the bounder - Latest Comments

Re: Investigative Journalism

Rob Lindsay — Thu, 12 Nov 2009 11:46:26 -0000

Not much? The toilet folded away somewhere! Where did it go?

Re: Investigative Journalism

Karen Thomas — Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:42:26 -0000

well, well, well - I will look at these loos very differently from here on out!

Re: Data Visualisation

pigsonthewing — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:00:41 -0000

Not to mention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_humorous_u...

Re: Data Visualisation

pigsonthewing — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 14:57:29 -0000

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_unusual_un...

Re: flogos flying logos

roybarlow — Wed, 16 Sep 2009 08:09:05 -0000

Flogos are now available here in the U.K Tel:01202-576622

Re: Cat-eat Crunch?

sharadjha1 — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:27:57 -0000

:-/

Re: Chinese Twispers

Katchooo — Fri, 14 Aug 2009 07:00:48 -0000

It's sub-editing gone wrong all over again!

These RT edits remind me of the notorious Giles Coren sub-edits re 'looking for a nosh (slang for bl0w j0b)' and 'looking for nosh' (as in a bite to eat).

A subtle difference but a cock-up of gigantic proportions (in Giles' head anyway):

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2008/jul/23/med...

Re: Did sucess peak in 2004?

bounder — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:11:56 -0000

I think you tend to lose the "as" in headlines. This is a combined search that dos indeed suggest that the world has steadily got less successful since 2004: http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=%22haile...

Re: Did sucess peak in 2004?

Daz — Thu, 13 Aug 2009 10:04:58 -0000

Whilst it does look like you're right about 2004, does anyone really use the phrase "hailed a success"?

I would have thought the more conventional phrase is "hailed as a success".

Which also peaked in 2004.

Interestingly "hailed as success" indicates a massive dip in 2004.

There you go.

Re: Google’s magic anus

Rednuob — Sat, 25 Jul 2009 12:08:54 -0000

im sorry but wtf? i dont understand this picture and what it has to do with google

Re: The End of the Line

brendadada — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:05:03 -0000

Yeah, just get on and do it. Applying for funding is just one hurdle. If you get it there will be strings, including forced timescales, ongoing monitoring and evluation criteria, and boring form filling. All that can be enough to make the funding cost more in time than you get in money.

Plus often, it becomes their project, not yours, logo-laden and corporate looking. Arts Lottery used to be mildly better at that than Arts Council.

Re: The End of the Line

deborahliving — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:56:41 -0000

. . . I don't mean 'tick boxes' as get all cynical about it and stuff, and I certainly wouldn't advocate CHASING pots of money, but if it's something you believe in it can be really positive to see where your ideas fit into the bigger scheme of things . . . and can have a really powerful effect on everyone connected to it, especially when you see other people take ownership of your idea and watch it become something else you couldn't even have dreamed of. For instance, the mapping projects you details above, including the emotional mapping, that would be SO powerful if it were used in the context of dementia, or as a cultural studies / community cohesion type thing.

Re: The End of the Line

bounder — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:42:33 -0000

Cheers Deborah. To be honest tho' I don't want to tick funders boxes, just do stuff - which is perhaps why funded work isn't for me. Something to think about, indeed.

Re: The End of the Line

deborahliving — Tue, 21 Jul 2009 08:39:51 -0000

My experience of putting in bids is that you have to clearly demonstrate the need for the project. What immediately springs to mind to me is Birmingham's 'Buzzin' About' project which helps people with mental health difficulties use public transport. Could you work with this group, and with a partner organisation to realise the project? I can put you in touch if you like. It's a good idea. You have great ideas. Don't get disheartened. You just have to tick the funders' boxes, tis all.

Re: American Estate Agents

jessica123456 — Wed, 15 Jul 2009 05:05:29 -0000

thanks for sharing information with us...
nice blog.

