Dr John Crippen
For what it's worth, I suggest everyone spend 2 minutes filling out the official complaints form on the BBC website.
Maybe if enough people demand it, they'll apologise for such shabby journalism.
He who controls the past controls the future.
I am not sure that I wish to entrust the future to Google cache but the BBC website is notorious for making similar stealth edits and bypassing the edit/timestamp system.
I already complained to the BBC. No reply, but they did alter the article.
"but the BBC website is notorious for making similar stealth edits and bypassing the edit/timestamp system."
I really did not know that. I have this innate trust in the BBC. I guess I am naive.
John
ha ha - caught rotten. Well done!
Well done anyway. But it is sad that the standard of journalism is now so shoddy. I think most stuff like this now just gets pasted straight from the press release.
The BBC seem to do this frequently. Recently they had an article about Botox...which stated that it should not be given to people with neuro conditions(!!!) - I complained, and it somehow corrected itself (although no apology - or any suggestion that they will, at some point in the future, actually talk about the significant *medical* uses of Botox).
Reminds me of the NHS complaints system. A doctor scewed up on my daughters care, we complained, the medical notes were changed and the brick walls went up. Well done for exposing the lie but never expect an apology or acknowledgement from the world of cover-ups.
Dr John Crippen - like baconguy says, I've seen other bloggers pointing out similar edits. I see Biased BBC are linking to you; they probably have similar sneaky edits listed somewhere on their site.
Extraordinary. My eyes are opened. I think perhaps it would be appropriate for the BBC to note when an edit had been made and the date an article was first published.
If you want a reply ask the question(s) as a FOI (Freedom of Information) request which they have to answer. Be sure to phrase it so all emails etc to do with the matter are in the answer. (Phrasing for FOI requests info can be Googled.)
The BBC policy is to correct the mistake in he article, especially if it is merely a factual error and not a problem of bias. See http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed..._out_edits.html including the statement by the BBc Editor that "lesser changes - including minor factual errors, corrected spellings and reworded paragraphs - go through with no new timestamp because in substance the story has not actually progressed any further. This has led to accusations we are "stealth editing" - a sinister-sounding term that implies we are actively trying to hide what we are doing. "
Well caught, doc. Slithering, devious bastards, aren't they?
dyb
This has led to accusations we are "stealth editing" - a sinister-sounding term that implies we are actively trying to hide what we are doing.
That is exactly what you are doing, although I don't think it's entirely sinister.
I believe that journalistic standards at the BBC have plummeted to such depths that you weren't even aware of the true nature of the article until it was exposed on the blogosphere. The "stealth edit" was nothing more than a pathetic attempt to avoid looking stupid!.
I would estimate that around 25% of all stories on your website are poorly written when first published, stealth edits are used to save face. 25-50% also show inherent bias but that's another story.
I read the original article & thought it sounded a bit iffy! I didn't see the edited version until now.
I think it is just lazy journalism - cut & paste from a press release without checking any facts. we all KNOW that most surveys (on anything) are carried out by someone with a vested interest - and the knowledge of what the vested interest is, is vital in any report!
I'm not impressed at all that they published it as it was. I think their policy of correcting articles is good - but they should have told you (at least) as the complainant!
I am not surprised. The BBC do change their articles in response to the complaints that they receive - but they rarely acknowledge the complaints or admit that the article has been changed.
This then makes people who quote the original article on their blogs look stupid to anyone who doesn't realise the BBC do this. Cunning eh?
I wouldn't mind the BBC editing the articles if they had a 'last edited' and a date and time, so that people can see the difference between original publication date/time and the final version.
I read the BBC like the Onion these days. The latter tends to be more accurate.
Thanks to Newssniffer, we can see how this story evolved and establish an approximate timeline for when the lying cheaters messed around with the page...
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/7/
8
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/6/
7
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/5/
6
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/4/
5
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/3/
4
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/2/
3
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/1/
2
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/0/
1
'The BBC policy is to correct the mistake in he article, especially if it is merely a factual error and not a problem of bias.'
