I think the bigger issue here is that the wildfire itself risks getting overshadowed by arguments about the article’s framing. If a whole village is being evacuated and conditions are worsening because of changing winds, that’s the story that deserves the most attention.

As for the BBC piece, I didn’t read it as an editorial. Including criticism from a local resident isn’t automatically false balance, especially if it’s clearly presented as one person’s view rather than an established fact. False balance becomes a problem when two positions are presented as equally supported despite overwhelming evidence favoring one side. Simply quoting someone who disagrees with the authorities doesn’t necessarily cross that line. Whether that quote was given too much prominence is a fair discussion, but I’d separate that from accusations of bias unless there’s a consistent pattern throughout the reporting.

Here is the view from near Aberdeen yesterday. My throat is still quite sore from the smoke.

That article just reads of the BBC putting the boot into the Scottish Government. About as neutral and impartial as The Daily Mail writing about Greta Thunberg.

Especially the bit with McGlinchey, whoever the fuck he is. It contradicts what was previously written about the Eccles.