Have the BBC got it wrong?

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

Thought this might be the most appropriate topic / thread to post this under.

Idly looking at the BBC website, I found this – now, to me, that is definitely not a description of surface mounted technology. Or is it? Have I been labouring under a misapprehension for years?

“Surface mounted technology (SMT) is used to place electrical components on top of circuit boards, by inserting the connectors through the holes and soldering them underneath.”

Rob

Link to https://www.bbc.co.uk/bitesize/guides/zvstng8/revision/8

[John HaineParticipant @johnhaine32865]

Yes, definitely!

[noel shelleyParticipant @noelshelley55608]

No ! SMT is tiny components with solder pads that sit on the circuit board and are soldered – NO leads ! Noel

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Yes – having worked for some years in a factory making surface-mounting board-printing machines… that is wrong.

Unfortunately news and documentary organisations are staffed by people who are journalists and “media” graduates first and foremost, but not necessarily technical specialists as those who cover financial news or the arts seem to be. So sometimes out of their depth when trying to explain what has had to be explained to them.

Consequently while all their listeners or viewers might come away with some inkling of what stock-exchanges actually do, or a better appreciation of the works of Michaelangelo and Mozart; they continue to parrot tautologies like “underground tunnels”, call locomotives “trains”, and believe that naval submarines go “Ping!-Ping!-Ping! ” all the time.

So it’s hardly surprising canards like that wrong description of Surface Mounted electronics could take root.

Nothing new though – for how long have historians blamed the Tay Bridge Disaster entirely on its designer? (The component manufacturers, the erecting contractors and even the Board of Trade were all to blame, too.)

[John Haine]

On John Haine Said:

Yes, definitely!

Not a valid answer to an either/or question, John

… Tut-Tut … despite the exclamation mark

MichaelG.

.

Edit: __ Sorry … I now realise you were probably answering the subject-line question

[samuel heywoodParticipant @samuelheywood23031]

LOL! all part of the dumbing down?

…& my 2 (old) pennies worth, I’m not sure the BBC has got it right in a long time now.

[Bill PhinnParticipant @billphinn90025]

I’m not sure Nigel’s trashing of journalists and “media” graduates is really relevant, on this occasion at least; the source for the contested information on the BBC’s site linked to by Rob is Eduqas.

“Our dedicated team of subject experts and web developers create digital resources to support the teaching and learning of WJEC Eduqas qualifications regulated by Ofqual. “

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

Well, I’ve used their Comment facility to send a complaint about it, and received the usual automated response that they’ll look into it. I won’t hold my breath…

Rob

[Grindstone Cowboy]

On Grindstone Cowboy Said:

Well, I’ve used their Comment facility to send a complaint about it, and received the usual automated response that they’ll look into it. I won’t hold my breath…

Rob

Could you post the link here, Rob? Then we can inundate them with complaints!

George

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Bill –

I didn’t “trash” (not a word I use anyway) all journalists and media graduates. I pointed out that some areas are covered by journalists who know the subject, but some, particularly science and engineering, seem not to be.

If the information concerned came from whatever “Edugas” is, beyond a source of mottos in high-flown waffle, I suppose the BBC simply accepted it would be correct; but given that motto says it’s only a software company I’d have expected the BBC to have verified it. A simple ‘phone call to its own technical department may well have sufficed!

However, public, non-technical journalism generally is not all innocent; and you cannot always trust them to copy accurately what you say or even write to them. “Unsinkable” ships? (A mis-quote if ever there was one, though it’s hard to determine exactly where.)

 

[Grindstone CowboyParticipant @grindstonecowboy]

By all means, George. The start page for the comment process is here.

Rob

Links to https://www.bbc.co.uk/contact/comments-feedback/#/Your%20comment

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

…
Nothing new though – for how long have historians blamed the Tay Bridge Disaster entirely on its designer? (The component manufacturers, the erecting contractors and even the Board of Trade were all to blame, too.)

I don’t think I’ve read an account that blamed Sir Thomas entirely, but surely he gets most of the blame?  His responsibility to tell clients they wanted too cheap, to keep up-to-date on wind-loadings,  to understand cast-iron,  the best way to design lugs, and how deep bolts should go into masonry.

