Brian, as far as I know, there is no adjustment for UTC to GMT. I don't think
GMT is used for any thing today. Most or all time keeping laws refer to UTC.
UTC is a symbol, just as in SI usage, and is the same world-wide. It is best
to keep with UTC even though GMT is commonly used -- I saw it recently on a
new watch. The basic standard I think is tied to the prime meridian which is
no longer the famous line at Greenwich as the prime meridian is now about one
meter east of the original line. The whole issue of "standard" time is very
messy and is best reviewed at the International Telecommunication Union site
or perhaps using Google.
Marion
------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 09:42:43 AM PDT
From: Brian J White <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED],"U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [USMA:41355] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines
Yes, but while being technically different, they are both the same
time for general purposes. And isn't UTC micro-adjusted to match GMT?
At 09:32 2008-07-09, m. f. moon wrote:
Stan, there was an article in a recent LA Times about time and GMT -- no
reference to UTC. I wrote the writer a brief note about UTC and the fact it
is
universally used and that GMT was to be deprecated. I explained the origin
and
why UTC is used. I said that he missed a great opportunity to educate the
public about UTC. He gave me the courtesy of no response. Not directly
related
to SI but close, I think.
Marion Moon
------ Original Message ------
Received: Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:22:59 AM PDT
From: "STANLEY DOORE" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[email protected]>
Subject: [USMA:41352] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines
Nice going Victor.
It shows how much control the media have over what the public reads,
sees
and hears.
It's not surprising. My experience has shown that newspaper editors
and
writers are opposed to the metric system regardless of its ease of use, its
use in science and technology, and its use internationally.
Keep up the good work!
Stan Doore
----- Original Message -----
From: Victor Jockin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2008 1:24 AM
Subject: [USMA:41351] Re: Journalism & AP Guidelines
With respect to journalistic style guidelines, I e-mailed Kenneth Chang
of
the New York Time regarding an article he wrote covering NASA's current
Mercury probe mission. A very nice piece, but full of references to miles,
even though an accompanying NASA photo showed notations in kilometers. I
was
pleased to get a prompt reply, which made clear that Ken, perhaps not
surprisingly for a science writer, is as much an advocate of the metric
system
as any of us. But his employer sets style guidelines on this issue that are
similar to AP's, portions of which Ken quotes in his response below.
To reiterate, it seems to me that we should start building a list of
signatories in science, education, journalism, etc., to protest guidelines
in
journalistic style manuals mandating the use of traditional US measurement
units. Perhaps, eventually, Mr. Chang could be a weighty addition to that
list.
From: Victor Jockin
To: Kenneth Chang
Date: July 7, 2008
Thanks for your excellent article about NASA's mission to Mercury.
Outstanding science reporting is one reason I'm loyal to the Times.
Consistent with practice across nearly all fields of science, NASA has
principally used metric units of measure for many years. I believe the last
vestiges of traditional units are being phased out now, with the upcoming
retirement of the shuttle. The excellent service you and other Times science
reporters provide in educating the public would be enhanced if you would
publish measures in the units that scientists actually used to report them,
perhaps with parenthetical translations. We all learned metric units in
grade
school, and for readers of the Times science pages, even parenthetical
translations into traditional units are scarcely necessary.
Keep up the great science reporting, but help America keep moving
forward on
metric usage, as NASA is doing, and pass on NASA's measurements straight-up.
From: Kenneth Chang
To: Victor Jockin
Date: July 8, 2008
Thank you very much for the compliments. I personally would love it if
the
U.S. went metric -- I've generated a number of corrections by botching the
conversion from metric to English units (all too easy to do, since no one
thinks in millionths of an inch or minus-500 Fahrenheit, and then it's too
late before you realize minus-500 is impossible).
The New York Times stylebook says, "Ordinarily convert
measurements from the
metric system to the American one. Delete the original measure unless it is
truly useful." Putting both values in gets clumsy and distracting (in the
same
way that the speed limit signs in mph and km/hr were never useful or
edifying).
On the Web, we could insert pop-up links so that the reader could move
the
mouse over a quantity and the metric value would pop up. I haven't been able
to convince anyone to implement this idea...
Thanks for your email.
----- Original Message -----
From: VictorJockin
To: U.S. Metric Association
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2008 3:22 AM
Subject: [USMA:41344] Journalism & AP Guidelines
I've been thinking about the issue of the AP style guidelines
that came up
a couple of weeks back, and it seems to me that we need to put our heads
together and decide what our best shot is at doing something about this.
Requiring traditional units in news stories, typically to the exclusion of
metric units, is obviously a huge obstacle to general use of metric. But
it's
a barrier that doesn't require legislative action to fix, something we lack
the influence and/or money to achieve. It wouldn't be easy to change AP's
mind, of course, but it would be easier than changing Congress's mind, and
would represent an important and concrete step forward.
First, we could use our existing connections to assemble the largest
coalition of scientists, educators, journalists, etc., that we can. Through
networking, the group of signatories could grow quite large. We may need to
circulate a draft for some time, perhaps a year or more, and we should focus
on recruiting as many journalists and journalism professors as possible.
Then, we need to jointly and formally approach AP with our statement, and
the
angle we should take with them, it seems to me, is objectivity.
Journalistic
style guidelines should not require reporters to take sides on social
issues,
or to advocate for particular political outcomes. Traditional units, we
should point out, are not the law of the land, but a social preference. And
in fact, it was the intent of Congress to initiate and encourage a voluntary
transition away from that historical social preference and toward the metric
system. Should this transition take place or not? That's a social and
political question that a journalist should not be required, as a matter of
style, to take sides on. And yet, that is just what AP is doing. It would
be
as if AP specified that journalists not use the term African American in
place
of black. Social preferences continually evolve on such issues, and good
journalists are witnesses, not advocates, during such transitions.
Thoughts?