But it WAS a problem of bias. The first version implied very strongly that an 'official' survey had said that doctors were putting children at risk of all sorts of complications, including death.
Subsequent editions of the article changed this slant radically, and made the bias of the survey plain.
If that is not a pretty radical 'stealth edt', what is?
Thanks anonymous.
Had not come across Newsniffer before - fascinating.
John
Crippo
Absolutely.
"'The BBC policy is to correct the mistake in he article, especially if it is merely a factual error and not a problem of bias.'
But it WAS a problem of bias. The first version implied very strongly that an 'official' survey had said that doctors were putting children at risk of all sorts of complications, including death."
The BBC were had by an "advertorial" - and they can never resist slagging of doctors and scaring people.
This was not a factual error. This was the whole mission statement of the article. Slag of doctors and frighten women.
All these idiots who say this is a common condition.
Think about it. If, which is denied, 2% of babies are genuinely allergic to milk, the average GP is going to see it about once every 5 years.
John
Just got a reply from the BBC website health editor:
"The original story was not incorrect, but there was an oversight in failing to spot the potential conflict of interest."
"The story was updated to acknowledge the link to a formula milk manufacturer when we became aware of the information."
In other words: "bbc 20.11.06 minitruth study malreported doubleplusungood refs conflict of interest rewrite fullwise"
I've just sent in a complaint as well. I'll post the response here later.
That's shocking. It's straight out of 1984. They've not even updated the timestamp.
They've not done a proper job of the edit though. Version 1 refers to Act Against Allergy as a "taskforce" which means that para 11 ("The taskforce, which includes") makes sense. In Version 2, there's just a taskforce which appears out of nowhere.
Version 2 does include some info about who SHS are, but not that their formula is for babies with milk allergies
Bloodsweatbeers-I got a similar response. I complained after seeing the story via the good Dr C. I wonder how many complaints they got in total?
Thanks anonymous.
Had not come across Newsniffer before - fascinating.
You're welcome - and it bears out your comments: "That is unwise. We humble bloggers may not have the clout of the BBC, but clearly we know something that “Auntie” does not. Once you publish an article on the internet, you cannot take it back. It will be cached somewhere. And indeed it is."
Yep - the Beeboids are as thick as pig s*it.
They also seem to have neglected to edit the 11th paragraph
"The taskforce, which includes expert paediatric gastroenterologists, has developed guidance for doctors that will be published next year."
The taskforce is not referenced to anywhere else in the 'updated' article - maybe because what they mean to say is 'formula milk manufacturer'
I, for one, am waiting with baited breath for their expert guidance on the matter
As a health journalist I see this all the time. We are inundated with PR material from pharma and medical companies and a lot of it is very sophisticated. They often use "leading medical experts" to deliver their message, or they sponsor patient/advocacy groups to back up their message about how herpes/arthritis/social anxiety disorder etc is underdiagnosed and undertreated. The first priority of any journalist reporting on health should be to look for conflict of interest.
Website cache can be - and is (as one can observe from following your links at the last paragraph) - modified or even deleted on request from original websites . Websites can ask google not to cache their content and google must obey.
Therefore, the best way of documenting BBC pre-stealth edits is through screen shots.
Hope you got one.
Make it a standard practice.
Thanks Max
Gosh, I am such an innocent in this world.
I did not know that either!
Yes, I have just saved a screen shot.
John
I am surprised that no one has mentioned this blog
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com
I went there to copy the URL, and to my delight find that 'Natalie' has posted this:
http://biased-bbc.blogspot.com/2...y-bbc-
says.html
Just lodged a complaint. I don't mind them editing stories when they cock it up - but they could be honest about it.
When will those organisations undertand that admitting a mistake and making good the error is a better way to work, and will actually increase the trust in them ?
I have updated the Biased BBC post that Bugs Man mentioned to include mention of the News Sniffer versions of the story.
News Sniffer is indeed an admirable story, though I have not yet entirely mastered searching the Revisionista feature yet. Had to rely on a link from a commenter.
