Another day and another example of BBC bias.
I don't have to tell readers how many hours I've spent asking the broadcaster to amend or update reports that don't even try to be impartial on the issue of smoking.
I've written about it often enough – the 2.00am calls to the online night editor, the emails to various correspondents – and, let's not be immodest about this, I've actually had quite a bit of 'success' getting quotes added to reports that would otherwise be hopelessly one-sided.
Overall though it's an uphill battle. This morning, for example, I woke to read a report on the BBC website headlined 'Want to light up in Milan? Not any more, you can't'.
Written by Danielle (Dany) Mitzman, 'a British freelance journalist who has been based in the north Italian town of Bologna since 1998' (and previously worked as a producer on Woman's Hour), it begins:
It's all change for the trendy crowds along the canals of Milan, used to holding a glass of aperitivo in one hand and a cigarette in the other. Because a ban on smoking outdoors has just come into force in a range of public places.
Smoking within a 10m (30ft) distance of other people is no longer permitted from Tuesday at bus and tram stops as well as in the city's parks and green spaces, sports and recreational grounds, children's play areas, stadiums and cemeteries.
So far so good – a simple statement of fact, mildly embroidered with some local colour. My objection lies with the rest of the article and claims that, if not highly dubious, deserve at least to be questioned.
Municipal councillor Marco Granelli says the ban's aim is twofold - to help reduce dangerous fine particles in the air known as PM10, currently well over the European limit, and to protect citizens' health.
How banning smoking in the open air will 'protect citizens' health' isn't made clear but in the absence of a single opposition voice we are told that 'The ban, which does not include electronic cigarettes, is being welcomed by smokers and non-smokers alike.'
Emanuela, who is a smoker, says she considers the ban a necessary step: "Everyone knows that cigarettes cause cancer so people should not be forced to inhale our smoke."
Milan has been one of the cities most devastated by Covid-19 and Emanuela believes [my emphasis] smokers increase the risk of transmission by removing their masks, "so I expose myself and other people to the virus".
Incredibly, therefore, the only smoker Mitzman quotes in her article not only supports the ban but 'believes' it is justified because 'smokers increase the risk of transmission [of the coronavirus] by removing their masks' (not even indoors, mind, but in the open air).
Where is the evidence for this bogus, unsubstantiated claim? If it was true surely every anti-smoking authority in the world would have taken similar steps to ban smoking in outdoor public places during the pandemic.
Has this happened? No, because the evidence doesn't support it.
Other media are just as bad but given its special position – including the fact that it's a public service paid for by members of the public via a compulsory licence fee – the BBC has a much greater responsibility to be impartial (and truthful), even on subjects like smoking.
Anyway, confronting media bias is something I have been engaged in since 1985, long before I started working for Forest.
In 1989, ten years before I joined Forest, I even researched and wrote a report called 'Smoke Out: How the quality press covers the smoking debate'. But more of that in my next post.