Exactly this. Why should the background of the father be relevant to the story? He's the father of a sick child in hospital complaining about the poor treatment his child is receiving. Yet now instead of talking about that treatment, and the media investigating why the child received poor treatment, instead we get a GOTCHA! about how the father is a Labour activist so that's what we should be talking about instead. Shitty journalism.
It's not even so much that why his child received poor treatment needs investigating. The most pertinent part of the exchange was the PM, when confronted by a member of the public about his party's treatment of the NHS, and questioned why he was using this as a press opportunity, told a bare-faced lie.
It's a pattern with him too. The man's default position is "lie and save face" and we, as a country, are supposed to rely on this man to lead us through, and inform us on, the biggest political action the country has taken in decades.
Instead, the debate has shifted onto whether his 'outing' as it were, by the BBC's Political Editor qualified as misconduct on her part, and whether his political views had any relevance to the situation.
Johnson's got away with it again, and once again Kuenssberg has been heavily involved in the deflection. After all, we're discussing a woman who, after Johnson made one of the worst starts a PM as ever had in terms of losing votes, made the headline of her analysis, "is this a victory for Boris?"