My attention was grabbed by an ITV London Today story this lunchtime, firmly stating that not only is water in the Thames clean, but that it is easily drinkable – the best in the country, no less. London Today claimed: “99.98% of tests taken on samples from the river met national and European standards of safety, appearance and taste.”
Surely not, I thought.
Y’see, the River Thames doesn’t look like a clean river, and it’s not. Anyone living here knows. Its distinctive swirling brown murk is caused by silt stirred up by the fast-flowing tides – that’s not the real problem. The biggie is that sewers often overflow directly into the river after heavy rainfall, meaning it’s still quite possible that the river is – in a sense only too literal for those keen on watersports, or surfboarding to work – full of shit.
We even know 2012 London Olympic organisers are fretting that the sight and smell of London’s backed-up sewage might mar their events. It’s a great scandal.
Yet here was ITV’s local news suggesting otherwise. And not just that there was not a problem; that this was the best draw of water in the land.
A quick (web) surf turns up the truth, in a press release from Thursday: Thames Water, the water company which serves the south east of England, is indeed serving up commendably clean water. But Thames Water does not draw its water from the Thames river, thank God, and this report does not mean the Thames River is clean.
So, ITV News’s claim that “samples from the river” have done so well is, alas, as full of shit as the river itself after a heavy downpour. They mean Thames Water, not the Thames river. But that’s not what they said, while showing library shots of the murky old river itself – just to add to the confusion.
The offending 30 second item is below, recorded off my TV – sorry I can’t stand still. And a warning: paying attention to this news bulletin could be a mistake you come to regret, quickly and repeatedly, all because someone somewhere can’t take a days-old press release and rewrite it properly for a bulletin.
- BROWSE / IN TIMELINE
- « From the archives… Google’s first mention
- » SEO: we’re all at it
- BROWSE / IN Current Affairs London
- « Scots away
- » “While Obama was wowing them in Berlin, McCain was knocking over apple sauce jars in supermarkets. Hello, Tipping Point…”
COMMENTS / 6 COMMENTS
links for 2008-07-21 — Adrian Monck thought this on Jul 21 08 at 10:31 am[...] ITV London’s inaccurate report on Thames water quality | Completetosh.com “ITV News’s claim that “samples from the river” have done so well is, alas, as full of shit as the river itself after a heavy downpour. They mean Thames Water, not the Thames river.” (tags: accuracy itv-news thames water journalism) [...]
Paul Bradshaw thought this on Jul 20 08 at 4:14 pmJesus christ. Mind you (and I hope you take this in the spirit it’s intended) I recently saw a NIB in the Tech Guardian saying ‘identity theft is now the no.1 fear of people, above mugging, etc.’ Who did the survey? Some company selling identity theft protection software, handily mentioned in the NIB too. Also seen in Burnley Express: a National Trust survey tells us kids know more about sci fi than nature? You don’t say.
Neil McIntosh thought this on Jul 20 08 at 4:30 pmHi Paul – yes, there’s always an element of There But For the Grace of God… and a risk that someone will point to archived inaccuracy in work from your own employer (or, worse, in your own work) when you say these things. But this was a pretty standout example, I thought. Whoever wrote it couldn’t even really have much knowledge/memory of quite recent Thames stories, because if they did an alarm bell would surely have rung.
I’d say, however, the examples you raise are of something different – not inaccuracy, but the kind of PR-generated news that swills around. Never liked it, personally, but I ran it in the past on the basis that what they contain may be of some interest or use (which is the acid test). As long as the sourcing is made clear – and it looks like it was – do we (Nick Davies acolytes – look away now) have a problem with that?
Kristine Lowe thought this on Jul 20 08 at 5:22 pmEditor’s note: I’ve edited this comment – the [...] denotes where, although I don’t think the sense or sentiment is lost…
My, a drinkable Thames? Sounds absurd for someone who’s worked for the national tourist body, Visit Britain, and hear all the stories about dead bodies and plagues and all sorts of nastiness drowned there. Funnily enough, I once attended a very fancy dinner in The Tower of London, where we were graced by the company of many execs from Britain’s water companies: one of which told me, as a journalist, I should really investigate all those dodgy [...] bottled waters [...] … Never had a chance to test that, was doing financial journalism at the time, but hey, I could think of a few papers who’d love that story, as long as it stood up…
Paul Bradshaw thought this on Jul 22 08 at 2:04 pmThanks Neil – wasn’t suggesting glass houses/stones or whatever, just had a couple examples of lazy journalism I’d been meaning to get off my chest!
The ITV example is on another level, though, as you say. The most surprising thing is not the stupidity of the reporter, but that it got past an editor/producer.
SPEAK / ADD YOUR COMMENT
Comments are moderated. I'll delete unpleasantness. Email me if you spot a comment that crosses the line.
Your comments