Correction: I should have said, "News Sniffer is indeed an admirable programme."
another official complaint lodged with the beeb ...
this isn't the first time the bbeb have done this. i remember they swiftly changed a picture used for a story when it was announced the picture (or baghdad burning i think)was a photoshop job.
no explanation, no editorial. just a sly change.
In my old life as an NHS spin doctor, I once had to ask the Beeb to edit a health article online, which referred to our PCT having an £8 billion deficit (rather than the actual £8 million)!
Luckily I saw the funny side, and they obligingly changed it pretty quickly, so no real harm done. But it was probably only because I could contact the journo direct that it got changed so easily - I wonder how many other errors slip though?
It is not the original error which is upsetting (a lazy venal journalist? surely not) as much as the (stupid) attempted cover up. Complaint lodged immediately
It's interesting that I came across your BBC "Advertorial" post the same day that I posted on Pharma Marketing Blog a story about a Wall Street Journal article that is, to me, a thinly disguised "product placement" ad for Rozerem, a sleep medication marketed by Takeda in the US (not sure what the trade name is in the UK).
See "Am I Dreaming, Or Is This a Rozerem Ad?" http://pharmamkting.blogspot.com...rozerem-
ad.html
Keep up the good work!
http://
medicine.plosjournals.org...al.pmed.0030451 - not directly on topic but in the general area (of pharma advertising and promotion techniques).
Okay, I'm sorry, but I can't see that this is some kind of cover up. They have in fact changed the article so that it is correct, have they not? Couldn't this equally as well be interpreted as them trying to get the news right rather than, erm, wrong?
Ideally, I'm sure they should/could have emailed Dr C to say "oops, sorry about that, we've changed it". You seem to be accusing them instead of getting people to email you accusing you of misrepresenting the article. Unless actually you have presented the accusatory email in an ambiguous way and accidentally implied a link?
And as for the "Biased BBC" website - this wasn't bias, this was lazy reporting - a phenomenon not exactly limited to the BBC - which they have corrected. I'm not quite sure why this is a disgrace - the fact that they got it wrong, or the fact that they corrected it?
I have received a reply from their NewsOnLine address. I had suggested that such changes carry a paragraph at the top saying that changes had been made. Their reply is this:
"The story was amended when it came to our attention that the website in question was run by a company which manufactured formula milk.
"At present, we have no mechanism for publicly acknowledging changes of
this sort, although it is something which will be considered by senior
managers in the near future."
Katherine -
You don't quite understand the grave responsibilities of a public service news broadcaster; particularly one that sets itself above others for standards of fairness and accuracy.
It was wrong because:-
a) They got it wrong by not attributing the facts and quotes to a biased source.
b) They used the facts from the biased source to work up a sensational story.
c) They did not correct the story until the issue was raised by Dr. Crippen.
d) They refused to acknowledge their failure and instead attempted to smear Dr. Crippen and accuse him of factual error.
e) They made no clarification nor apology when modifying the report, although presentation of the accurate facts completely changed the slant of the story.
Need I go on ? If they set themselves up as the definitive reporters of factual and unbiased news, they need to be held to account when they fall short.
I misread your post initially and thought that the accusations of misrepesenting the BBC had originated from someone at the BBC and sent off a rather strong complaint. I got back a polite response which clarified that these complaints had come from other readers of the blog (my fault for being too hasty). I acknowledged this in an apologetic email but pointed out that they should flag their edits and got the following response:
Dear Mr Green,
Many thanks for your reply. As I said, this is an issue which is currently under review here, as there is an acceptance that something more transparent is probably required.
Kind regards,
Richard Warry
vervet
(a) & (b) they are guilty of sloppy journalism, but so what's new; ALL the daily press is like this, whether print, TV, radio or on-line
(c) because they didn't realise the facts needed to be corrected
(d) no they didn't
(e) I agree with Katherine that at least it's a good thing they changed the story rather than just ignoring the whole thing, which is what the print press would have done.
