National Grid warns of possible blackouts

[Russel]

Surely that means then that the real problem is people getting their news from skim-reading the headlines.

Agreed that people should read past the headlines, but the media is also to blame if the headlines are deliberately misleading.

Here's a good example from The Sun (Yes, I know they aren't a reliable source of news but they are very popular so will be seen by a lot of people) The headline would suggest that blackouts are a certainty, it's not until you read the whole article that it becomes clear that this is far from the case.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/20025192/blackouts-winter-energy-bills-three-hour-power-cut/

Brits to face blackouts this winter – and power could be cut to homes and businesses for three hours a day​

 

[AM9]

Agreed that people should read past the headlines, but the media is also to blame if the headlines are deliberately misleading.

Here's a good example from The Sun (Yes, I know they aren't a reliable source of news but they are very popular so will be seen by a lot of people) The headline would suggest that blackouts are a certainty, it's not until you read the whole article that it becomes clear that this is far from the case.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/money/20025192/blackouts-winter-energy-bills-three-hour-power-cut/

Not a fan of the Sun or it's Tabloid style of presenting facts but the article seems to represent the situation as was known at the time. Almost every sentence is framed with a 'might', a 'could' or 'if' so anyone capable of reading basic English should understand their meaning. There's nothing that can be done for those who are too lazy to read the information given and then tell other gullible friends.

 

[najaB]

Here's a good example from The Sun (Yes, I know they aren't a reliable source of news but they are very popular so will be seen by a lot of people) The headline would suggest that blackouts are a certainty, it's not until you read the whole article that it becomes clear that this is far from the case.

I know this is splitting hairs, but they include the word 'could' in the headline, which means that it wasn't a certainty.

 

[Dai Corner]

I know this is splitting hairs, but they include the word 'could' in the headline, which means that it wasn't a certainty.

Unfortunately 'could' and 'may' often soon become 'will' in everyday conversation.

 

[Bletchleyite]

British Gas have sent out one of the "use less and get a bonus" things for this evening.

 

[philthetube]

I don't think it fair to just blame 'social' media for the hysterics. 'Mainstream' media was just as bad. Anything to generate clicks/sales/retweets regardless of consequences. There are plenty of people who do rely solely on social media as their source of information though, plus the bloke down the pub. Or as @AM9 most excellently phrases it "those whose only access to information was from the equivalent of graffiti on public toilet walls".

Without reading back, wasn't there a 'reasonable worst case scenario' of rolling, scheduled power cuts? That is not random blackouts but the scheduled cutting off of power for set periods based on the rota which someone here (and nowhere else) kindly pointed us in the direction of ie the letter in a box on your bill. Personally, I would like to be told about reasonable worst case scenarios, in the same way I would like to be told the chances of a medical procedure being unsuccessful and/or the possible side effects. I may not be able to do anything about it happening but I can at least make some reasonable preparations to mitigate some of the impacts.

What I find most unacceptable is the lack of a sensible response from the government / those in charge in properly explaining the situation following the hysteria in the media. Much as I found the response to the fuel panics, food panics and toilet roll hysteria equally hopeless. Did anyone stop trying to panic buy toilet roll or tinned beans as a result of the government reassurances or did it just ensure even more people went out to panic buy?

Government responses have become worthless since the habit of them responding to every news story by telling us how good their actions are, and never accepting that there is a down side. Watch the news on the tv any night and you will see what I mean.

 

[Dent]

I know this is splitting hairs, but they include the word 'could' in the headline, which means that it wasn't a certainty.

The "could" only relates to the three hour part of the claim. The first part of the claim is "Brits to face blackouts", no "could" in that statement.

 

[brad465]

Solar managed to peak at 4GW earlier, which must be quite high for January.

 

[AM9]

Unfortunately 'could' and 'may' often soon become 'will' in everyday conversation.

Which is why that demographic gets the wrong end of the stick - one to skim read the story, then precis it to make a conversation piece which the next person then assumes is from somebody that knew what they were talking about. It's a chinese whisper where the end person get's upset when the truth proves very different to the myth that their peers passed on to them.

 

[najaB]

The "could" only relates to the three hour part of the claim. The first part of the claim is "Brits to face blackouts", no "could" in that statement.

And we did face blackouts. Facing something doesn't mean that it's guaranteed to happen.

Which is why that demographic gets the wrong end of the stick - one to skim read the story, then precis it to make a conversation piece which the next person then assumes is from somebody that knew what they were talking about. It's a chinese whisper where the end person get's upset when the truth proves very different to the myth that their peers passed on to them.

