Keith Dancey wrote:




Many journalists have behaved quite appallingly in misrepresenting what
the Met Office said, which was:

"The balance of probability is for a winter colder than those experienced
*since* 1995/6"

The implication for the lower bound is, therefore, quite clear, but
journalists are more interested in squeezing sensation out of reality than
getting at the truth, and then using rediculous pedantic arguments to fend
off accusations of
hyperventilated "spin". (Sounds just like New Labour:-(

Ann Diamond (Radio Oxford) quoted "coldest winter ever"!

Maybe the Met Office needs to be more aware that journalists will always
look to take the most extreme meaning from any statement, and place strict
bounds on such forecasts, along with their probabilities - something I
have argued for from the outset.


It doesn't matter how carefully the Met Office were to word the forecast,
the media would still turn it on its head. They are either too stupid to
understand plain English or a bunch of liars - probably both.

If they can publish that a celebrity was involved in a sex and drugs party
in Spain whereas, at the time of the alleged party, he was seen having a
quiet drink in a pub in England, what chance does the Met Office have?

Estate agents, second-hand-car salesman, and politicians are shining
examples of honesty in comparison to journalists.

--
Graham Davis
Bracknell