This is not a "cover-up" guys, it's just muddle. The speed with which "news" is got out the door these days means that half of it is crap at the high level and nearly all of it is wrong in the detail. The Beeb is better than most at not deliberately sensationalising things is about all you can say.
This is not a "cover-up" guys, it's just muddle
Right.
This is not a "cover-up" guys, it's just muddle. The speed with which "news" is got out the door these days means that half of it is crap at the high level and nearly all of it is wrong in the detail. The Beeb is better than most at not deliberately sensationalising things is about all you can say.
potentilla
++++
I cannot be as generous to the BBC as that.
Remember, most of the country are not as intelligent (or as cynical) as you. An ENORMOUS number of people think that what the BBC says is gospel truth.
Medically, we already have a real problem with parents putting their children on odd exclusion diets, goat and sheep's milk and all sorts of odd stuff that is not good for them.
The original article strongly suggested that cows milk could be LIFE THREATENINGLY DANGEROUS and the article was written in a way that suggest is came from highly specialised doctors.
It did not.
It came from an advertising company. I know you always take the side of big business, and you belief in freedom of advertising and so on. But this was fraudulent. It WAS an advert, cleverly placed to look like news, and carrying the authority of the BBC.
This is not just a case of correcting a few small errors.
This article should be withdrawn in its entirety. An apology should be issued. And a correct should be printed by someone sensible and objective that the BDA.
John
On this one, I agree with Dr. Crippen's last post (28.11.06 - 5:16 p.m.). Correcting errors without retimestamping is fine - I caught a silly typo in a Beeb story once, sent in a comment, got a very polite answer and the typo was fixed. But when the "story" starts out as a lie concocted by a formula manufacturer and gets reported as fact, then the Beeb bloody well owes its audience an apology and a visible correction, not just a half-assed rewrite.
And to cap it all I think version 8 on Newsniffer (the current live version) is still misleading. I'm sure a medical peep will soon correct me if I'm wrong but here goes. The new para in version 9 reads:
"According to the Food Standards Agency, allergy to cows milk is the most common food allergy in childhood and affects 2-7% of babies under one year old."
The rest of the article is about allergy to milk protein, which is extremely rare. This new paragraph talks about all milk allergies, but the most common milk allergy is to lactose, the milk sugar. So the 2-7% includes all the lactose intolerant babies. As you can get lactose free cow's milk you still wouldn't have to use hypoallergenic formula. The number of protein allergy babies will be much, much smaller than 2-7%.
Plus most babies outgrow any reaction to milk very quickly. So keep them on breast milk until they're OK to take cows milk. It's really not complicated.
This is just plain sloppy journalism. They're not doing proper research, and Dr Crippen has them on the run so they're editing on the fly.
I do have some sympathy for the BBC here, I work on a web site, and part of our procedure is to get stuff out as quickly as possible, then edit as necessary, so the 8+ versions is normal procedure. The fact that they swallowed this story whole in the first place is different matter.
But Andrea, this is "the Beeb".
Many people treat the Beeb with the same respect as they treat Vera Lynn and the Queen.
So the Beeb has to get it right.
And the original article was not right. They confuse intolerence and allergy. They frighten mothers.
They refer to the Act against Allergy site which says that 60,000 babies have this problem.
It is not true.
The Beeb has got no business "editing on the fly" here. This story had no particular time constraints. It did not need to be rushed out. They could have checked with a reputable dietician and doctor first.
Clearly, they did not.
Irresponsible
John
I know you always take the side of big business Bollocks. I just know how big business and indeed big organisations work, which is to say that embarrassing stuff that happens to them in public in MUCH more often the result of muddle and disorganisation and someone too junior taking a decision or drafting a letter or whatever, than the result of a dastardly plot. I don't know if that makes me more or less cynical, but I'm quite hapy to accept the cynical lable in respect of the general low standard of press accuracy. "Never believe anything you read in the papers".
