What's new

back to the same old bullshit

Just to update on this, I've received an email from the BBC which basically says they've forwarded it on to the 'relevant staff' and that it may well take longer than their usual 10 days to properly respond.

If 'relevant staff' refers to the author (quite possible seeing as it was a freelance journo) then I don't hold out much hope for a retraction/clarification to the article as I've already directly contacted the author (politely) explaining my concerns and had no response.

Not holding my breath for any positive outcome, but who knows? It might just make the editorial team think twice before approving articles that are headlined in an ambiguous fashion.
 
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...

Not sure I entirely agree with that - but I agree that the entire purpose of the BBC is to be a propaganda mouthpiece, truth is not in its DNA.
 
Further update:

Received a response to my complaint which was basically a 'thanks for your feedback but feck off'.

Being dissatisfied with this I've responded myself saying I'm not happy with the outcome, would like them to clarify by adding a differentiation between industrial grade PG (which is actually used in some commercial antifreezes) and pharma grade PG or remove the reference to eliquid entirely. Also referenced the info from yesterday's summit that suggests public perception of the safety of vaping vs smoking has worsened in the past year due to sloppy journalism and pointed out that this sloppy lournalism could be having real world impact on the health of current smokers that could be put off vaping because of it.

I referred them to their own editorial guidelines again too, part of which say (paraphrasing here) that they shouldn't mislead by editing or only telling half of the story. I still reckon that the antifreeze reference conjures up an image of a poisonous substance and by sketchily referencing eliquid, the article (intentionally or otherwise) promotes a subconscious association between poison and eliquid.

Again, not holding my breath but I am hoping that by 'elevating' the complaint a level they might begin to exercise a bit more caution when referencing vaping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom