Hot Air

[Guest]

On 8/30/2016 at 16:14, healdav said:

Let^s be fair to people who make programmes. They are often just given the job, without any special knowledge of the subject, and have to turn to people who are supposedly experts on the subject. How can they contradict them?

 

It is all very well saying that researchers should go back to primary sources and check everything. I wonder just how many people realise how difficult and time consuming that is? I completed an inventory of "Luxembourgers in the First World War" - available on Kindle.

I spent FIVE years in the National Archives here going through hundreds of files on the First World War to find names and the stories. Then I spent a coupe of months going through the newspaper archives doing the same (a lot in Gothic German).

 

Then a BBC journalist who was told on Monday to prepare a script for transmission on Friday is criticised for not going back to primary sources and doing his own research. We have to be reasonable; it can't be done.

 

Documentaires are a bit different, but many programmes are done almost on the spur of the moment. A couple of years ago I was asked by Radio 4 to speak on a programme to be broadcast at 4 p.m. about a fairly technical subject (not history). It was then 2 p.m. I had to ring a couple of companies and speak to the managers to get some facts or at least opinions on the subject, get notes in order and be ready to speak. I I made some mistakes, well, hard luck. I did my best.

 

In any case, I wonder how many of the general public actually remember the numbers? I'll bet that most just heard them and thought, "horrific" and moved on. Ask them now the actual numbers and they won't have a clue, just that they were high.

 

I disagree with just about everything you have written, however my view is completely irrelevant.

 

The view that really matters is the BBC's own Editorial Guidelines here click. The relevant part of the Introduction to the  Editorial Guidelines on The Principles of Accuracy is pasted below with my underlining. The section on Gathering Material and Materials from Third Parties is even more interesting. This is the BBC which, unlike other TV Companies has to work under a Royal Charter. The reason for this is the £3.7 billion it is handed every year from licence payers who have no choice. That is why the Govt insists it works to a prescribed standard lest UK licence payers get short changed in a Crimson Field*. In my view it occasionally fails to do so. These are not small errors, these are rather large gaping holes that defy belief.

 

Introduction

3.1

The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy.  This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences, which is the foundation of the BBC.  It is also a requirement under the Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter.

The term 'due' means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Therefore, we do all we can to achieve due accuracy in all our output, though its requirements may vary.  The due accuracy required of, for example, drama, entertainment and comedy, will not usually be the same as for factual content.  The requirements may even vary within a genre, so the due accuracy required of factual content may differ depending on whether it is, for example, factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news.

Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right.  If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.  When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.

Where appropriate to the output, we should:

• gather material using first hand sources wherever possible

• check and cross check facts

• validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material

• corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

In news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed.

 

 

Principles

3.2.1

We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.

3.2.2

All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language.  We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.  Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.

3.2.3

The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences.  We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences' trust in our content.

3.2.4

We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly, clearly and appropriately.

 

 

So, when making startling revelations that exaggerate key historical points that are central to a documentary by a factor of three...or eight...it is worth considering Para 3.2.2 above. ...and when we cant find any source  (Reminder: 8,000 pilots allegedly killed in training) which part of para 3.2.3 "We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audience' trust in our content" should we ignore?

 

When the expert military historian and presenter Dan Snow tells us that no battle has been fought on British soil for 250 years, which part of the BBC's mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' is being fulfilled. I would score that zero out of three. ...and does anyone think he did all he could "to ensure due accuracy", and was it "well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested"... and was he "honest and open about what he doesn't know" and did he "avoid unfounded speculation" etc etc... 

 

Personally I think some of its output is dropping short of its own stated principles.

 

MG

 

 

 

Ref Crimson Field. Here is the BBC's own guidelines for Factually Based Drama

 

  Factually Based Drama

3.4.19

When a drama portrays real people or events, it is inevitable that the creative realisation of some dramatic elements such as characterisation, dialogue and atmosphere may be fictional.  However, the portrayal should be based on a substantial and well-sourced body of evidence whenever practicable and we should ensure it does not distort the known facts, including chronology, unduly.  It is important to explain the drama's factual basis (or use of dramatic licence) with clear signposting.

Sensitivities will often be at their highest when a drama has, as its central purpose, the portrayal of living people, people with living close relatives or recent events.  Particular care should be taken to achieve due accuracy.