Bad workmanship, running the train cross-wise during a severe storm, and poor maintenance didn’t help, but Sir T chose to design for a maximum wind-load of 10psft when 20psft had been experienced elsewhere, and though Scotland is always delightful, high winds aren’t unknown!

His tall, spindly weak bridge in an exposed location was an accident waiting to happen.  After the collapse, I believe other Bouch designed bridges were inspected, judged too flimsy, and replaced.

He wasn’t the first engineer to get it wrong, and will be far from the last.

Dave

 

[Martin KyteParticipant @martinkyte99762]

I suspect this original BBC muddled report should have read surface mount bla bla bla instead of inserting pins through holes bla bla bla.

regards Martin

[Nigel Graham 2]

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Bill –

If the information concerned came from whatever “Edugas” is, beyond a source of mottos in high-flown waffle, I suppose the BBC simply accepted it would be correct; but given that motto says it’s only a software company…

 

A second attempt at clarification:

https://www.eduqas.co.uk/home/about-us/

 

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Bill –

I didn’t “trash” …all journalists and media graduates.

 

Not sure where I said you did.

 

On Nigel Graham 2 Said:

Bill –

I didn’t “trash” (not a word I use anyway)

It’s a fact of life that the language we use to describe things we do is not always the language other people would use.

 

[Nigel Graham 2Participant @nigelgraham2]

Bill – your first comment included this clause “….. Nigel’s trashing of journalists…. ”

Thankyou for the link though.

……….

My point was that I do not excuse the BBC for promulgating mistakes, but this is common among journalists and historians generally, by not fully verifying their sources.

In this case the BBC had apparently quoted something told them by commercial education contractor, not someone in the electronics industry, and that should have indicated it was already second-hand “information”. That the company concerned sells services to schools though, makes it worse (what other ignorance does Edugas peddle?) although due to its line or work I can understand the BBC taking what it said, at face value.

….

My reference to the Tay Bridge Disaster was a classic example of simply repeating the same errors over and over again. Yet there was no excuse because the Public Inquiry into the disaster was very thorough and apportioned blame to all concerned.

– Thomas Boucher’s design was undoubtedly seriously flawed in several ways, so the design was weak. Yet he was not the only one to blame as we’ve all been misled to believe.

– The Board of Trade failed in its design and construction oversight duty – so negligent.

– The parts manufacturer’s workmanship was appallingly shoddy; so the parts were weaker than designed.

– The builders cut corners all over the place; making the assembly weaker than designed.

– Nature was… innocent. Unlike that part of the myth, the storm was not exceptional for the region, but Boucher and others failed to account correctly both for wind-loading and weather typical to the area.

The problem is, who is responsible for the myths. Possibly, the Press and (as a government agency was implicated) even politicians of the time, looking, as ever, for scapegoats; but that does not excuse later writers never putting it right. Or perhaps those who tried were ignored in favour of the easy way out.

 

Obviously, a badly-built railway bridge collapsing with great loss of life cannot possibly be compared with some commercial school company not knowing how electronic circuits are made. Nevertheless, we live in an extremely and increasingly technically-controlled world; and even simple mistakes like that from a source you’d not expect to make them, is bad. For the BBC or any other news and information service not to verify it, is just as inexcusable.

 

[Bo’sunParticipant @bosun58570]

I’m far from electronics expert, but surely “surface mount” says it all?

[Anthony KendallParticipant @anthonykendall53479]

Yes, on this occasion, the BBC got it wrong.
I am heartened by the fact technology is being discussed though.
I can’t see any connection to the Tay Bridge.

 

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

The Tay bridge disaster gave us a couple of things

The first tensile tester type thingy for steel, located somewhere around midlothian

The Forth Rail Bridge was built super-safe to show the population that the industry could learn and evolve

[Ady1Participant @ady1]

Found the testing site

(Could be a TV error here. Kirkaldy is the guys name, not the location, lol)

[Author]

Posts