• Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    4 months ago

    I said by law because it’s easier than “royal charter” but it amounts to the same

    • RunawayFixer@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • Hugh_Jeggs@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        4 months ago

        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