 

 

 

Edited 13 December , 2016 by Guest
Formatting consistency

[trajan]

2 hours ago, healdav said:

... It is all very well saying that researchers should go back to primary sources and check everything. I wonder just how many people realise how difficult and time consuming that is? I completed an inventory of "Luxembourgers in the First World War" - available on Kindle. ... I spent FIVE years in the National Archives here going through hundreds of files on the First World War to find names and the stories. Then I spent a coupe of months going through the newspaper archives doing the same (a lot in Gothic German).

 

I guess I should have made it clear that I was referring to books and articles rather than programmes! Yes, primary sources are tedious, but need to be checked when it comes to published works that have a life longer than a TV programme. I have just spent 5 weeks, seven hours Mon-Sat., going over primary documentary sources and inscriptions, and/or following up other people's references for what, a 5,000 word article. But at least I have the satisfaction of knowing that I have done everything I can on the subject. The problem comes to my mind in somebody writing 'the book' and then nobody ever reading reviews of this or cross-checking what is said in it when preparing their own work. As for TV programmes and the like, of course a junior reporter is going to take the short cut - but at least it is only a piece of ephemera...

[Retlaw]

12 hours ago, QGE said:

 

Thank you. None of this is surprising in any way. One has to wonder what happened to common sense when the author was writing that only 100 men returned to Accrington.. From your data, taking a minimum of 6,000 men served, would imply 98% of Accrington's men never returned. 

 

Again in these are not small errors, this particular datapoint is over 8 times higher than the national average for all men who served. A statistic that is so unlikely as to be nigh impossible. In its efforts to highlight the fate of working class communities from the industrial north the BBC has managed to create a new myth.... which naturally raises questions how this can happen on a state run media website, funded by licence payers, that is aiming to inform, educate and entertain. It is doing the opposite. 

 

The pilot figures were exaggerated by 300%

The Accrington figures were exaggerated by 800%

 

QED. 

 

 

 

 

Thats what riles me, crap spouted by the BBc and fish & chip wrappers are remembered by some. like those who specialise in football results.  Quite a lot of those morons then spout those figures on facebook sites as gospel and get really abusive if you correct them with the truth.

[healdav]

14 hours ago, QGE said:

 

I disagree with just about everything you have written, however my view is completely irrelevant.

 

The view that really matters is the BBC's own Editorial Guidelines here click. The relevant part of the Introduction to the  Editorial Guidelines on The Principles of Accuracy is pasted below with my underlining. The section on Gathering Material and Materials from Third Parties is even more interesting. This is the BBC which, unlike other TV Companies has to work under a Royal Charter. The reason for this is the £3.7 billion it is handed every year from licence payers who have no choice. That is why the Govt insists it works to a proscribed standard lest UK licence payers get short changed in a Crimson Field*. In my view it occasionally fails to do so. These are not small errors, these are rather large gaping holes that defy belief.

 

Introduction

3.1

The BBC is committed to achieving due accuracy.  This commitment is fundamental to our reputation and the trust of audiences, which is the foundation of the BBC.  It is also a requirement under the Agreement accompanying the BBC Charter.

The term 'due' means that the accuracy must be adequate and appropriate to the output, taking account of the subject and nature of the content, the likely audience expectation and any signposting that may influence that expectation.

Therefore, we do all we can to achieve due accuracy in all our output, though its requirements may vary.  The due accuracy required of, for example, drama, entertainment and comedy, will not usually be the same as for factual content.  The requirements may even vary within a genre, so the due accuracy required of factual content may differ depending on whether it is, for example, factual entertainment, historical documentary, current affairs or news.

Accuracy is not simply a matter of getting facts right.  If an issue is controversial, relevant opinions as well as facts may need to be considered.  When necessary, all the relevant facts and information should also be weighed to get at the truth.

Where appropriate to the output, we should:

• gather material using first hand sources wherever possible

• check and cross check facts

• validate the authenticity of documentary evidence and digital material

• corroborate claims and allegations made by contributors wherever possible.

In news and current affairs content, achieving due accuracy is more important than speed.

 

 

Principles

3.2.1

We must do all we can to ensure due accuracy in all our output.

