'Elections voter ID scheme 'deeply flawed'' as is the BBC's coverage

This BBC report http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-43932073 is apparently designed to fool the casual reader who likely reads the headline and the first few sentences and moves on. Such a reader would only read that:

'Elections voter ID scheme 'deeply flawed'

Government plans to make people prove their identity before voting are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The scheme, which is being piloted in Bromley, Gosport, Swindon, Watford and Woking for the local elections on 3 May, is designed to combat voter fraud.

But the ERS says the new system could be a "calculated effort" to make voting harder for some citizens.

Voter ID fraud was "incredibly rare", it said.'

The casual reader would tut at the unfairness, unfairness that had been confirmed by the' Electoral Reform Society', which sounds like an official organisation. 

If this reader continued then they'd get more details about the unfairness:

'The claim comes after a leaked letter from the Equality and Human Rights Commission warned the change could have a "disproportionate impact" on voters from minority groups, who may not possess appropriate ID.

"With millions of people lacking the right photographic ID - and no government plans for a universal, free alternative - this can only mean another barrier for honest voters," said ERS chief executive Darren Hughes.

He added: "Mandatory voter ID is a sledgehammer to crack a nut. It's time for an evidence-based approach instead."'

The casual reader would now be incensed and ready to go out to vote Labour in next week's local elections. 

Only if one perseveres and reads on does one discover that:

'The ERS is part of a coalition of charities and campaign groups opposed to the plans, including Age UK, Stonewall, Liberty and the Salvation Army.' 

So hardly unbiased, the warning comes from an organisation opposed to the plans. 

Let's read on:

'On Monday, Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith told the House of Commons no one would need to buy new ID documents to be able to vote.

"We already ask that people prove who they are in order to claim benefits, to rent a car or even to collect a parcel from the Post Office, so this is a proportionate and reasonable approach," Ms Smith told MPs.

"Democracy is precious and it is right to take that more robust approach to protect the integrity of the electoral process."'

Sounds reasonable, which is why the Labour Party approved line is presented first and the rebuttal and actual facts hidden away afterwards. 

An unbiased news reporting organisation could, using the same words (flawed though some of them are), present this report starting:

'Elections voter ID scheme 'deeply flawed'

Government plans to make people prove their identity before voting are "deeply flawed", the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has warned.

The ERS is part of a coalition of charities and campaign groups opposed to the plans, including Age UK, Stonewall, Liberty and the Salvation Army.

'On Monday, Cabinet Office minister Chloe Smith told the House of Commons no one would need to buy new ID documents to be able to vote.

"We already ask that people prove who they are in order to claim benefits, to rent a car or even to collect a parcel from the Post Office, so this is a proportionate and reasonable approach," Ms Smith told MPs.'

There's the claim put, the context about who's making the claim and the government's rebuttal. The rest of the original BBC article could then follow to give more details. Wouldn't that be fairer? 

But then the BBC isn't interested in fairness but in protecting their precious Labour Party's votes and so ensuring more Labour councillors next week and a Labour government in a few years, maybe sooner.