Just noticed a business local to me has shut down, over ten years ago as a student I was asked to look over their books (once I had written them, this is how disorganised they were) I said they were losing money and heavily in debt. Somehow they managed to limp on adding more debt, somehow I think the bank will be lucky to see more than a few pounds of the six figures its owed. With lending like that its no wonder this bank has the UK government as its largest shareholder these days.
While I'm on the subject of money, why is the reporting of finance in non-specialist media so patronising? The default position is that my tiny little brain is unable to grasp anything with money or percentages in it.
Admittedly I've been known to read the markets section of the FT but no other section seems to be treated in the same way coverage of politics doesn't have the presenter promising to use clear language and having to explain every technical term. A typical report on interest rates has the reporter saying how the average mortgage holder will pay £13 more/less a month over footage of estate agent boards and how that affects the market in great length before a brief mention of savers just because they don't want to be seen as being obsessed about home prices.
You could ask why is the media in general so patronising? :-) It seems we're not allowed a report without either a Powerpoint presentation with silly graphics or a dramatisation of the events.
ReplyDeleteOh, and don't get me started on Bang Goes the Theory. :-D
If coverage of your line is badly handled in the media, you're not alone. Cast your eye over what passes for science or tech news!
ReplyDeleteEven for someone with mere arts and humanities qualifications, I'd agree science coverage is a little patronising.
ReplyDelete