3.2.2

All BBC output, as appropriate to its subject and nature, must be well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested and presented in clear, precise language.  We should be honest and open about what we don't know and avoid unfounded speculation.  Claims, allegations, material facts and other content that cannot be corroborated should normally be attributed.

3.2.3

The BBC must not knowingly and materially mislead its audiences.  We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audiences' trust in our content.

3.2.4

We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct them quickly, clearly and appropriately.

 

 

So, when making startling revelations that exaggerate key historical points that are central to a documentary by a factor of three...or eight...it is worth considering Para 3.2.2 above. ...and when we cant find any source  (Reminder: 8,000 pilots allegedly killed in training) which part of para 3.2.3 "We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact or otherwise undermine our audience' trust in our content" should we ignore?

 

When the expert military historian and presenter Dan Snow tells us that no battle has been fought on British soil for 250 years, which part of the BBC's mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' is being fulfilled. I would score that zero out of three. ...and does anyone think he did all he could "to ensure due accuracy", and was it "well sourced, based on sound evidence, thoroughly tested"... and was he "honest and open about what he doesn't know" and did he "avoid unfounded speculation" etc etc... 

 

Personally I think some of its output is dropping short of its own stated principles.

 

MG

 

 

 

Ref Crimson Field. Here is the BBC's own guidelines for Factually Based Drama

 

  Factually Based Drama

3.4.19

When a drama portrays real people or events, it is inevitable that the creative realisation of some dramatic elements such as characterisation, dialogue and atmosphere may be fictional.  However, the portrayal should be based on a substantial and well-sourced body of evidence whenever practicable and we should ensure it does not distort the known facts, including chronology, unduly.  It is important to explain the drama's factual basis (or use of dramatic licence) with clear signposting.

Sensitivities will often be at their highest when a drama has, as its central purpose, the portrayal of living people, people with living close relatives or recent events.  Particular care should be taken to achieve due accuracy.

 

 

 

 

The BBC guidelines are all very well, but what is a reporter to do when faced with needing to go on a programme in 20 minutes time to give an exposition on.......................? He can't say to the producer, "I^ll have to go to the National Archives and look up the relevant files. Can you put the programme on hold for a couple of months, please?"

 

As journalists say, "You have to go with what you've got".

 

I a reputable expert has written it in a book, and a reputable publisher has published it, then the journalist has little choice but to accept it.

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, healdav said:

 

The BBC guidelines are all very well, but what is a reporter to do when faced with needing to go on a programme in 20 minutes time to give an exposition on.......................? He can't say to the producer, "I^ll have to go to the National Archives and look up the relevant files. Can you put the programme on hold for a couple of months, please?"

 

As journalists say, "You have to go with what you've got".

 

I a reputable expert has written it in a book, and a reputable publisher has published it, then the journalist has little choice but to accept it.

 

The OP is about deliberate programmes commissioned by the BBC, not news items. Regardless, the guidelines for both are are clear. If the source has not been checked then the source should be stated viz:..." according to author and Great War expert Dennis Winter, 14,000 pilots died of whom 8,000 died during training..." so we all know the source that the BBC is relying on. They don't do this and end up on more than a few occasions regurgitating some utter nonsense.

 

In the case of 20 minutes notice, I am slightly at a loss of why someone would go on a TV or radio programme as an 'expert' if they didn't know what they were talking about. If they were not up to speed with the latest theories or thinking, then they wouldn't be an 'expert'. 

 

The BBC has an individual who is in charge of Great War related programming. I think there is a case to be made that the BBC's Commissioning Editor's choice of 'experts' is sometimes questionable. One might be forgiven for thinking that some of the BBC's talking heads for their lead programmes on the Great War (Max Hastings, Niall Fergusson, Dan Snow...) were chosen for different reasons: popular appeal rather than 'expert' knowledge. In their mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' the former two often seem to be subordinated to the latter with particular emphasis on the shock factor. With specific reference to the Great War, it is not as if the centenary event was a surprise. We have had rather a large amount of time to prepare and check. 

 

MG

 

 

Edited 31 August , 2016 by Guest
typo

[Chris_Baker]

... whereas the Great War programming by ITV, Channel 4, The History Channel, et al are all so accurate and well presented ...

