This argument deals with Panoramas’ careless and manipulative portrayal of private clinics, the omission of important facts and general production technique usage. Due to the size of the commentary, the aspects of NICE guidelines and qualified clinicians are separated out in A09. NICE Guideline Misrepresentation - Assessor qualifications and the diagnosis rates are in A14. High conversation rate debate and misrepresentation. The aspect of lack of clarity of protecting identities is explored further in A15. Unequal care for privacy of Contributors
I’ve also decided not to comment on the stab into the Right to Choose which is a legal and important path in England and Wales, but not diminishing it’s value.
<aside> ✍️ The output violates sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 as well as 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 by omission of the fact that a considerable amount of private practices employ former or current NHS clinicians for ADHD assessments.
It grossly misrepresents the actual time the private assessments took, calling a 1-hour combined Harley a “7 minutes and you have a prescription”, omitting ADHD Directs’ lasting for over 2 hours with 3 total allocated and through commentary and editing violating Section 3.3.16 Material Misleading, Sections 4.3.10, 4.3.11 Impartiality, Section 3.3.22 Production Techniques. The latter is further violated by extensive editing of online private assessments, engineered to portray the clinicians within as inattentive, unfocused and unprofessional.
Output fails to adequately question and corroborate Harleys’ former employee, their dismissal and potential personal interest during contribution, violating Sections 6.3.12 - 6.3.13.
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Output violates Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 3.3.8 Accuracy and Gathering Material, 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 Due Weight by omitting that some private practices primarily employ former or part-time NHS clinicians, explicitly confirmed by AHDH Direct. Output also creates a misleading impression by heavily implying that online ADHD assessments are less reliable, when 1/3 of NHS ones are online.
Private clinics assessment service representation is biased. Output selectively includes only cases supporting a sensationalist theme and lacks adequate statistics as required by Section 3.3.16, instead relying on anecdotal evidence. There are consistent material misrepresentations of private assessments: "7 minutes and you have a prescription" with Harley Psychiatry whilst omitting the initial 53-minute assessment for a total of 1h. ADHD Direct appointment time of 3 hours (2 initial, 1 follow-up) were omitted as well, violating Sections 4.3.10 -11 3.3.22 as they collectively contribute to a materially misleading impression of events.
Former employees contributing to the output were not adequately questioned, and their dismissal cause was not corroborated as demanded by Section 6.3.12: "We should consider whether it is appropriate to make more in-depth checks about people who … are to make a significant contribution to the output”, including: “documentary evidence to validate their identity and story or qualifications and experience” and “corroboration from people other than those suggested by the contributor". None of these measures were adequately provided to the audience.
Output violates Sections 3.3.22-23 when discussing drugs and private practices. It is apparent in the way interviews are presented, as they are heavily edited, evidenced by the timestamp on the online call. This editing potentially portrays clinicians in a less favourable light, making them appear less attentive, focused, or professional than they actually were. Section 3.3.22 clearly states that "Commentary and editing must never be used to give the audience a materially misleading impression of events or a contribution."
</aside>
(AI generated below)