Unthreaded
The BBC like any news 'outlet' acts as both an 'agency' and/or a 'source'.
As an 'agency' it repeats/relays news/articles from other sources and allocates origination and responsibility for the content/accuracy to another agency. eg (Voice of America (VoA) reported.) though there is always an inherent concern about being associated to something you haven't checked? But at the end of the day 'Not me Guv' will probably suffice?
If acting as a source (in the UK a prominence) then there is an inherent element of responsibility for the accuracy of the content or claims made in the content.
Example:-
The deceptions behind George Osborne’s Brexit report
".......For anyone who cares about honesty in politics, and the abuse (and reporting) of statistics, this is an interesting case study..........I’m a Europhile, but these are the kinds of tactics that make me want to vote ‘out’ – the appalling level of dishonesty with which the government is making the case. And while Nick Robinson did a brilliant job on Today, the BBC’s website is now Britain’s most-read news source (four times as popular as any newspaper) and it uncritically repeated Osborne’s concocted figure of £4,300. This points to a wider problem the BBC has about the reporting standards in its website, lower than that of its news broadcasts even though they now reach far more people......"
As an agency the BeeB web is correct in reporting what George said .....
But George is not 'another agency' George is a UK politician spreading his message. Is it not the responsibility of 'now Britain’s most-read news source (four times as popular as any newspaper)' to question/investigate such claims?
If not then who? Or does George just get a free Beeb Web ride?
This is not about Brexit, it is about the very difficult role the BeeB has to play 'agency' or 'source' and more too often, on certain germane subjects, the BeeB web sees it easier to default to the former than take on the responsibility of the latter.
Green Sand
re : terminal involuntary ECT in Bangladesh
The BBC story has been through "gathering" and subbing - I doubt that the two tasks are combined in one job. The take-away from the headline and first line of text is "lots of dead" and "rising temperature"
Stewgreen seems to have found it's not unusual.... I wonder at the claimed rise in lightning since 1981 - I'm guessing improved rural communications has impacted dramatically on incident reports.
Other places get a lot more lightning - is it just that risk perception is skewed in Bangladesh at the moment ?
As I said earlier - after a number of incidents over the years - I am quite circumspect about going outside in tropical thunderstorms.
Ah well.... another to add to the list
tomo
Perhaps there are just more people playing golf in Bangöladesh these days ?
ottokring
Christopher Booker on the latest lunacy from the "independent" Climate Change Committee The Fifth Carbon Budget - the most insane Act passed by Parliament.
Of course the only thing the CCC is independent of is intelligence.
Phillip Bratby
SandyS. Agree, but I suspect that many stories from countries like Bangladesh are similar. BBC cannot afford reporters, or even stringers.
I also think some of the confusion may be due to mistranslations (removal of tall trees becomes deforestation). One of the primary reports states that lightening strike deaths are not separately reported.
My main conclusion is that, in this case, the BBC is no better or worse than other western news agencies.
Alan Kendall
AK
With the BBC's budget they should have in-house experts on everything under the sun instead of just doing cut'n'paste on any nonsense that just happens to come along.
Roger Tolson
I'd have thought data on lightening strikes in Bangladesh would not be particularly accurate until very recently if at all. Making data on deaths also difficult to quantitify. Like many countries Bangladesh experienced rapid population growth in the 1960s and 1970s, meaning from 1980 onwards there'd be an increasing number of adults as potential victims. Data on deaths per 1000 would be a more meaningful measure.
Not sure that any News (dis)Service has covered themselves in glory in cutting and pasting this story.
SandyS
Ten minutes on google reveals
1) story also reported by Al jalzeera and AP, who are quoting from two Bangladeshi-language newspapers. Story later picked up by other agencies, including the BBC
2) "offending" sentence refers to the cutting down of tall trees, rather than deforestation (but is in other news agencies stories,
3) "offending" reference to higher temperatures does not refer to climate, but to the repeatedly reported unusually high temperatures at the time and for the previous few months.
4) the BBC failed to mention that blame is given to people's increased exposure to metal equipment.
5)VOA has the most detailed coverage, including statement that lighning strikes have been increasing since 1981
6) expert responsible for temperature statement identified as a "meteorology department official from Dhaka".
I conclude the BBC piece comes from.various Bangladeshi sources and, as far as one can tell, is accurate. The only criticism is (4).
Alan Kendall
Why should they be BBC experts?
Surely they are "experts" with comments the bbc reports?
Also it's not just a BBC story.
Alan Kendall
tomo:
Bangladesh is a very low-lying flat country. The predominant agriculture is rice and prawn/fish culture, hence a lot of the population spend their lives working in rice paddies and shallow lakes where they are the highest objects (aka lightning conductors) over many hectares.
It would be interesting to know if human lightning strikes are more common in other countries with similar low topography, compared to others with more varied topography?