According to the official investigation Epstein did commit suicide so that’s what the journalist should report, but that doesn’t mean that the journalist can’t add something like “in suspicious circumstances” to make clear that the circumstances of Epstein’s death were well, very suspicious.
Thanks for the name. I skimmed through it and tbh, I’m not seeing why no additional context/doubt could be provided. They might have internal guidelines to not do so, but the charter itself does not seem to stop journalists from providing additional context outside of official statements/reports. It seems to me that this sentence was a choice by the editor/journalist.
I just searched for some keywords, “fact” landed me on the paragraph that seemed most applicable: “duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming”. The other paragraphs I found, that could have been applicable, were about being impartial when UK politics were involved.
Yep you’re getting it. That (additional context, or speculation, or opinions) would have to be a separate article, according to the charter. Linking the facts with someone else’s opinion isn’t allowed, but doing a separate opinion piece (clearly labelled) is ok
This article is reporting facts as they are 100% known, as per the charter. There are no known facts that the pedo was murdered or topped himself, due to obfuscation of the information. It’s reported as known, even if that’s a bit sparse. AP and Reuters do the same.
You will also be able to find opinion pieces on the BBC on the same subject, you just can’t mix the two, as is the case in most journalism nowadays
According to the official investigation Epstein did commit suicide so that’s what the journalist should report, but that doesn’t mean that the journalist can’t add something like “in suspicious circumstances” to make clear that the circumstances of Epstein’s death were well, very suspicious.
It’s the BBC, not the Guardian. The journalist literally can’t, by law, add “in suspicious circumstances”
They certainly can report on that others found it suspicious
Do you have a reference for that law? I’m interested in seeing how it’s worded.
I said by law because it’s easier than “royal charter” but it amounts to the same
Thanks for the name. I skimmed through it and tbh, I’m not seeing why no additional context/doubt could be provided. They might have internal guidelines to not do so, but the charter itself does not seem to stop journalists from providing additional context outside of official statements/reports. It seems to me that this sentence was a choice by the editor/journalist.
I just searched for some keywords, “fact” landed me on the paragraph that seemed most applicable: “duly accurate and impartial news, current affairs and factual programming”. The other paragraphs I found, that could have been applicable, were about being impartial when UK politics were involved.
Yep you’re getting it. That (additional context, or speculation, or opinions) would have to be a separate article, according to the charter. Linking the facts with someone else’s opinion isn’t allowed, but doing a separate opinion piece (clearly labelled) is ok
This article is reporting facts as they are 100% known, as per the charter. There are no known facts that the pedo was murdered or topped himself, due to obfuscation of the information. It’s reported as known, even if that’s a bit sparse. AP and Reuters do the same.
You will also be able to find opinion pieces on the BBC on the same subject, you just can’t mix the two, as is the case in most journalism nowadays
Nice dodge let’s see this royal charter
They weren’t dodging, it’s a thing and it should be the first result if you bothered to look it up: https://www.bbc.com/aboutthebbc/governance/charter