I can tell you exactly waht happened here. Sloppy journalism based on crappy press release. You pick it up. Someone quite junior decides to amend the story, since you are right; being junior, does not even think of wider issue of honesty, except insofar as possibly wishes to conceal from superiors that has stuffed up in the first place. Does so (incidentally, of the 8 amended versions on Newsniffer, 4 are amendments of typos, one is the addition of the WHO recommendations of breastfeeding, 1 is the change you've blogged, and two are changes to who recommends what babies who are allergic to cows' milk could be given in lieu). Your readers complain. Someone more senior finds out about it, asks junior person. Junior person goes "but no one told me I couldn't just correct errors". More senior person realises there is a real point, and that the whole area could do with a review.
I agree it is still a crap article, albeit now with fewer typos.
BBC is a public service broadcaster with a statutory duty to behave responsibly and honestly A moral duty maybe. But a statutory duty? Not that I can find. I've just been reading the Royal Charter and the Main Agreement and they in fact contain remarkably little detail on what the BBC is meant to do. Not run a news website, anyhow.
Mind you, "The Corporation shall do all it can to secure that all programmes.....do not involve improper exploitation of any susceptibilities of those watching or listening to its religious programmes or any abusive treatment of the religious views and beliefs of those belonging to a particular religion". You learn something new every day.
Just seen Andrea's "editing on the fly" comment and your response. It's worse than you think. Their on-the-fly editing has not so far addressed any of your complaints except to correct the source. They haven't edited the story properly at all yet.
Thank you for highlighting this cover up. It is terrible. It makes me wonder what other mistakes are being hidden from public view.
Kate.
http://journals.aol.co.uk/boband...AnalysisofLife/
I have made an official complaint.
Potentilla
Bollocks?
Moi?
No no. Just a bit of ground bait to attract the old trout! 
And you took it without demur!
It's always a better day when you are commenting!
John
No bollocks? Toi? Sorry, I made a medical assumption.
I sometimes get muddled about when you are writing bollocks in order to make me rise, and when you are just writing bollocks in the ordinary course of business.
But don't you love the phrase "involve improper exploitation of any susceptibilities". What do you think that was all about.
BTW on the last post there is a large white gap between the YouTube clip and the words "No mechanism?" on my browser anyhow. Is that deliberate or am I missing something?
Science doesn't seem to be the BBC's strong point nowadays. I can remember when Horizon was a science programme.
Last January I reported the following gem from the BBC News website for correction.
"A rare astrological event has proved Pluto's moon - Charon - has no atmosphere"
How a BBC journalist could make such a mistake wasn't explained.
(Sorry, I think I posted this in the wrong thread originally.)
The bizarre thing is that when the BBC says they "have no mechanism" for alerting readers to the fact they have changed the story, they actually do: they just didn't use it. At the top of each page it has a "Last updated" date and time.
The "Last updated" info on the formula story is "Last Updated: Monday, 20 November 2006, 04:54 GMT", which appears to be the time the original story was published, rather than the later date when they must have made the changes.
This is either a serious mistake or seriously dishonest.
StyleyGeek; probably neither, just a function of way their website works and which file it is that the page is reporting as updated.
Talking bollocks, this afternoon on the PM programme, radio 4 (and many other "news" sources) in combination with Dr. C.'s favourite political party (like they'll be any different) have managed to make a story out of Gordon Brown's handwriting being analysed by a "professional graphologist".
JL Jones is correct. The BBC have abadoned science - along with the rest of the media and much of society. To quote Bernard Manning, "it's a f*cking disgrace".
I used to hold the BBC's journalism in high regard until they broke a story about the hospital I worked at. BBC Real Story wrote about how Thomas Stobbs, the father of a BBC tv journalist went in for a "routine" hip operation, died & got given the wrong death certificate.
The "truth" came out when the daughter sneaked in hidden cameras to film the hospital staff.
I lodged a formal complaint of the report being utterly biased as it was written by non other than the patient's daughter, certainly a very significant conflict of interest??!!
The BBC denied this however.
It wasn't until Version 7 that the Beeb finally fixed the "forumula" typo! 
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/6/
7
potentilla:
For all your lengthy argument, your position is nothing more than justification of poor performance.
