for perceived inaccuracies/bias.


 
Got them engaged on twitter.. trying to point out the difference between industrial grade PG and pharma grade PG and asked them to amend the article to emphasise that eliquid uses pharma, not industrial.

Referred them to guidelines and in particular this : "When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth."

Not holding my breath, but you never know, they might just have a bit of integrity and think about clarification.
 
steffijade said:
So after the relatively positive portrayal of vaping on that trust me I'm a doctor thing, normal service is resumed :

BBC News - How often is 'antifreeze' added to food and drink?

A misleading headline that inevitably links to eliquid, with the differentiation between diethylene glycol and propylene glycol buried halfway into the article.

It's going to be a long old slog to try and wean the mainstream media off this scaremongering, misleading, sensationalised approach when it comes to negative portrayal of vaping.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry, did I read the same article? Yes the Headline of the article might be misleading and the first paragraph refers to " an Antifreeze ingredient", which is essentially true - PG mixed with water is used as an aircraft de-icer and is dyed pink and used as Marine Antifreeze, it's also used in enviromentally friendly automotive antifreeze. - nothing in the first paragraph is misleading or untrue

There follows a fluff paragraph describing the brand and it's popularity - I'm prepared to beleive Nielsen on the claims in this paragraph

The article then spends a paragraph explaining that the drink has been removed from shelves and explains why. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

Another paragraph explains that there is often a difference in permitted ingredients between countries. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

The next paragraph points out that the reference to antifreeze is misleading in that PG is not the poisonous Di-Ethylene Glycol used in the Australian wine scandal of 1985. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

There follows a paragraph saying that while PG is not without controversy it is a common food ingredient then gives some figures - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

this is the paragraph everyone seems to be upset about - Propylene glycol is also used in e-cigarette manufacturing, says Chris Kinnserley, a food safety expert, though some users have raised concerns that it can cause an allergic reaction, causing throat irritation. As a result some e-cigarette manufacturers have swapped out propylene glycol for vegetable glycerine, a plant-based alternative also used in the food and drink industry. Nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue, in fact it is probably erring on the side of caution. We know for a fact people can be allergic to PG and get sore throats, in fact we have several threads on this very forum dealing with exactly that - and several members who vape VG only liquids because PG Irritates their throats...

Next follows a paragraph in which the Sazerac company try to spin the cockup by by calling it a "Technical compliance issue" instead of just saying we accidentally sent some US recipe to Europe by mistake - which people would understand, they then give some stats about PG - While the spin is pure bullshit nothing in the paragraph is actually untrue.

Then theres a sentence saying it will be back on the shelves in three weeks - fine fair enough...

All in all this seems to be a perectly legitimate article, fairly accurately reported in a simple declarative style. Just because it happens to mention E-liquid doesnt mean it is against E-liquid - Just that it is a hot topic at the minute and something that can easily be found to contain PG using a search engine. It doesn't actually profess any opinion on E-liquid and does not make any unsubstantiated claims. Just because it isnt reporting E-liquid in glowing terms doesnt make it bollocks, bad, bullshit or any of the other criticisms I've seen...

I will now await the inevitable lynch mob...:angrymob::angrymob:
 
Tubbyengineer said:
I'm sorry, did I read the same article? Yes the Headline of the article might be misleading and the first paragraph refers to " an Antifreeze ingredient", which is essentially true - PG mixed with water is used as an aircraft de-icer and is dyed pink and used as Marine Antifreeze, it's also used in enviromentally friendly automotive antifreeze. - nothing in the first paragraph is misleading or untrue

There follows a fluff paragraph describing the brand and it's popularity - I'm prepared to beleive Nielsen on the claims in this paragraph

The article then spends a paragraph explaining that the drink has been removed from shelves and explains why. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

Another paragraph explains that there is often a difference in permitted ingredients between countries. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

The next paragraph points out that the reference to antifreeze is misleading in that PG is not the poisonous Di-Ethylene Glycol used in the Australian wine scandal of 1985. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

There follows a paragraph saying that while PG is not without controversy it is a common food ingredient then gives some figures - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.

this is the paragraph everyone seems to be upset about - Propylene glycol is also used in e-cigarette manufacturing, says Chris Kinnserley, a food safety expert, though some users have raised concerns that it can cause an allergic reaction, causing throat irritation. As a result some e-cigarette manufacturers have swapped out propylene glycol for vegetable glycerine, a plant-based alternative also used in the food and drink industry. Nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue, in fact it is probably erring on the side of caution. We know for a fact people can be allergic to PG and get sore throats, in fact we have several threads on this very forum dealing with exactly that - and several members who vape VG only liquids because PG Irritates their throats...

Next follows a paragraph in which the Sazerac company try to spin the cockup by by calling it a "Technical compliance issue" instead of just saying we accidentally sent some US recipe to Europe by mistake - which people would understand, they then give some stats about PG - While the spin is pure bullshit nothing in the paragraph is actually untrue.

Then theres a sentence saying it will be back on the shelves in three weeks - fine fair enough...

All in all this seems to be a perectly legitimate article, fairly accurately reported in a simple declarative style. Just because it happens to mention E-liquid doesnt mean it is against E-liquid - Just that it is a hot topic at the minute and something that can easily be found to contain PG using a search engine. It doesn't actually profess any opinion on E-liquid and does not make any unsubstantiated claims. Just because it isnt reporting E-liquid in glowing terms doesnt make it bollocks, bad, bullshit or any of the other criticisms I've seen...

I will now await the inevitable lynch mob...:angrymob::angrymob:
Click to expand...

No lynch mob luv. ;)

The point is that the article doesn't clarify that eliquid uses pharma grade PG and that lack of clarification leads to an inference that the same ingredient used in antifreeze is used in eliquid.

It's a subtle distinction, but it's also an important one. Anyone who isn't aware of that distinction could well view that article and just see the word antifreeze screaming out at them. When the article then goes on to say that eliquid contains PG, the natural inference is that eliquid is akin to antifreeze and the popular image of antifreeze is that it's poisonous.

The ambiguity of allowing that inference just serves to reinforce negative perceptions of vaping and plus which, it seems to go against the editorial guidelines I linked.

If we want a more balanced, more positive portrayal of vaping in the mainstream media, then the people working in the media need to be informed and educated. Hopefully, they will take the distinction on board and refrain from causing inferences like this... hopefully. ;)
 
Tubbyengineer said:
......................

The next paragraph points out that the reference to antifreeze is misleading in that PG is not the poisonous Di-Ethylene Glycol used in the Australian wine scandal of 1985. - nothing in this paragraph is misleading or untrue.....................
Click to expand...


Hence the use of 'scarequotes' in the title - it's referring to the use of the word 'antifreeze' in other reports.

Tubbyengineer said:
........I will now await the inevitable lynch mob...:angrymob::angrymob:
Click to expand...


I thought it was pretty balanced. Lets circle the wagons:grouphug:.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom