2 ms·

Yeah, sure, you are making a good point and I mostly agree. But my question (about which I am still confused) is why "on behalf of the perpetrators" was the cla

• washadjeffmad 5y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BBC_sexual_abuse_cases The articles being sanitized are a subtle attempt to distance the BBC from the above scandal by removing the public's access to reporting that tied their employees and facilities to (now) known abusers. There's a film from the 80s, Broadcast News, where a charismatic upstart anchor doctors an interview to make it appear he was crying after hearing a young woman's tale of sexual abuse, and when his producer and potential love interest discovers it, she abjures him professionally and romantically. Journalism ethics would dictate that the BBC account honestly why they are changing the past. They can republish the articles (corrections are not a new concept) and link to the old ones with a "trigger warning" if they wish to, but to make it appear there was less involvement than there was, and to use the victims' feelings as an excuse, is nothing if not wrong.