Once again ... if the BBC define themselves as a market leader, they must be challenged when they err and should admit, correct and apologise.
As far as I can see, having read all the articles and all the comments, the chain of events goes thusly:
1. BBC journo is lazy and produces article, having stupidly taken a press release at face value and not examined source.
2. This stupidity and laziness is pointed out to BBC.
3. BBC corrects article.
4. Blogosphere erupts at the barefaced cheek of the BBC for not grovelling apologetically at the feet of the person that told them of the mistake, simulataneously holding the BBC to impossibly high editorial standards that absolutely none of the rest of the internet, blogosphere, media or entire world are held to, on the basis that "people" hold what the BBC says as gospel truth (not a single person commenting being any one of these "people" of course, the blogosphere being a uniquely informed and intelligent bunch).
Well done blogosphere on your magnificent victory in claiming such a glamorous scalp. Just remember to wipe the drool from your chin before you parade your superiority before those "people" who consider the BBC to be a holy combination of Vera Lyn, the Queen and God.
vervet: not a justification, no; I don't much admire the BBC's journalism, except perhaps in comparison with the daily print press.
I just think that anyone who thinks that the Beeb is going to admit correct and apologise EVERY time it posts a sloppy story is smoking dope; it would certainly mean that your licence fee would go up. (In fact my view is that the licence fee thing is indefensible anyhow and that the state has no business running a broadcaster especially one which now operates pretty much like a private company except for its funding).
I tend to agree with Katherine above, although I might have left out the bit about drool.
I've given up trying to correct the BBC's often terribly inaccurate news articles. They have never once replied to thank me or apologise.
May the licence fee, I mean TAX, be abolished asap.
The key point about all this and which most of your commentators miss is the failure to use the "last updated" field in a transparent manner. My own view is that this is nothing whatever to do with the web technology, but a deliberate attempt to mislead, especially when embarassing errors have to be corrected.
The BBC does not, of course need to apologise every time it makes an error, that would be ludicrous. But it should be transparent about its publications. At present their use of the "last amended field" is simply fraudulent.
Lest anyone is under the delusion that this is a one off issue, it is in fact a continual scandal affecting numerous 'stealth edits' that have nothing to do with minor tpographical corrections but fundamental changes to the story lines
Aha, a conspiracy theorist! Arthur Dent, you don't know where your towel is. Just the think of the number of people who would have to be involved and sworn to silence, half of them techies. No way could the Beeb organise anything so complicated.
It seems to me that if someone points out an error in something you have published the obvious and correct thing to do is to correct the mistake as soon as possible, which appears to be exactly what the BBC have done in this case.
However I would have expected the BBC to have contacted the originator of the complaint to thank them for pointing out the fault. Of course I would also have prefered it if the BBC had got their facts right in the first place.
Katherine,
umm... Are you reading the same story as us?
The sequence of events is:
1. BBC journo is lazy and produces article, having stupidly taken a press release at face value and not examined source. - CORRECT
2. This stupidity and laziness is pointed out to BBC.- WRONG.
Staringly obvious conflict of interest pointed out to the BBC by - wait for it - the blogosphere. Not any news organisation with huge desks of people rigorously checking facts - just little old Dr Crippen armed with his trusty Google.
3. BBC corrects article. - CORRECT
4. Blogosphere erupts at the barefaced cheek of the BBC for not grovelling apologetically at the feet of the person that told them of the mistake etc. - WRONG
Blogosphere erupts when the BBC attempts to deny that they ever even fell for the conflict of interest, covers up the change AND THEN SLANDERS THE PERSON WHO ALERTED THEN.
I do not pay my licence fee for that kind of shoddy behaviour.
The conflict of interest was the entire basis of the news article. The article was to inform us of this poll. As soon as the poll cannot be trusted, the entire rationale for the article disappears. This article now tells us - well - nothing, except for the depths to which the BBC has sunk.
Cleanthes
Well done for this expose!
It looks like the BBC has learnt something from Tony Blair & co.
Dr. Crippen, did you take a screenshot of the original article? Hope you did -- the Google cached article has now been updated, and matches the current BBC article exactly. That line of evidence is gone.
Cleanthes Blogosphere erupts when the BBC attempts to deny that they ever even fell for the conflict of interest, covers up the change AND THEN SLANDERS THE PERSON WHO ALERTED THEN.
WRONG
I'm not even sure where you got the "attempts to deny" part from?
Several people seem to have read Dr Crippen's post as meaning that the BBC was accusing him of something, but that isn't what he meant. The emails he refers to were from people who had read the BBC article after it had been corrected. See comments above fro confirmation of this. The BBC did not at any time slander him.
Perhaps you should read more carefully.
Dr Crippen, when you complained, did you use the BBC Complaints website (which should have meant you got a repl)y, or did you use their "make a comment" facilty, which clearly asks you whether you require a reply, but does in turn require some information about you, if you do. I wondered if your problem was that you were complaining as Dr Crippen rather than in propria persona, and could not therefore give the personal info they ask for?
And before anyone starts thinking that Google is also involved in this supposed cover-up, Google cache changes every time Goggle re-indexes a site, which for a big site is frequently. Here is what Googel say about cache:-
Google takes a snapshot of each page examined as it crawls the web and caches these as a back-up in case the original page is unavailable. If you click on the "Cached" link, you will see the web page as it looked when we indexed it. The cached content is the content Google uses to judge whether this page is a relevant match for your query.
When the cached page is displayed, it will have a header at the top which serves as a reminder that this is not necessarily the most recent version of the page. Terms that match your query are highlighted on the cached version to make it easier for you to see why your page is relevant.
The "Cached" link will be missing for sites that have not been indexed, as well as for sites whose owners have requested we not cache their content.
Dr Crippen, when you complained, did you use the BBC Complaints website (which should have meant you got a repl)y, or did you use their "make a comment" facilty, which clearly asks you whether you require a reply, but does in turn require some information about you, if you do. I wondered if your problem was that you were complaining as Dr Crippen rather than in propria persona, and could not therefore give the personal info they ask for?
potentilla
++++
Yes, I think that is possibly so. I find the MSM rarely reply to blog writers as they think we are just plugging out blog. Which may sometimes be true, but was not on this occasion.
John
Dr. Crippen, did you take a screenshot of the original article? Hope you did -- the Google cached article has now been updated, and matches the current BBC article exactly. That line of evidence is gone.
luna_the_cat |
++++++
Bloody hell.
The crooks.
Yes I did take a screen shot, thank goodness.
Fortunately, also, they have not been able to correct the excellent Newssniffer
http://newssniffer.newworldodour.../12692/diff/0/
1
John
John, for God's sake. NOT crooks. See my comment above. Google cache is updated frequently and automatically, possibly even daily for big sites like the BBC. Its function is NOT to provide a permanent record of everything that has ever been on the internet; my God, imagine the server farms that would be needed to do that.
Good!~
May add a link to me?
My website is Health
Actually it is worth pointing out that if you had complained using the BBC Contact Us / Complaints page (which is linked off EVERY BBC News page) you are asked if you would like a reply - if you check that box you will recieve a reply - I use it every now and again and have always had a reply.
It's also worth pointing out that news sniffer is run from feeds provided by the BBC... so nothing underhand is going on at the BBC...
http://backstage.bbc.co.uk
These are also my own comments and not those of the BBC for whom I work.
turned up in the Daily Mail as well. if you want a dubious laugh, try google queries such as this: site:www.dailymail.co.uk "allergy"
I found this page while looking up the term "BBC Cover up", in connection with a concurrent case of BBC duplicity.
Please click the homepage link for the nitty gritty details. (I do not represent that site in any way).
The BBC now claim to have 'lost' this footage and refuse to answer any questions about it with a credible reply.
The BBC's responses to date can be found at
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/
theed...conspiracy.html
The BBC exact a levvy from every TV set owner. A hefty fine or imprisonment face anyone who does not pay their subscription to the BBC. The BBC don't seem to be accountable to anyone.
Commenting by HaloScan