___________________
Jessica
the best price for best entertainment

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

dave harte — Tue, 09 Jun 2009 08:06:00 -0000

The relevant sections from Citizenship Studies (http://is.gd/RRFP):
"The study of citizenship should include: how information is used in public debate and policy formation, including information from the media and from pressure and interest groups."

"The curriculum should provide opportunities for students to use and interpret different media and ICT both as sources of information and as a means of communicating ideas."

It's debates like this about discourse, truth, impartiality etc. that schoolkids are probably studying as we speak.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

dunc — Sun, 07 Jun 2009 14:27:30 -0000

I think it's covered as part of Citizenship KS 3 & 4 - http://is.gd/RRFP

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

Andy Mabbett — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 16:13:30 -0000

Perhaps newspapers use "unique" like they use "exclusive"? As for dictionaries, the OED (online) gives, for the former, "Of which there is only one; one and no other; single, sole, solitary... That is or forms the only one of its kind; having no like or equal..."

When I was at school, we were taught to read between the lines, over thr medias use of such terms. Does that happen today? Or have such considerations been swept aside by the National Curriculum?

Re: Cat-eat crunch two - bargain edition

lucie — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 09:32:41 -0000

please keep on writing about cats' food or anything else about kitties, i hadn't laughed like that in ages..! many thanks.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

bounder — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 04:57:05 -0000

Yes I'm being pedantic, but you could say "the Birmingham Mail, a newspaper about Aston Villa" — would that be right?

I was trying to make a more general point about how the conventions of msm (however technologically they publish) — things like writing that people have "said" stuff, whether it's copied from a press release, a blog, or watched on the TV (or feeling the need to explain everything from scratch every time an issue comes us) are actually making the facts more difficult to see.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

Chris — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 21:50:43 -0000

Pete writes about stuff including Birmingham on his blog, so no inaccuracy there. Also, ditto the slightly pedantic point about the word unique (although unusual might be a better word). Actually, I can't see anything particularly misleading in the article, especially with regards to the substantive issues. It looks to me like one of those situations where those closest to an issue are left quibbling over nuances, and that can happen with any story, whether it's published online or off.

I think the more interesting points are that 1) the issue had already been addressed by the time the Mail ran the story but they ran it anyway and 2) the role of Pete's blog - the issue was dealt with because someone contacted the Rep directly, not because they read it on some website. What role did the Pete's publication play?

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

bounder — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:21:39 -0000

No, I wouldn't say conspiracy, more a by-product of practises that have continued long after whatever reason there was for starting them. So much media - in print and elsewhere - is hung up on structures that are actually counter to understanding.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

marcus brody — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 09:08:16 -0000

Thanks for the link, I've had a quick gander. looks like some interesting reading when I have proper time to digest it.
It comes down to trust and all media whether online or old fashioned print have to build that trust with an audience.
The media, all media have a responsibility to be balanced and accurate or at least spell out their goals.
If they want to be a comic rather than serious newspaper (I think of the daily star here) then they should say so in order for all readers to be in the know.
If it is being suggested that the media are in some way complicit in a conspiracy to keep people ignorant then I don't buy it.
We just have to find a source we feel we can have some trust in but that doesn't stop us from seeking more than one source to back it up (sorry, my history studies coming out there).
i'll be interested to see where others take this discussion.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

bounder — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:53:59 -0000

Oh and of course Pete's comments are no more vaild than anyone else's - better explaining where the story emerged (and so why Pete was quoted) would have made the clumsy bit trying to justify why his comments were sought easier to understand.

Re: Is this ‘unique’ or are the media keeping people dumb?

bounder — Thu, 04 Jun 2009 08:46:32 -0000

I'm just worried that there are time when I don't know what's wrong — and journalistic attempts to keep everything ultra simple do cause inaccuracies.

I could only comment, about this one because I did know the facts — much as Ben Goldacre does over on http://www.badscience.net/.

What else to we accept that simply isn't true?