By stewartb

The availability of the cannabis use statistic for Scotland may be very ‘fortuitous’ for the headline writer of the BBC News website’s article on Scotland. The same website’s piece on its main UK page which focuses on England tells us: ‘NO DATA ON CANNABIS WAS PROVIDED FOR ENGLAND.’ (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-68884005)

The article on England now only has prominence on the BBC News website’s ‘health’ page. At the bottom of the article, the BBC provides links to ‘related topics’ which include ‘alcohol’ and ‘cannabis’.

The BBC News website’s article on the same WHO data remains prominent on the main Scotland page (at 1300 hours). And in the links to ‘related topics’ at the end of the BBC Scotland article – notably – there is NO LINK to ‘alcohol’, even though this is the headline topic for BBC’s equivalent piece on England. Why no link to ‘alcohol’ at the end of the BBC Scotland piece – unintentional omission or deliberate?

In her ‘analysis’ in the BBC Scotland article, Lisa Summers penned this paragraph:

‘England did not submit data on cannabis use. The study shows that overall, cannabis use has dropped or stabilised in recent years.’

Perhaps I’m becoming overly sensitised, but is that not an odd juxtaposition? Are we to take it that the second sentence is relevant to England? Her immediately preceding paragraphs refer to data on cannabis use in other countries that DID provide data: surely that would be the logical place to make reference to ‘overall’ trends, not immediately after a reference to a country which DIDN’T provide data! Deliberate attempt at obfuscation or just clumsy?