The Panorama Team has failed to accurately challenge the consensus that the NHS ADHD assessment is of superior quality, question the correctness of Dr. Smith assessment, and instead accepted it on the basis of being in-person and longer. The team has also failed to challenge the credentials and affiliation of NHS contributors, especially Dr. Smith who is employed in a private practice alongside his NHS position, see BBCG Section 4.3.12 - Contributors’ Affiliation.
There was also no challenge to either the initial “concern” submitted by a parent of an adult person as well as no questions were raised to employees interviewed in regards to their termination reasons and potential ulterior motives (but I’m not sure how reasonable it is to lean onto it)
<aside> ✍️ Section 4.3.15 stresses the importance of challenging assumptions and avoiding reinforcing generalisations without relevant evidence.
</aside>
<aside> 🚧 TODO
</aside>
Section 4.3.15 states:
There are some issues which may seem to be without controversy, appearing to be backed by a broad or even unanimous consensus of opinion. Nevertheless, they may present a significant risk to the BBC’s impartiality. In such cases … our reporting should not use language and tone which appear to accept consensus or received wisdom as fact or self-evident
It then refers to BBCG Section 4.3.28, 4.3.29 - Personal View Content . However, the same section continues:
We must challenge our own assumptions and experiences and also those which may be commonly held by parts of our audience. 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. These can present some of the most difficult challenges to asserting that the BBC does not hold its own opinion. Care should be taken to treat areas of apparent consensus with proper rigour…
And onto Section 4.3.16:
On occasion, an individual programme or other content, which is not part of a series or long-running or continuous output, may include the expression of a view on a ‘controversial subject’ and still meet the requirements of due impartiality for that individual programme or content.
Some issues, when relating to matters of ethics and public policy, may lend themselves to sympathetic case studies or may be more likely to be approached from an individual’s perspective.
Consideration will sometimes need to be given where such an approach – which meets due impartiality requirements in itself – may produce a cumulative effect if it occurs repeatedly, especially across the same service. Relevant output controllers may also, occasionally, need to take account of such a cumulative effect across different services.