'Berates'-gate

 

As you've been noting in the comments, the BBC's Europe editor Katya Adler hasn't been having a good week. 

This tweet caused considerable controversy the other day, as it simply wasn't true that the Johnson government had "berated" the EU:

Rather like the EU itself last night, Katya backtracked yesterday in what is probably the nearest we're going to get to an apology from her:

(She could have claimed it was an "oversight"!)

And now she's put her foot in it again - h/t richard d. 

She was on this morning's Today programme talking about how the fears of dwindling supplies of jabs in the EU are being realised, with several countries running low, and said:

Partly this is to do with pharmaceutical companies not honouring contracts, particularly AstraZeneca, with which the EU has a big row at the moment...

There was no "allegedly" or "they claim" in there, or anything like it. It was stated as if it were a fact.

As richard d says:

That is an unsubstantiated claim by the EU, apparently completely refuted by the copy of the contracts (which have now even been obtained in an unredacted version).

I've seen a lot of comments overnight saying that unredacted version especially (released through another blunder by the EU commission) shows that the contract surprisingly vague. Some have suggested that the contract was poorly-worded. (Another EU blunder?)  The EU's claims about what it says about AstraZeneca's commitments to the EU remain open to question and hotly disputed.

Was this just badly-worded from Katya Adler then, or has she bought into the EU version of events and was parroting it again?