[USMA:33828] Metrication and the media

[Pat Naughtin]

Title: Metrication and the media

Was Re: [USMA:33778] Bait and switch

Dear Ezra and All,

It has concerned me greatly over many years that 'the media' in all of its guises has been most recalcitrant in its approach to metrication.

Consider the BBC as an example. Last night, in England, Australia was playing England in the test series of cricket and even after 35 years the BBC announcers still have not adjusted to using metres rather than yards. Even though some (most ?) of the commentators were not born when the UK first began the change to metric in 1965, they still persist with the use of old pre-metric measures.

Similarly, the National Geographic has been a notable laggard in accepting, adopting, and adjusting to metric measures even though most archaeological and mapping work has been done in predominately metric units since approximately the 1880s.

Radio and television producers also a have truly remarkable slowness of thought and activity whenever they meet with metric units. These seekers after the new, the novel, and the terrific, immediately become afraid of the modern metric system and seek solace in their mish-mash of old measures.

I don't know why the media does this, but over many years I have begun to think about some of the forces that might be operating on them.

1   Many in the media are functionally illiterate. They got their jobs because they are 'good at writing' but not so 'good at sums'. Some are truly afraid that their inability with numbers will be found out — so they stick with the few numerical values that they believe they know well.

2   Many journalists see metrication simply as a debate between supporters and non-supporters of metrication. They don't know that metrication is a safety issue. They don't know that metrication is an economic issue. And they don't know that the basis underpinning the adoption of the metric system is about fair, just, and honest trading between individuals, companies, and nations.

3   Journalists seem to be unaware that when they use words such as inches or ounces that they are essentially using jargon. If they don't know that an inch is defined in terms of the metric system (exactly 25.4 mm) then their sloppy use of the word inch has little, if any, meaning.

4   Media people seem not to have sought advice from experts about the best way to write metric measures. I suppose that every time the write KG to mean kilogram, they get a bagful of mail tasking what they meant when they wrote kelvin-giga.

5   Media people are word mongers. They believe in words as powerful devices that can be used to change the minds of people and governments. Generally, journalists believe that words are relatively fluid things that have changed in meaning and use throughout history and that will continue to change in the future. They have little understanding of standard definitions and the need for high levels of accuracy and precision in standard word definitions. Intuitively they understand that their world of words is poorer if we don't use inch, foot, yard, rod, pole, perch, and mile etc. etc. (with all possible dictionary descriptions of all of these) and replace them all with the single word metre.

6   And finally, media folk seem to be quite unaware that the adoption of the metric system universally, 'For all people; for all time' is inevitable — no amount of hoping that 'if we ignore it, it will go away' will have any effect on the ultimate result.

Anyway, enough for now. The interaction of the media has been, and I suspect will continue to be a continuing puzzle for us.

Cheers,

Pat Naughtin ASM (NSAA), LCAMS (USMA)*
PO Box 305, Belmont, Geelong, Australia
Phone 61 3 5241 2008

Pat Naughtin is the editor of the free online monthly newsletter, 'Metrication matters'.
You can subscribe by going to http://www.metricationmatters.com/newsletter

 * Pat is the editor of the 'Numbers and measurement' chapter of the Australian Government Publishing Service 'Style manual – for writers, editors and printers', he is an Accredited Speaking Member (ASM) with the National Speakers Association of Australia, and a Lifetime Certified Advanced Metrication Specialist (LCAMS) with the United States Metric Association. For more information go to: http://metricationmatters.com

This email and its attachments are for the sole use of the addressee and may contain information that is confidential and/or legally privileged. This email and its attachments are subject to copyright and should not be partly or wholly reproduced without the consent of the copyright owner. Any unauthorised use of disclosure of this email or its attachments is prohibited. If you receive this email in error, please immediately delete it from your system and notify the sender by return email.

on 2005-07-31 13.19, Ezra Steinberg at [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

> Recently I'd gotten spoiled watching nature shows from Australia that used SI
> exclusively. I believe I saw almost all of them on cable channels that allowed
> the Australian production companies to stick with SI in their narration.
>
> So I was pretty psyched when I flipped over to a nature show that had an
> Australian narrator talking about the life of kangaroos in Australia. Imagine,
> then, my disappointment when I heard nothing but Imperial throughout the
> entire broadcast.
>
> However, by the end of the show I had figured out why this one was different.
> It was a 2002 production of Nature on PBS (well known for eschewing metric)
> with actual production done by the New York PBS station in conjunction with
> the BBC. That explains why no metric appeared anywhere.
>
> Too bad, too, because it maintains the fiction in the minds of most Americans
> (I'll wager, anyway) that Australia is still an Imperial country (except for
> those who have actually spent time there, of course.) Perhaps one of the
> saddest consequences of the British metric muddle outside of the UK is that (I
> have a hunch) most Americans labor under the misconception that the
> English-speaking world still uses mostly Imperial. If the UK had done as good
> a job of converting as the Aussies did, I suspect many Americans would have
> had to come face-to-face with the reality that the USA was standing
> essentially alone in the English-speaking world by not adopting metric in
> everyday life. I suspect that would have added more impetus from business and
> other groups to lobby the US government to put some kind of metrication
> program in place.
>
> Perhaps the UK government will still manage to see the light at some point and
> cross the metric finish line and thus (as a side effect) help us here in the
> States make the case for conversion. If Bil Frist can have an epiphany about
> embryonic stem cell research, maybe Blair (or his successor)  successor can,
> too! :-)
>
> Ezra
>