And, despite this, I still think it is preferable to give people the information (even if they don't read it) than the alternative: saying nothing at all and hoping for the best.

 

[Lost property]

Not a fan of the Sun or it's Tabloid style of presenting facts but the article seems to represent the situation as was known at the time. Almost every sentence is framed with a 'might', a 'could' or 'if' so anyone capable of reading basic English should understand their meaning. There's nothing that can be done for those who are too lazy to read the information given and then tell other gullible friends.

I regret to say, I feel you are severely over estimating both the "quality" of the Sun's journalists along with the level of cognitive development and vocabulary of the readers in this respect.

As for the warnings, again, I can't remotely see how they could be classed as "fearmongering "...if anything, quite the reverse and a credit to National Grid who made the public aware of the potential for outages. Now imagine the howls of rage, if, the outages had occurred and there had been no prior warning...

 

[Baxenden Bank]

Not a fan of the Sun or it's Tabloid style of presenting facts but the article seems to represent the situation as was known at the time. Almost every sentence is framed with a 'might', a 'could' or 'if' so anyone capable of reading basic English should understand their meaning. There's nothing that can be done for those who are too lazy to read the information given and then tell other gullible friends.

I know this is splitting hairs, but they include the word 'could' in the headline, which means that it wasn't a certainty.

The headline says 'Brits to face blackouts this winter'. Not much wriggle room in that, assuming 'face' means you get one rather than looking at someone elses. The second part of the headline, specifically after the word AND refers to 'power could be cut...'. The only interpretation of that headline is that blackouts will happen but that the length of the cuts is not fixed.

 

[Russel]

The headline says 'Brits to face blackouts this winter'. Not much wriggle room in that, assuming 'face' means you get one rather than looking at someone elses. The second part of the headline, specifically after the word AND refers to 'power could be cut...'. The only interpretation of that headline is that blackouts will happen but that the length of the cuts is not fixed.

Exactly, the headline is pure fearmongering clickbait.

 

[najaB]

The headline says 'Brits to face blackouts this winter'. Not much wriggle room in that, assuming 'face' means you get one rather than looking at someone elses. The second part of the headline, specifically after the word AND refers to 'power could be cut...'. The only interpretation of that headline is that blackouts will happen but that the length of the cuts is not fixed.

Sorry, but no. One of the literal dictionary definitions of 'to face' is: "to confront and deal with or accept a difficult or unpleasant task, fact, or situation."

Did we need to deal with an unpleasant situation where power cuts could happen? Yes, so it was factually correct. There is a lot that the media can rightly be blamed for, but people who only read headlines is not one of them.

 

[AM9]

Sorry, but no. One of the literal dictionary definitions of 'to face' is: "to confront and deal with or accept a difficult or unpleasant task, fact, or situation."

Did we need to deal with an unpleasant situation where power cuts could happen? Yes, so it was factually correct. There is a lot that the media can rightly be blamed for, but people who only read headlines is not one of them.

Those complaining about how they were "misled" by the evil media are likely to be those that didn't bother to read the whole article, otherwise they would know that the articles did actually say it like it was. No wonder some are squirming here.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Those whining about how they were "misled" by the evil media are likely to be those that didn't bother to read the whole article. No wonder some are squirming here.

Good point although of course with the modern world being reduced to tweets and short messages the probability of much of the population reading beyond the headlines is much reduced so the what the headline says becomes so much more important in conveying critical information to be conveyed.

 

[Dent]

Sorry, but no. One of the literal dictionary definitions of 'to face' is: "to confront and deal with or accept a difficult or unpleasant task, fact, or situation."

Did we need to deal with an unpleasant situation where power cuts could happen? Yes, so it was factually correct. There is a lot that the media can rightly be blamed for, but people who only read headlines is not one of them.

The headline was "to face blackouts", not "to face an unpleasant situation where power cuts could happen". You are inserting a "could" that was not there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2023 ==

Those complaining about how they were "misled" by the evil media are likely to be those that didn't bother to read the whole article, otherwise they would know that the articles did actually say it like it was. No wonder some are squirming here.

The root of that issue is still that the wrong or misleading headlines are being written in the first place.

 

[AM9]

Good point although of course with the modern world being reduced to tweets and short messages the probability of much of the population reading beyond the headlines is much reduced so the what the headline says becomes so much more important in conveying critical information to be conveyed.

Ultimately though, it's the responsibility of the reader to read the information that's given and formulate their opinion/plans from that. The example linked of the Sun's report is hardly a big read. Those that are too lazy to even read that much can't complain that they haven't been informed.

