I know somebody who was interviewed for an agenda pushing article like this for the BBC.

He said a lot of very sensible stuff which they didnt quote and then plucked a phrase that implied he agreed with the agenda (something similar to "stronger legislation to protect children is needed" where he would have meant some OTHER legislation).

I wouldnt be surprised if half of the people quoted here had the same thing done to them.

Also many might not be as grassroots as they imply as you said. I am sure that the NSPCC's opinions on matters like these are more about what the board thinks than, say, the average mother of an abused child.

Anyway, it's enough to confuse the average (perhaps dim) person into thinking there is a grass roots movement when it's the government doing all the pushing.

On the converse, I think any accusation that charities (like the NSPCC in particular!) are fronts for some nefarious group looking to crush civil liberty needs even the slightest bit of evidence before it can be taken credibly.

You don't need journalists to know where the NSPCC's money comes from, you can look it up.