It doesn't have to be an organised conspiracy to be damaging. It seems to me that increasingly, even previously reputable news sources are now so keen to get "news" out there via social media, or online for rapid consumption they're playing fast and loose with facts. And frankly, scary stuff garners more clicks. Seems perhaps its no longer about quality reporting, but simply being first, or getting the most traction.
I'd suggest that the BBC (who a lot of people will implicitly trust), then before you go on to national radio before millions and tell people that their kids are more likely to be hospitalised with coronavirus than they were during the last wave, you'd better be certain that is accurate. You might consider whether the opinion of one nurse, in one hospital is enough to rely on.
I can't see how this example is in any way defensible. It's dreadful journalism.
You are absolutely correct that the BBC should be reporting bad news but they should do so accurately. Inaccurate reporting just erodes confidence in the media. Some will take the view that if they're wrong on this,. what else are they wrong on?