 

[Dent]

Those that are too lazy to even read that much can't complain that they haven't been informed.

They can perfectly legitimately complain that they were misled if what they did read was misinformation or misleading, which many headlines are.

 

[AM9]

The headline was "to face blackouts", not "to face an unpleasant situation where power cuts could happen". You are inserting a "could" that was not there.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Jan 2023 ==


The root of that issue is still that the wrong or misleading headlines are being written in the first place.

No, the root of the problem is that those who want everything spoon fed prompt news outlets to offer headlines appropriate to their own proclivities. As far as mainstream media goes, it has many unpleasant traits and given the predominately right-wing bias of the UK ones, I am not sympathetic with them, but even the most slanted report doesn't tell bareface lies in the body text of it's article.
Skim readeras can complain as much as they like, but the problem is within their lazy newsreading habits. Maybe each time they spout that they were tricked into believing something that wasn't true a few of them might decide to get over it and look a bit further next time. The news media would rewel thm back them as they wouldn't have their desired effect.

 

[najaB]

They can perfectly legitimately complain that they were misled if what they did read was misinformation or misleading, which many headlines are.

Sorry, but no. Does someone have a legitimate complaint that they were mislead because Steinbeck didn't write a story about male humans and rodents or a tale of unpleasant fruit, nor Dickens a travel guide to two metropolis?

 

[Dent]

No, the root of the problem is that those who want everything spoon fed prompt news outlets to offer headlines appropriate to their own proclivities. As far as mainstream media goes, it has many unpleasant traits and given the predominately right-wing bias of the UK ones, I am not sympathetic with them, but even the most slanted report doesn't tell bareface lies in the body text of it's article.
Skim readeras can complain as much as they like, but the problem is within their lazy newsreading habits. Maybe each time they spout that they were tricked into believing something that wasn't true a few of them might decide to get over it and look a bit further next time. The news media would rewel thm back them as they wouldn't have their desired effect.

None of your derogatory characterisation of people change the basic point that if wrong of misleading headlines were not written in the first place then no one would be misled by them, and those who write these headlines are responsible for what they write.

 

[najaB]

None of your derogatory characterisation of people change the basic point that if wrong of misleading headlines were not written in the first place then no one would be misled by them, and those who write these headlines are responsible for what they write.

You seem to be missing the point that a headline - by definition - will never tell the complete and accurate story. If it did then it would be the article. Headlines are there to capture people's attention and get them to read the article.

I have no more sympathy for anyone who reads the title of book and thinks they know what it is about than I do for someone who reads a headline and believes they know the whole story.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Ultimately though, it's the responsibility of the reader to read the information that's given and formulate their opinion/plans from that. The example linked of the Sun's report is hardly a big read. Those that are too lazy to even read that much can't complain that they haven't been informed.

Reality is newspapers are no longer main source of news for majority so the content of the messaging is important as sadly that is what many will just read.

Anyhow to my mind whether The Sun hyped it up, it did, doesn't really matter the fact is the potential is lodged in people minds means so they may behave differently or be more prepared for it. The fact is the potential exists for power cuts at anytime i myself have suffered four significant outages one requiring a temporary generator for a week whilst they tracked down the fault so people need to be prepared.

 

[Dent]

You seem to be missing the point that a headline - by definition - will never tell the complete and accurate story. If it did then it would be the article. Headlines are there to capture people's attention and get them to read the article.

I have no more sympathy for anyone who reads the title of book and thinks they know what it is about than I do for someone who reads a headline and believes they know the whole story.

Nowhere did I say that the headline should contain the whole article, and nowhere have I seen anyone say that they believe they know the whole story after reading only the headline.

The point is that if anything that is in the headline is misinformation, then the blame for that misinformation being there lies with whoever put it there.

 

[najaB]

The point is that if anything that is in the headline is misinformation, then the blame for that misinformation being there lies with whoever put it there.

And what, specifically, was misinformation about "Britain faces power cuts"?

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

And what, specifically, was misinformation about "Britain faces power cuts"?

maybe "Britain faces potential for power cuts"

 

[najaB]

maybe "Britain faces potential for power cuts"

'Faces' takes care of that.

 

[Dent]

'Faces' takes care of that.

It really doesn't, nothing in the definition of "faces" that you linked to says that it is a qualification equivalent to "could".

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

It really doesn't, nothing in the definition of "faces" that you linked to says that it is a qualification equivalent to "could".

hence "potential" - its not a certainty but an increased probability but best not complicate further with statistical terms!