This is a sample complaint, showing how the materials of Arguments Database - Ready Enough can be used to strengthen your Stage 2 Complaint, assuming you have mentioned A14. High conversation rate debate and misrepresentation, A09. NICE Guideline Misrepresentation - Assessor qualifications, A01. Community forewarning & outreach pre-air ignored, and A03. Lack of positive representation / ADHD voice + omitting testimonies in your Stage 1B complaint.
<aside> 🙏 Please, use this as reference point for your own writing. Find the link to detailed Argument page under the text and process and adjust it to your beliefs, views and position.
</aside>
<aside> ✍️ Your intro
</aside>
Detailed (227 words, 1485 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output alludes that high conversion rates from assessment to positive diagnosis in private practices are abnormal, but it fails to provide adequate statistics to back up the claim, thus violating Sections 3.1, 3.3.1, 4.3.2 - 4.3.8 and 3.3.16, as well as makes generalised claims on very limited and anecdotal data without properly corroborating the contributors accounts or interests. It’s not unreasonable to assume that only people that are highly certain in their condition would spend vast sums of money and time on diagnosis and titration with private clinics, thus contributing to a high conversion rate. EPUT.FOI.22.2572 in Essex reveals that an NHS practice had a 95% conversion rate in 2022. Whilst not conclusive or adequate for country-wide conclusions, this is just one of many facts that the output neglected to include. The Panorama team displayed neglect and open bias towards the standardised ASRS pre-assessment screening questionnaire, failing to outline it’s impact in further increasing the conversion rate. They also failed in seeking and broadcasting adequate statistics on number of people “converting” from each stage and providing a broader, more balanced picture of the funnel. Lack of this easily obtainable information shows clear absence of interest in providing a balanced and well-researched outlook, which violates Section 4.3.10, 4.3.11 on Impartiality in Presenting as well as sections mentioned above on Accuracy, Due Weight and Material Misleading.
</aside>
Concise (80 words, 524 characters)
<aside> ✍️ The output fails to abide by Sections 3.3.16 and 3.3.22, 3.3.23 on Material Misleading and Production Techniques. The qualification level of assessors (psychologist, nurse, pharmacist) is mentioned numerous times throughout the output (at least 6), whereas the fact that all of them are eligible under NICE guidelines is mentioned disproportionally less (no more than two, only one at 20:45 comes to mind), which jointly is clearly misleading to the audience and portrays private assessments as un-compliant, which is false.
</aside>
Detailed, character-optimised (128 words, 934 characters)
<aside> ✍️ NGOs and the public raised concerns and warned Panorama about potential harm from the output. Despite receiving these warnings, the team decided to broadcast the output with accompanying articles mostly unchanged. Many issues, including inaccuracies and misrepresented segments, became real after the release, leading to harm.
Failure to address concerns breached BBC Guidelines, Sections 1.2, 1.3, 3.1, 4.3.2 - 4.3.8, and Guidance - Investigation. It indicates insufficient protection of vulnerable groups and lack of consideration for the adverse impact of the episode.
It also misleads the public, contradicting the BBC objectives and public interest. An example letter expressing these concerns can be found here: **https://adhduk.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/sites/6/2023/05/2023.05.11-Letter-to-Panorama-from-ADHD-UK.pdf**.
</aside>
Detailed (300 words, 2019 characters)
<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>
<aside> ✍️ Your outro
</aside>
Total: 735 words and 4962 characters. Rest are yours to adjust, rewrite, better tweak and adopt.
🚧 TODO