There are a few things I note:

Firstly the page you referenced has several "<insert animal/bird/plant here> invades football pitch..." stories in a sidebar. One assumes this is to attract the children.

Secondly, I followed the events of last night in Washington D.C.*, via YouTube live streams mostly. Obviously the whole thing was horrible, and unexpected, at least by me. But the BBC web site coverage?

Having an interest in the American political system, I started off watching C-SPAN (roughly the US equivalent of the BBC Parliament channel), however as the situation deteriorated it became apparent C-SPAN were really struggling. To be fair they probably aren't funded to do 'proper' journalism, although one would think they had contacts in the Capitol police department, Congressional administration, etc., and should have seen the violence coming earlier in the day. Notwithstanding, there evidently wasn't a "plan B" they could easily switch to - doing a phone-in with (mostly) Trump supporters was inappropriate, to put it mildly.

In contrast, the BBC's live reporting page was fast, balanced and pretty accurate. I ended up ditching C-SPAN (until Congress finally reconvened in the House), and took to reading BBC web site updates instead.

BBC News can do its job well, if it tries. The problem seems to be that someone in management is encouraging/directing a dumbing-down of reporting and the pursuit of excellence seems to be dead and buried. Occasionally something done well flowers for a brief moment, and then dies.

One other issue is worth mentioning, too: the BBC News site's conflation of opinion and factual reporting. This is frequent and infuriating for anyone who knows anything about the subjects in question.

There seems to be a race to the bottom in progress, with BBC News in the lead. It's tragic, considering how good it once was, including the News web site in its early days.

S.

*ratification of the presidential election count, if you're reading this in mid-March.