TODO
This Argument deals with two things at once: lack of positive cases for ADHD and it’s diagnosis routes,
<aside> ✍️ The output breached Sections 1.2, 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 Accuracy, 4.3.2-4.3.8 Due Weight and 4.3.25 - Impartiality and Audiences, harming the ADHD community by excluding positive experiences with private clinics, that were shared with them during their research, leading to an unbalanced portrayal. The episode's false premises and undercover approach perpetuated harmful stereotypes.
Furthermore, the lack of representation of people with ADHD goes against the principles outlined in the BBC Commissioning Guidelines, emphasising the need for inclusion and representation of disabled talent both on-screen and off-screen.
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ BBC's Panorama episode on ADHD diagnostics breached the BBC Editorial Guidelines and caused measurable harm to the ADHD community. The program's exclusion of positive experiences with private clinics, which were shared with them in response to their inquires during their research, resulted in an unbalanced portrayal, skewing public perception. The most egregious violation is one of Section 4.3.25 - Impartiality and Audiences that expressly demands that BBC ensures that "responses should not be given a wider significance than they merit and we should take care not to misrepresent the relative weight of opinions expressed". Failure of the output to include a wide range of responses that was available to them is a further damning violation of various aspects of Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 on Accuracy, Gathering Material, Statistics and Risk and 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 - Due Weight, Impartiality, Controversial Subjects.
Another significant violation of the BBC Editorial Guidelines was the lack of representation of people with ADHD in the episode. This contravened the principles outlined in the BBC Commissioning Guidelines, which emphasise the importance of including individuals directly impacted by the subject of the program. By excluding a broad range of people with ADHD and different experiences of obtaining the diagnosis from the episode, BBC disregarded the perspectives and experiences of the very individuals being discussed, further marginalising the ADHD community and perpetuating a biased narrative, which demonstrates a failure on BBC's part to bear it's responsibility to change industry practices and culture to be more inclusive and avoid failing disabled individuals. The lack of representation violated the principle of inclusive storytelling, as stated in Section 5 (Advocate) of the Commissioning Guidelines. This failure to include people with ADHD in the episode undermined the potential for an accurate, informative, and compassionate portrayal of ADHD and its impact on individuals' lives.
</aside>
TODO
TODO: try to, when summarising, credit the main contributing thoughts (where possible, some aren’t identifiable / not direct quotes but rather Mikes’ mind-melt after reading the subreddit for hours)