 

[Moonraker]

4 minutes ago, QGE said:

... In the case of 20 minutes notice, I am slightly at a loss of why someone would go on a TV or radio programme as an 'expert' if they didn't know what they were talking about. If they were not up to speed with the latest theories or thinking, then they wouldn't be an 'expert'.

 

MG

See my recent thread about the fallibility of experts

 

My job as a press officer included arranging interviews between the media and civil servants, and preparation included ascertaining the line the interview might take, suggesting certain key facts and stats for the interviewee to get over, and advice that the key stats be jotted down on a card. It might also have been necessary to determine that the stats were accurate (a point dear to many of us in this thread), which might have entailed digging around to check them. A regional director might be expected to know certain stats for his entire region of a dozen counties, but could not reasonably be expected to know off the top of his head the number of long-term unemployed a year ago in the county or town covered by the reporter doing the interview.

 

When BBC Radio Wiltshire was doing its centenary coverage of the Great War, it had a choice of two "experts" on

 

Devizes Wireless Station

 

See my post 7.

 

The academic who had written "Mr Hopgood's Shed" would have been more articulate than I, but it was me who was selected to be interviewed on a very cold, windy hillside. I had plenty of notice, and was able to discuss the interview with the reporter in advance, but it was 15 years or so since I had compiled the bulk of my notes and a day or so beforehand I spent some time refreshing my memory and jotting down stats such as precise dates, construction costs,and measurements of the masts, for example.

 

One may expect an authority on a subject to talk generally about it off the cuff, but he or she can not be expected to instantly recall details of a particular incident, such as the casualties suffered by an particular brigade or regiment in a battle.

 

Moonraker

 

 

[Guest]

36 minutes ago, Chris_Baker said:

... whereas the Great War programming by ITV, Channel 4, The History Channel, et al are all so accurate and well presented ...

 

No...but they are not funded by the licence payer.....and ITV, Channel 4 The History Channel et al do not work to a Royal Charter whose mission is to 'inform, educate and entertain'. Therein lies the difference.

 

The BBC produces many quality programmes on the Great War as do other channels. My focus is on the occasion when programmes make very large errors. This is not about small nit-picking pedantry on the correct uniform.....it is when 'facts' are exaggerated by an order of magnitude of 3 times (pilot fatalities) or 8 times (implied casualties of men from Accrington)....that are central to the programme....or when facts are simply patently false (no battles on British soild in the last 250 years ...or 'life expectancy' of pilots).... the BBC website has a section on Pals Battalions presented by Melvyn Bragg speaking to a National Army Museum 'expert'  both claiming the 'whole communities were completely wiped out'. Really. This is similar to the unfounded claims of the 'Lost Generation'. ...and so on.... it is all very poor history that fails to 'educate' and perpetuates myths.

 

Ironically, part of the BBC blurb claims to be tackling 'myths' which makes its claim on a programme about pilots that life expectancy for pilots in 1917 was just 17 days even more perplexing.  It implies that in 1917 all pilots died and on average they lasted just 17 days. It is an almost infantile statement. MG

Edited 31 August , 2016 by Guest

[Guest]

26 minutes ago, Moonraker said:

 

One may expect an authority on a subject to talk generally about it off the cuff, but he or she can not be expected to instantly recall details of a particular incident, such as the casualties suffered by an particular brigade or regiment in a battle.

 

Moonraker

 

 

 

This is not about being interviewed at short notice and being expected to regurgitate facts. (Incidentally, 'I don't know'  or 'I don't recall' are always good answers if the memory fails).  It is about programmes commissioned by the BBC that take many months to produce by professional historians, authors, editors and researchers who have plenty of time to check these things... where 'big facts' central to the storyline are casually exaggerated by many orders of magnitude. MG

Edited 31 August , 2016 by Guest

[Steven Broomfield]

In my role as Chairman of the Local History Society, I was interviewed by the local radio about Captain Rostron (of the 'Carpathia', which saved the survivors from the 'Titanic'), who is buried in the village. The reporter asked me when he died. Having not a clue, I suggested readers should visit the grave and see for themselves. He was impressed.

