I don't think this impacts the BBC trustworthyness one lick. They reported a story objectively, stating each side, without their own opinion. Even though one side was acting in bad faith. Is the BBC out of their element here, absolutely. But are they engaging in lies and deceipt, like Fox or OANN? Hardly.

> poorly researched pieces are the fault of no one but the journalists

Agreed. THey should have consulted with HN, look at all the experts here.

> literally wrong to describe an opinion as a feeling.

I don't know the gender of the OP, but one area where therapists and psychologists struggle with male patients is that they often say "I feel" instead of "I think", ann when asked what the feeling was, they struggle.

You can't feel an opinion. You can have one, and it can make you feel suspicious, or doubtful, or confused, because those are feelings.

This is a good example of how words used incorrectly are symptomatic of a deeper issue: male avoidance of feelings beyond hungry/angry/horny. It's not exclusive to men, but it is very common.

I don't think it's reasonable to conclude that there is no influence directing the overall thrust of stories, choosing which stories or which versions of stories, or which writers get published, any more than to conclude that every single story was scripted by the Illuminati or the Rothchilds.

We HAVE seen enough evidence to know that much just by tabulating stats and things like that John Oliver bit showing all the tv news stations using the exact same supposedly off the cuff remarks.