In a comment under Geoff Chambers’ article, Global Warmongering, I drew attention to a BBC Verify article which sought to rubbish President-Elect Trump’s criticisms of the situation relating to the terrible Los Angeles fires. It was headed “Fact-checking criticism of California Democrats over fires” and was clearly rushed out to defend California Democrats and to point out that (as the BBC sees it) that everything Mr Trump says is rubbish.

The BBC Verify fact-checking article is already, a little over 24 hours after it first saw the light of day, on its eighth iteration, according to News Sniffer (thank you Stew Green and Jit for drawing this to our attention). This story represents in a nutshell why we can’t trust the BBC, especially where stories about climate change and Donald Trump are concerned (it’s a perfect storm for the BBC when those two issues are combined in a single story).

Anyone reading my comments generally here at Cliscep and specifically under Geoff’s article, will readily appreciate that I am a long way from being Donald Trump’s greatest fan. However, my dislike of him, his behaviour, and many of his policies doesn’t blind me to the BBC’s blatantly obvious Trump Derangement Syndrome. In this case it has left the BBC Verify team (“BBC Verify is dedicated to examining the facts and claims behind a story to try to determine whether or not it is true”) with a lot of egg on its face, but the BBC hasn’t recognised this at all. Although the article has been repeatedly amended, nowhere in any of the versions is there an admission that this is so. I suppose admitting that BBC Verify’s articles have to be repeatedly amended in order to correct earlier errors wouldn’t exactly instil confidence in the Verify brand. Although there are various changes affecting different aspects of the story, for the sake of simplicity I concentrate on the fire hydrants issue.

Version One

Is there is ‘no water for fire hydrants’?

Trump has also said that there was “no water for fire hydrants”.

There have been reports that certain fire hydrants have run dry.

This is down to high demand placing a heavy strain on the system, according to local officials and experts.

In Pasadena, Fire Chief Chad Augustin said the area experienced a short period of time where pressure was low on a small amount of hydrants. All issues had been resolved, he added.

“There are very localised incidents of this unfolding where the fire hydrants have had insufficient water pressure for firefighters to use them, but that’s not because LA is running out of water,” says Mr Swain.

“There are thousands of firefighters and hundred of fire engines drawing upon water, and ultimately only so much can flow through pipes at a time.”

That’s all fairly clear. Trump is making a mountain out of a molehill. There have been some brief issues with pressure and demand, but nothing to suggest that LA is running out of water, and all issues have been resolved. Silly dishonest Mr Trump.

Version Two

This version makes no changes with regard to the question of fire hydrants. It makes some minor amendments that – in fairness – don’t need to be specially mentioned at the end of the article, and if these amendments were the only ones made, I wouldn’t make an issue out of it. Amusingly, it’s worth noting in passing that one of the amendments was to describe Daniel Swain of the California Institute for Water Resources as a climate scientist rather than as a Climate Scientist (is upper case reserved for big beasts only, I wonder?).

Version Three

Still nothing to get excited about. The only change is to point out that Governor Newsom is a Democrat (can’t have readers being confused between the good guys and the bad guys).

Version Four

Some minor changes were made elsewhere in the article, but now the fire hydrants story is changing. Some paragraphs have been added:

Some hydrants in higher-elevation parts of Pacific Palisades also reportedly went dry. Former Department of Water and Power general manager Martin Adams told the LA Times that the Santa Ynez Reservoir might have prevented this if open, but only for a time because of the enormous demand.

Oops! Still, no harm done, and the story can still be minimised:

“You still would have ended up with serious drops in pressure,” he said. “Would it have saved the day? I don’t think so.”

Phew, we’re saved – an expert has been found to say this would have made no difference.

Version Five

It’s starting to look a little tricky now that Governor Newsom (remember him – he’s a good guy, a Democrat) has started to ask difficult questions:

On Friday, Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to hydrants and the unavailability of water from the reservoir.

Obviously for the BBC it was best to include the paragraph so as to avoid accusations of omitting key facts, but not to add any additional comment or amend its earlier conclusions. Good grief, that would be to admit that they rushed a story out in error, and that would never do.

Version Six

Oh dear, the story has by now gone pear-shaped. OH well, sauve qui peut, and all that. Let’s get on the front foot and look good by making it clear that the BBC has found all this out itself by being really good at its job and having its journalists talk to firefighters:

Is there no water for fire hydrants’?

On Friday, Governor Newsom confirmed reports that have been swirling this week that a water shortage hit the fire hydrants, hampering the emergency response.

Firefighters in Los Angeles have told the BBC firsthand that they experienced shortages.

Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to hydrants and the unavailability of water from the reservoir.

In a letter addressed to the heads of the LA Department of Water and Power and LA County Public Works, Newsom said that reports of inadequate water supplies are “deeply troubling” .

“Losing supplies from fire hydrants likely impaired the effort to protect some homes and evacuation corridors,” he wrote.

“We need answers to how that happened,” he continued, adding that he expects the agencies to “fully and transparently” share information and records for the state’s probe.

Adam Van Gerpen, a captain with the Los Angeles fire department, confirmed to the BBC that his crew, which has been tackling the Pacific Palisades blaze, and other crews battling other wildfires, ran out of water, forcing them to “improvise”.

It’s all rather embarrassing, as is the fact that this confirms what Trump claimed, which BBC Verify initially said wasn’t true. What’s to be done? Easy! Drop the paragraph which has Trump making his claims. Remember this paragraph?

Trump has also said that there was “no water for fire hydrants”.

It was still there in version five. By version six it has disappeared.

Version Seven

Nothing of significance to report here – after all the real damage was done between versions six and seven. The only amendment was to explain who Daniel Swain is – initially there were three references to him and now there’s only one. The omission of the explanation of his identity would have left readers confused, as it had disappeared when they chopped the first two references.

Version Eight

Oh dear, it seems there’s no hiding from it after all. The reference to Trump has been re-inserted:

On Friday, Newsom confirmed Trump’s claim that there had been no water for some fire hydrants, which hampered the emergency response.

Newsom called for an independent investigation into the loss of water pressure to hydrants and “the reported unavailability of water supplies from the Santa Ynez Reservoir”.

In a letter addressed to the heads of the LA Department of Water and Power and LA County Public Works, Newsom said that reports of inadequate water supplies were “deeply troubling”.

It’s all a far cry from version one.

Conclusion

It’s beyond time time BBC Verify is ditched. It’s long been obvious to me that it isn’t the sword of truth but a rapid deployment weapon the BBC uses to discredit stories and people it disapproves of. It’s been badly caught out on this one, but lacks the good grace to admit it and to make it clear to readers that the article has been substantially changed. If I were inclined to give th BBC the benefit of the doubt (I’m not) I would accept that it’s a fast-moving story and that what initially appears to be the case can turn out not to be. However, there are two reasons why I don’t accept that to be the case here. First the manifest focus on Trump and the blatant attempt to discredit his utterances. Second the failure to acknowledge that the article has had to be substantially amended. It’s just all too typical of the BBC. And I’m fed up of it.