On October 6th I wrote this:
Yesterday, I received this justification for their unique choice of the sad child image:
You describe as “exploitative and tasteless” our choice of a child sitting on a couch with someone in the foreground taking notes. As the report pointed out that the vacancies for consultant psychiatrists were proportionately much higher for child and adolescent mental health services, I fail to see how this relevant and appropriate picture was either exploitative or tasteless. The picture was of a child provided by Getty Images for general editorial use, as long as no unlawful use is intended by the user. It wholly conformed to the requirements.
So, they say they chose a child because there are more vacancies for child psychiatrists though no other media outlet did so? On that, they write: ‘How other parts of the media conduct their business is up to them.’ They admit the child was not Scottish and seem, strangely, to be using Getty Images, as their guide to what is appropriate.