[alex revell]

On the subject of research, it's scope and extent, I would recommend reading Mark Urban's preface to his fine book Rifles  (Faber & Faber 2003. PB 2004.) It's an object lesson to us all, and any potential author. Mark  Urban is employed by the BBC and it  occurs to me that when choosing what talking head 'expert' to use a  BBC producer of a documentary on anything military could well ask Urban to ascertain the extend of the candidate's  research on the subject before making his choice. Just a thought.

[healdav]

3 hours ago, QGE said:

 

The OP is about deliberate programmes commissioned by the BBC, not news items. Regardless, the guidelines for both are are clear. If the source has not been checked then the source should be stated viz:..." according to author and Great War expert Dennis Winter, 14,000 pilots died of whom 8,000 died during training..." so we all know the source that the BBC is relying on. They don't do this and end up on more than a few occasions regurgitating some utter nonsense.

 

In the case of 20 minutes notice, I am slightly at a loss of why someone would go on a TV or radio programme as an 'expert' if they didn't know what they were talking about. If they were not up to speed with the latest theories or thinking, then they wouldn't be an 'expert'. 

 

The BBC has an individual who is in charge of Great War related programming. I think there is a case to be made that the BBC's Commissioning Editor's choice of 'experts' is sometimes questionable. One might be forgiven for thinking that some of the BBC's talking heads for their lead programmes on the Great War (Max Hastings, Niall Fergusson, Dan Snow...) were chosen for different reasons: popular appeal rather than 'expert' knowledge. In their mission to 'inform, educate and entertain' the former two often seem to be subordinated to the latter with particular emphasis on the shock factor. With specific reference to the Great War, it is not as if the centenary event was a surprise. We have had rather a large amount of time to prepare and check. 

 

MG

 

 

A reporter can easily be told to do a piece on pretty much anything in a fw minutes time, and has to use what material is available.

You may know that Denis Winter is unreliable, but how is a reporter or produced who finds him quoted as an expert, and finds his book quoting all sorts of references? I isn't possible.

I agree that some of their experts on everything are unreliable, but how is a producer or reporter to now that when presented with him? He can't; especially when he has been used by other programmes on much the same subject.

 

As for having time to check, I agree, excpt that a subject for a programme and the time alloted to it can be decided months in advance, but the people taking part and what they are going to say is often only decided towards the last minute, and, as in the TV programme I took part in on the beginning of the war, we got about halfway through the interview and filming and discovered that time had run out. They had to move on as there was someone else waiting for them in France to tell the next part of the story. So, only half of the story was told. Its real life, I'm afraid.

Edited 31 August , 2016 by healdav

[Guest]

13 minutes ago, healdav said:

A reporter can easily be told to do a piece on pretty much anything in a few minutes time, and has to use what material is available.

 

 I don't disagree.....I would also argue that 'news items' have a very short half-life......but this is not the subject of this thread. It is about programmes, deliberately planned well ahead of time that take many months to produce by professionals who claim to be experts in their field....programmes that are at the centre of the BBC's  long term planned programming as historical documentaries that aim to be 'as accurate as possible' (the BBC's words).

 

MG

Edited 31 August , 2016 by Guest

[healdav]

5 hours ago, QGE said:

 I don't disagree.....I would also argue that 'news items' have a very short half-life......but this is not the subject of this thread. It is about programmes, deliberately planned well ahead of time that take many months to produce by professionals who claim to be experts in their field....programmes that are at the centre of the BBC's  long term planned programming as historical documentaries that aim to be 'as accurate as possible' (the BBC's words).

 

MG

This is beginning to sound like the long running discussion on when Routemaster buses came into use, in he Sunday Times. No one gets veryhoing correct all the time, and when you say you mustn't rely on published sources, I give up,.

[David Filsell]

News programmes and programmes dedicated to one subject are very different animals. Different rules and standards apply.

[trajan]

15 hours ago, healdav said:

This is beginning to sound like the long running discussion on when Routemaster buses came into use, in he Sunday Times. No one gets veryhoing correct all the time, and when you say you mustn't rely on published sources, I give up,.

