Live blog: Vuelta highlights, Team Wiggins replace Aqua Blue at Tour of Britain, Thomas's view on helmets "largely irrelevant" says cycling PR boss + more

don simon wrote:

fukawitribe wrote:

So why are you missing the non-negative coverage ? Try going to the news page and do the search I suggested. Tell me what the second hit is.

I think that there's more to the negative bias from the BBC on the subject of cycling than numbers of articles. They will headline negative aspects and tuck health benefits in obscure pages. 

There certainly are articles which show a shocking level of understanding and lack of knowledge - they're far from angels. The comment that I replied to is that they don't - that is ever - consider the evidence and don't broadcast anything positive. That's patently false.

don simon wrote:

They would appear to have a negative bias in that they point out the dangers each time a pro rider crashes, for example.

They don't though.

fukawitribe wrote:

"Possibly they have, but I've never seen or heard anything."

So you've not actually looked at the BBC website or their programs I take it ?

Last time I submitted a complaint about their helmet coverage, I included links to over 80 BBC website articles, so, no, you can't take it.

fukawitribe wrote:

Keep clapping yourself on the back in your little echo chamber - fact is, the phrase "the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light" is just bullshit. Go and type 'cycling' into the search bar on the BBC website. They have stories which look pro- and anti-cycling, same as with many subject matters, but to suggest they never have anything positive is nonsense.

Possibly they have, but I've never seen or heard anything.  There have been innumerable reports, research and studies which show that cycling is overwhelmingly the best answer to the modern diseases of lack of exercise and obesity, but I haven't seen or heard a single BBC bulletin reporting them.  They will have large segments on the possible benefits of a new drug that won't get to the public in the next five years, they will have seemingly endless stories about food and health, but simply won't mention, in my experience, the single most effective step for individual and societal health.  They never mention the benefits in congestion, pollution and health terms of a switch from driving to cycling.

In my opinion and experience the BBC has an agenda, and that doesn't include mentioning the overwhelming benefits of cycling, but they frequently mention cycle helmets and the dangers of cycling and they frequently break their own rules and editorial guidelines doing so.

Tell me, do you think BBC coverage is fair and balanced?

CygnusX1 wrote:

The HuffPost article by Adam Tranter is a good read, although it ends with this:

Quote:

That’s why we should use data and the bigger picture, not pro cyclists, to shape the helmet compulsion debate

Using data? It will never work

You're so right.  Especially when the media, the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light.

burtthebike wrote:

CygnusX1 wrote:

The HuffPost article by Adam Tranter is a good read, although it ends with this:

Quote:

That’s why we should use data and the bigger picture, not pro cyclists, to shape the helmet compulsion debate

Using data? It will never work

You're so right.  Especially when the media, the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light.

That's because theyrth based in the city, mainly London, with its high levels of polutionp, which as the Chinese study of air pollution showed it affected the brains ability to function correctly. It explains everything, including government thinking of lack of it!

maviczap wrote:

Using data? It will never work

You're so right.  Especially when the media, the BBC in particular, point blank refuses to look at it, let alone broadcast anything that shows cycling in a positive light.

[/quote]

That's because theyrth based in the city, mainly London, with its high levels of polutionp, which as the Chinese study of air pollution showed it affected the brains ability to function correctly. It explains everything, including government thinking of lack of it!

[/quote]

And they drive cars, and the pollution level in cars is higher than outside.

CygnusX1 wrote:

The HuffPost article by Adam Tranter is a good read, although it ends with this:

Quote:

That’s why we should use data and the bigger picture, not pro cyclists, to shape the helmet compulsion debate

Using data? It will never work

just having this debate on the CUK forum, one pro helmet person has written this.

"I don't put much faith in any statistics on this topic. I don't think anyone puts enough care and effort into the collection of data, meaning all the processing of that data is based on rubbish.  None of it is collected consistently enough, now or in the past, to make it useful for fine analysis. You'd be just as well off waving a bit of vee shaped hazel around. I'd apply that equally to both sides of the helmet debate."