>Even if they do report for the BBC at other times, they aren’t reporting for the BBC in this tweet.
Right, hence the use of the phrase, "bbc reporters" and not, "the BBC". Given how common it is for reporters to tweet like this these days, that's a natural assumption one could - and should - be making when they read phrases like that. That was the very assumption that I made when I first read the comment.
>The BBC being mentioned here is misleading.
Not really, it's just saying, "Someone an outlet like the BBC trusts." Which is to say that while a claim hasn't been confirmed, it has a higher likelihood of being true relative to if you, myself, or any old Joe Schmoe had made the claim. That doesn't necessarily mean we should automatically assume it's true, but it also doesn't necessitate a complete write-off.
The BBC clearly has not trusted these reports. Nor has any other journalistic outlet.
They are literally just the tweets of any old Joe Schmoe. It doesn’t matter who they work for, since the BBC is not taking any responsibility for the reports.
Journalism has fact checkers and editors for a reason.
https://twitter.com/SecKermani/status/1431517279859224579
https://twitter.com/paykhar/status/1431572890521120770
https://twitter.com/laraseligman/status/1430901536456986625
https://twitter.com/Samiyousafzai/status/1431590453355368450
There are probably more, but atrocities such as these are rarely widely publicized.