Vitamin D found in sunshine

Any news article which starts “Vitamin D, found in sunshine and fish…” is just begging to be laughed at. That it then continues “But older people’s skin is less able to absorb vitamin D from sunlight” makes it even more priceless.

This article is on the BBC News website. You expect this kind of stupid shit from the red tops and people who believe in ‘fairy healing’ and such crap but the BBC? Frankly I’m disappointed.

Read the whole stupid thing here.

————-
EDIT: The BBC have now corrected the start of the article. But believe me that’s what it said at around 11.30 today. However it still contains the line about older people’s skin not ‘absorbing’ vitamin D from sunlight.

The real question is who the fuck wrote it in the first place? Who checked it and how the hell neither of them spotted it? Don’t the BBC have any science correspondents?

Advertisements

Tags: ,

4 Responses to “Vitamin D found in sunshine”

  1. Matt In The Hat Says:

    The BBC (aside from the World Service and on-again-off-again Radio 4) is a liberal tabloid. Expect nothing mroe from them than you would of the red tops.

  2. paganwandererlu Says:

    I think ‘tabloid’ is harsh. They provide fairly accessible coverage of a very broad range of topics, sometimes they fuck up of course. They’re not purveying high quality investigate journalism in the same volume as chaff and churnalism but they’re better than most.

    As for ‘liberal’ I think you could reasonably apply that tag to the views of most people in this country. I think the proportion of people with a ‘Daily Mail’ point of view is overestimated by virtue of the fact that people misconstrue one loud voice as being, on average and by volume, several people.

  3. Matt In The Hat Says:

    I tend to view the term tabloid as being a ‘paper’ that provides little in-depth coverage and background with more of a propensity for stories concerning celebrities. I don’t think that the BBC’s bredth of coverage can be a fair defense because of their huge size. Were one fo the tabloids to have access to the resources of the BBC I would argue that they would still be a tabloid.

  4. paganwandererlu Says:

    I think the ‘accessible’ part was the key bit. I’m not saying they’re overworked so they can be forgiven for getting details wrong. I’m saying as a public service broadcaster they’re pretty good at making some novel topics accessible to a layman. Sadly they’re not as good at this with their science journalism but what paper is?

    The ‘what exactly is inflation/a credit crunch’ style articles are an example I’d cite as being good ones. Sure they’re not an in depth textbook but at least they’re there. I can’t imagine the mirror, even as one of the better tabloids, doing anything of that kind.

    Resources don’t come into it. The DM’s the most profitable paper in the UK and they don’t use their position to do in depth objective investigate journalism. They have Melanie Phillips and the MMR bogeyman.

    I know I slagged off the BBC the other day, and I posted this just because it was funny. But overall I think they’re doing well. If you want in depth coverage then a website, any website, isn’t the place to go. Nor is a broadsheet newspaper where, of necessity, deadlines and lack of space mean mistakes still happen.

    I’m more concerned with why you’re throwing ‘liberal’ at them here. If they’re liberal it’s only because, as I hinted above, their coverage tends to reflect the fact that most people in the country aren’t foaming mouthed reactionaries. When people accuse the BBC of being liberal it’s usually in the context of complaining that they’re not reporting the ‘truth’ (i.e. their opinion) about immigration or some such thing. Implying there’s some sort of agenda at work. The BBC seem ostensibly to bend over backwards to defend their objectivity, to the point of recently refusing to broadcast aid appeals for Gaza. That’s hardly the liberal position.

    So why ‘liberal’ here? Compared to what? The Guardian? Adbusters? The Daily Mail? The Socialist Worker?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: