Re: Asking BBC Radio 4 for a retraction

[Mike Taylor <mike@indexdata.com>]

On 4 April 2012 13:56, darkin <christian@darkin.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Was radio 4 the first quality news outlet to 'break' this story? If not,
> it'd be worth finding out who was.

I'm not too worried about that.  The issue here is that BBC Radio 4 is
not some sensationalist shock-jock station, I don't think it's going
too far to saying it's the UK's primary source of serious information.
 The Daily Mail can print whatever nonsense it likes -- no-one takes
it seriously anyway.  But Radio 4 is different.  So they are the ones
I want to see a retraction from.

On 4 April 2012 14:27, Brochu, Christopher A <chris-brochu@uiowa.edu> wrote:
> I don't disagree that BBC Radio 4 erred (to put it mildly) in this particular 
> case, but a formal retraction is almost certainly not going to happen. That's 
> just the way of things, however much we think a retraction is warranted.
>
> However, BBC Radio 4 might be more open to the possibility of a rejoinder 
> from an actual paleontologist.

You may be right that they won't do a retraction.  On the other hand
you might not.  I want to find out.  I think the last thing we want is
a rejoinder from a palaeontologist -- that would only perpetuate the
idea that there is something here worth discussing.  In any case, they
already used a "contrary view" from Paul Barrett -- which the Radio 4
reporter ignored, saying that Ford is just like Galileo because people
disagreed with both of them.  So: retraction or nothing, so far as I
I am concerned.

Anyway, thanks to those who has contacted me off-list so far to be
added to the signatories.  Please keep it up, the rest of you.
(Jerry, I couldn't tell whether you wanted to be included.)

-- Mike.