TODO
This point solely focuses on how the NHS assessment is not a typical representation of such, the inadequacy of treating the NHS assessment as “baseline”, lack of questioning regarding its circumstances as well as lack of adequate signposting of Dr Smiths’ views and opinions as Personal.
Material inadequacies in time are focused on in A06. Private practices misrepresentation and Material Misleading.
<aside> ✍️ Despite BBC responses in Stage 1, the NHS assessment as shown cannot be presented as “standard” and should not have been heralded as such. Focus on duration and offline nature contradicts the NHS statistics, where 1/3 is online and most are 90 minutes on average. The output doesn’t adequately challenge the consensus that the NHS assessment is correct and to question the credentials and affiliation of Dr. Smith, who was and is also practicing privately at the time, which jointly violates Section 4.3.15 - Consensus and Section Section 4.3.12 - Contributors’ Affiliation. Arguably, the output failed to adequately signpost Dr. Smiths’ views as Personal as mandated by Sections 4.3.28 - 4.3.29: “the opinion of a specialist or professional … can add to the public understanding and debate … such personal view content must be clearly signposted to audiences in advance”
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Output and BBC responses reinforce the notion that a typical NHS ADHD assessment is conducted offline and lasts over 3 hours. Saying that the “3 hours claim“ refers to Dr. Smiths’ practice individually does not correct the lack of context in the output and isn’t sufficient remedy. This violates several Sections: 3.1, 3.3.1, and 3.3.8, along with 4.3.2-4.3.8. Contrary to the output's, one-third of NHS ADHD assessments are online, this crucial detail is never communicated. Output repeatedly emphasises the online nature of private assessments, reinforcing bias. NHS Trusts report that their assessments take an average of 90 minutes, including Central and North West London (also online only), Tees, Esk and Wear Valleys, and others. Restating that NHS assessment representation was "typical", "fair," "balanced," or "accurate" is disingenuous and violates Section 3.3.16.
Output fails to challenge the consensus that the NHS assessment is inherently correct and avoids questioning Dr. Smith's credentials and affiliation, violating Section 4.3.15: "BBC output should avoid reinforcing generalisations which lack relevant evidence, especially when applying them to specific circumstances. This might occur in the fields of … medicine or elsewhere." With misrepresentation of a "typical" NHS assessment, this skewed perspective misleads the audience and inclines them to accept the presented view as truth.
Dr. Smiths' affiliation is not sufficiently corroborated, as demanded by Section 4.3.12: "We should not automatically assume that contributors from other organisations (such as academics, journalists, researchers, and representatives of charities and think-tanks) are unbiased." Dr. Smith has been involved in private practice at the time of filming (The White Rose Psychology Practice). There is significant lack of evidence to confirm absence of bias or conflicting interests.
</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)