BBC and their reporting standards

[Lorelielee]

I think that every time a BBC programme lets a guest refer to asylum seekers as illegal immigrants it is important that it is fact checked. It's very clear and covered by echr what a asylum seeker is and their rights. It's not a matter of opinion. It is fact. Of course the interview guests are biased. BUT Its is the job of the BBC to 'inform, educate and entertain.
The difference between an asylum seeker, a refugee and a illegal immigrant is very clear.

I think unfortunately the huge numbers of young single male illegal economic immigrants have wrecked the discussion on this and blurred the lines to the detriment of real asylum seekers. Now no one knows who is genuine anymore so everyone gets lumped into the same pot.

Also OP I personally don't know the difference between a "refugee" and "asylum seeker"? I always assumed they were the same thing?

An Asylum Seeker is somebody who asserts they're fleeing persecution etc.

A Refugee has had their assertion accepted.

There are good reasons why young males risk their lives etc. rather than their Grannies. Not sure why that's difficult to grasp.

The BBC have had shit reporting standard since forever.

I don't have difficulties in grasping why that might be the case.

They're not leading with this serious story.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/gift/17615f4d1a878e36