 

The point is that any competent researcher would double- and even triple- (or more) check a published source. I frequently read articles and books (and theses) that have lifted a quote from a classical source that was published elsewhere, but the writer hasn't bothered to cross- or back-check it, so leading to mistakes of the sort we are concerned with here. Given that the programme in question was long in the planning, then the cross- and back-checking of references should have been done. I am, I admit, not familiar with the subject that we concerned with here. But a starting point, I would have thought, and one I would have chosen to work from at the start of the process, would be the official histories, at least for the basic stats...

 

Julian

 

PS: I have no idea about Routemaster busses, but I can tell you it took some 10 years after completing the tunnels before a metro train actually ran on my local line in Ankara! 

[Guest]

I often re-read books. As my understanding of the Great War grows, occasionally one finds mistakes in books on the second read as one becomes better informed and educated over time. The fact that a book (or a programme) has a small error need not distract from the general integrity of the content. However, I find that when 'big facts' are used in a sensationalist way (particularly in the TV media) which then turn out to be large gaping errors, I begin to lose faith with the remainder of the content. 

 

By way of illustration: Bowman and Connelly's "The Edwardian Army" is a truly wonderful piece of research. In the middle is a table that has been incorrectly transcribed from an original source. Very few would even notice this. I happen to have a reasonably detailed knowledge of the particular source. It was a simple mistake, sadly not double-checked, however I still regard the book as a supreme piece of research. In a similar way, Simkin's "Kitchener's Army", one of my favourite books makes a few small errors but in the same way this does not diminish the integrity of the remainder of the book. Bowman, Connolly and Simkin are undoubted experts in their field and like all humans, make errors. The key here is that the errors were small, and were not trying to make claim to any stunning revelation or grab headlines.

 

By contrast, John Lewis Stempel's book 'Six Weeks' regurgitates the 'life expectancy of Six Weeks'  nonsense, most notably in its title. It is otherwise a good read, but this gross error, repeated a few times, really does undermine the integrity of the book for me. We can see the contamination in the likes of the BBC website with alleged 17 days' life expectancy for Pilots etc. I am far less forgiving with Lewis Stempel's book as it is an example of how research has been subordinated to sensationalist nonsense. No doubt it grabbed headlines, convinced a few gullible journalists who breathlessly promoted it and increased sales. For me it was unnecessary. 

 

Herein lies a key factor. If the 'fact' is central to the book or programme and if it is being used to make a revelation that attempts to change our perceptions of history, I think it is incumbent on the author(s) to not only double check, but to also cross-check against other sources; contemporary sources and secondary sources (which may contain useful arguments) as well as Official sources. The last point is critical: it is widely understood among anyone with a modicum of knowledge of the Great War that the British OH has been roundly criticised for lack of accuracy in some areas, particularly with regards to German casualties. It follows that even using 'official' history' one still needs to tread carefully  when recycling stats to prop up a central argument. 

 

This is why peer-group reviews are useful as an 'informed' critic is more likely to spot fundamental errors or at least highlight the need to be absolutely certain of the central claims. 

 

The centenary years have been a magnet for hundreds of books, articles and documentaries. It is a very crowded space and publishers and producers are constantly looking for a new angle. I have lost count on the number of books that have been released or re-released on the Somme. The 'Battle of the Historians' is just one aspect of this.  In our disposable society the media has become obsessed with headline-grabbing sensationalism and there is a great risk that this 'need' to create 'groundbreaking' revelations ends up subordinating rigorous research.

 

Any mistakes are mine. MG

[Steven Broomfield]

1 hour ago, QGE said:

 

 

Any mistakes are mine. MG

Unless, of course, you've copied them in good faith from a reliable source.

[healdav]

2 hours ago, QGE said:

 

This is why peer-group reviews are useful as an 'informed' critic is more likely to spot fundamental errors or at least highlight the need to be absolutely certain of the central claims. 

 

 

 

 

My experience with peer review is that the reviewers have their own agenda which is mostly to protect them and theirs from any criticism. For example, my first book was sent to an 'expert' university professor (I have no ide who), who highlighted and asterisked my remark that the compabants in the First War had anti-aircraft guns in 19194 - illustrated with a photo of a German gun. Well, they did. So much for expert opinion. Secondly, the end comment was that the book was unöublishable in its present form, but the professor was willing to edit the book, but would have to insist on being the first co-author! I interpeted this as, "Good book, and if the author is gullible I can get my name in print without doing any work".

