An executive producer for science phoned this morning. The complaint
landed on his desk this morning (gee thanks BBC Information office). He
immediately agreed the nature of the mistake and offers the following in
mitigation: he asked the programme researcher if the statistics had been
checked and she said yes (in which case there may be a "statistician" who
needs defrocking); he also assumed that Winston was numerate to some
degree (fair assumption - have you tried telling a medical consultant
he's talking balls?); they had also previewed the programme with a
geneticist, and I would agree that a geneticist ought to understand
simple probability.
Given that the programme makers had taken reasonable steps but come a
cropper, what can we learn and do?
- one point to continue is to establish better liaison between the RSS
and the BBC, so we know whom to contact and they know that the approach is
serious and timely.
- the second point is that the producer promised to look again at that
scene in the programme, and revise it before further broadcasts or
overseas sales. That is important, as errors in factual programmes may
reflect on the BBC's reputation for quality and truth.
- the internal publicity round the BBC may be then turned to creative
ideas, if there are ways to make *good* statistics interesting. I know
the problems. (People you would least like to be stuck in a lift with.
Number 1: the statistician).
- I suggested he check out allstat, to see the sort of topics that are
aired, and with the potential to send out an appeal for an expert to
advise on future programmes.
R. Allan Reese Email: [log in to unmask]
Associate Manager Direct voice: +44 1482 466845
Graduate Research Institute Voice messages: +44 1482 466844
Hull University, Hull HU6 7RX, UK. Fax: +44 1482 466846
====================================================================
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
|