It is intriguing sometimes to see how the reporting of a story relates to the facts. Unfortunately, unless you are the subject of the story, or are part of it, you don't get to see how the facts and the reporting diverge. This week, however, I've had a ringside seat for a developing news story - the publication of a House of Lords report on food waste. It's been interesting, if not a little disheartening...
For example, much of the reporting, including Liberal Democrat Voice, claims that the report calls for BOGOFs to be banned, which is funny, because it doesn't. Instead, it calls for the supermarkets to rethink their strategy, as such offers on short life perishables are acknowledged, not least by the supermarkets themselves, to be the cause of significant wastage.
And it becomes clear that journalists and reporters don't really have, or make, time to do any real research other than a scan of a summary. Entertainingly, Iain Dale, interviewing Ros on LBC this morning, asked if this would impact on his use of Radox, in response to which Ros merely noted that Radox wasn't food. I'm not sure that I would have been quite so courteous...
It also demonstrates that, too often, the media feed off of each other, so a mistake made in an early report is simply transmitted on to more and more people, leading to misinformation and misunderstanding.
Reassuringly, those people who understand the real issues, from the National Farmers Union to FareShare UK, have broadly welcomed the report. Hopefully, this will lead to some concrete action to reduce wastage levels and provide a steer to the authorities in terms of what might be done.
2 comments:
Why are you surprised?
Would the Wakefield MMR scandal ever have happened if journalists had done their jobs properly?
The standard of reporting of anything that could be regarded as in any way 'scientific' has been absolutely appalling. As you say, almost no journalists are prepared to take the time to understand the issue!
Post a Comment