"glossing over details which might not seem important but are" What does or does not seem important is a matter of interpretation and is in the eye of the beholder...
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Mo McRoberts Sent: 16 July 2010 16:03 To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [backstage] Freeview HD Content Management On Wed, Jul 14, 2010 at 12:07, Nick Reynolds-FM&T <[email protected]> wrote: > In the case of Erik's post that you mention all we are actually doing > is cross posting to it on the Internet blog. So the editor of the > About The BBC blog has editorial responsibility for it because it was > published first there. > > What happens in practice in general is; > > - sometimes we (i.e. Paul and I) have an idea for a blog post and we > ask someone to write it - we might help them by suggesting bullet > points but we don't write it for them > > - the communications team also sometimes send us ideas for posts and > in some cases finished posts - I assume they similarly help people > write posts > > But I would certainly not write a finished post for someone like Erik. > Senior executives have different attitudes - Anthony Rose for example > writes all his posts in his own individual style. Others need or like > more of a steer. > > All this is in a context where we have editorial control and can ask > for a post to be changed and even have the right to refuse it - > although I can only recall one occasion where we have. That's interesting stuff (genuinely!). you should probably do a blog post on it one day. it's good to know what the process is, in general (even if it varies). on the topic of 'things which it might be worth doing blog posts about': P4A. > Again I disagree that I've been fed misleading information (and I'd > like to know in what way) - I suspect that this is again about > interpretation of information, which is another thing entirely. I'll respond to this bit properly when I've had a proper think about it -- interpretation comes down to it to an extent (i.e., how things are most likely to be interpreted by those reading stuff vs. how things are most likely to be interpreted by those with prior knowledge), but there're other things, too. predominantly I was struck by errors of omission, though (questions which don't really get answered, though not for the want of trying on your part, glossing over details which might not seem important but are). it's very difficult to know how much of this is deliberate and how much is a product of circumstance or just things being missed -- in either case, though, it comes across poorly and doesn't help the BBC's case any. as I say, though, I'll follow up on this later. M. - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/ - Sent via the backstage.bbc.co.uk discussion group. To unsubscribe, please visit http://backstage.bbc.co.uk/archives/2005/01/mailing_list.html. Unofficial list archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/
