I agree with your conclusions about R Carson's poor journalism. There were a number of aspects that were manipulated and edited for a reason to show these clinics in a bad light.
However, there is one very important factor that hasn't been mentioned in any of the comments published on the Internet after broadcasting the BBC material: ethics. How ethical is it to show the full names and faces of the staff of two of the three clinics? What purpose does it serve? Why did the two nurses from the second clinic have their faces blurred and their voices altered? isn't that strange? Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps the fact that the three exposed people look like non-native British, and they likely look like non-white people (at least the two men)? Isn't this racist and xenophobic behaviour shown by Carson? What about endangering these people by giving their full names and addresses where they can be found? Will the BBC take responsibility if something happens? Will the BBC take responsibility for the trauma caused by the defamatory publication? What about giving the exposed people a chance to defend themselves? Carson didn't bother to be fair. There was no mention of the fact that the problems with ADHD diagnosis come from the NHS, which is not up to the task. Are they doing any better? Do they really spend over three hours with each patient, testing for every possible symptom of the condition? Of course they don't. Queues can be long, 5 years waiting time... I'd say shame on the BBC for supporting such bad journalism.
Hi,
I agree with your conclusions about R Carson's poor journalism. There were a number of aspects that were manipulated and edited for a reason to show these clinics in a bad light.
However, there is one very important factor that hasn't been mentioned in any of the comments published on the Internet after broadcasting the BBC material: ethics. How ethical is it to show the full names and faces of the staff of two of the three clinics? What purpose does it serve? Why did the two nurses from the second clinic have their faces blurred and their voices altered? isn't that strange? Or maybe it isn't. Perhaps the fact that the three exposed people look like non-native British, and they likely look like non-white people (at least the two men)? Isn't this racist and xenophobic behaviour shown by Carson? What about endangering these people by giving their full names and addresses where they can be found? Will the BBC take responsibility if something happens? Will the BBC take responsibility for the trauma caused by the defamatory publication? What about giving the exposed people a chance to defend themselves? Carson didn't bother to be fair. There was no mention of the fact that the problems with ADHD diagnosis come from the NHS, which is not up to the task. Are they doing any better? Do they really spend over three hours with each patient, testing for every possible symptom of the condition? Of course they don't. Queues can be long, 5 years waiting time... I'd say shame on the BBC for supporting such bad journalism.