The giveaway was that the reviewer made remarks about the originl sources I had used such as, "Ican't understand why the author has used this newspaper. It was a small newspaper printed between 1894 and 1923. The newspaper of record (wrong, there is no such thing; it just sells more than other, being owned by the Catholic Church - and a priest as editor, in a country that is catholic)  is................. THis has been printed from 1872 until today. i.e. showing off his knowledge.

 

The second book went to the university here and got the comment, "No one publishes books like this today. Just stick it on a website somewhere".

I found out later that a student at the university had produced an MA thesis on the same sort of subject, after doing a tenth of the work on the subject. Protecting their own, in other words.

The first book ran to two editions in French and is selling steadily on Kindle in English, and the second sells steadily on Kindle in English.

 

So much for peer reviewers.

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Steven Broomfield said:

Unless, of course, you've copied them in good faith from a reliable source.

 

I am not sure I would agree. Original research needs to be based on primary sources, not secondary sources however 'reliable' it might seem. For example the BOH's version of events at Le Cateau can be shown to be fairly economical with the truth in parts.  'It's Official, but not History" [Basil Liddell Hart]

 

Most of the BBC's claims are not referenced to any source..... If I claim 8,000 British pilots died in training in the Great War without a reference and it is subsequently shown to be a false statement, I would be responsible. No-one else. While we can make an educated guess that Denis Winter might be the source, we don't know for sure. He might have been using some as yet undiscovered other source.  

 

Your point does however highlight the challenge of what is a 'reliable' source: Lloyd George's memoirs? Churchill's? Sir John French's? Haig's?  any random selection of two of this small sample would throw up contradictions and the implication that one or other is wrong on a particular point as both opposing views cant be right....which is why we need corroboration and balance in any controversial claim. In these examples Maurice Hankey's memoirs are a useful anchor as his own reputation was never on the line, so a biographer would need to cast their net very wide to ensure they were not reading biased or self serving accounts. Just look at the multiple assessments of Haig and the wide range of views, all largely based on the same 'facts'. 

 

I recently read Jim Beach's 'Haig's Intelligenece' and it references Charteris' book  "At GHQ" which arrived this week. "At GHQ" is an interesting read that occasionnally veers away from received wisdom on some minor points. It was interesting to see some fairly well known anecdotes mentioned in other books but not referenced to At GHQ.  It was a revelation to see the source of some Great War anecdotes. Given Charteris' reputation it is a matter of debate if his book can be a 'relaible' source. It raises the question: if something is written down, does it mean it contains truth? even if it is from someone with a ringside seat? Beach uses it on three or four occasions to substantiate particular points. Furthermore Beach uses C E Montague's diatribe "Disenchantment" as reference for an assessment on Charteris. I have this book too and would personally question the use of such a polemical book as refernce material.  MG

Edited 1 September , 2016 by Guest

[keithfazzani]

I believe someone once said "What is truth?" - seems like a reasonable question to me. 

[Steven Broomfield]

30 minutes ago, keithfazzani said:

I believe someone once said "What is truth?" - seems like a reasonable question to me. 

 

Not entirely off-topic, I hope: some years ago while campaigning for election to the local Council, I arrived at a house at exactly the same time as my opponent was canvassing. I was only delivering a leaflet, so I smiled sweetly at the other chap, said hello to the lady of the house, patted her dog and handed her my leaflet, with the words "Here we are - my version of the truth".

 

I agree with you, Padre: the truth has many forms, in history as in politics.

[David Filsell]

Keith,

Jack Nicholson judged that those out of uniform wisely with the statement, "You can't handle the truth" .

[Moonraker]

7 hours ago, QGE said:

... Original research needs to be based on primary sources, not secondary sources however 'reliable' it might seem.

I fear that we are (or I am) going round in circles, but what makes you think that primary sources are reliable? See my post 38.

 

Moonraker

[healdav]

11 hours ago, Moonraker said:

I fear that we are (or I am) going round in circles, but what makes you think that primary sources are reliable? See my post 38.

 

Moonraker

True. I wrote one book, and checked it for months. It was only when it came put that someone kindly mailed me to point out that I had one man down as killed, but then gave his post war career!

All my sources were the original documents. I had simply made an error and not noticed; and neither did anyone else.