Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles.
Torjesen's recent article summarising the Daily Mail's, and other media outlets', coverage of the MMR vaccine is informative and insightful, with some faint hope offered by the Mail's U-turn on the issue.
However, we do have one important concern about the bar chart. The use of the term 'balanced coverage' implies the existence of other conflicting, but equally valid, viewpoints, which warrant equivalent credibility and attention. This is clearly not the case with the MMR vaccination. This term is not synonymous with 'accurate coverage', and legitimises the false narrative by the ‘anti-vax lobby’ that there remains debate and uncertainty in the medical profession on the safety of the MMR.
Indeed, the strategy of ‘manufacturing doubt’ is a recognised technique used in many industries to undermine scientific evidence and credibility e.g. fossil fuels, tobacco.1 One tobacco executive famously advised in a memo, ‘it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the minds of the general public and establishing controversy.’2
We must be conscious of this approach which can undoubtedly be utilised by the ‘anti-vax lobby’, and guard against it as attempts at impartial, ‘balanced’ media coverage of these issues can inadvertently facilitate the anti-vax message.
References
1. ‘Doubt is our product’: David Michaels (ed.) Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press (2008).
2. Goldacre B. Bad Science. Harper Collins Publishers (2008).
Re: The Daily Mail’s U turn on MMR vaccination
Torjesen's recent article summarising the Daily Mail's, and other media outlets', coverage of the MMR vaccine is informative and insightful, with some faint hope offered by the Mail's U-turn on the issue.
However, we do have one important concern about the bar chart. The use of the term 'balanced coverage' implies the existence of other conflicting, but equally valid, viewpoints, which warrant equivalent credibility and attention. This is clearly not the case with the MMR vaccination. This term is not synonymous with 'accurate coverage', and legitimises the false narrative by the ‘anti-vax lobby’ that there remains debate and uncertainty in the medical profession on the safety of the MMR.
Indeed, the strategy of ‘manufacturing doubt’ is a recognised technique used in many industries to undermine scientific evidence and credibility e.g. fossil fuels, tobacco.1 One tobacco executive famously advised in a memo, ‘it is the best means of competing with the “body of fact” that exists in the minds of the general public and establishing controversy.’2
We must be conscious of this approach which can undoubtedly be utilised by the ‘anti-vax lobby’, and guard against it as attempts at impartial, ‘balanced’ media coverage of these issues can inadvertently facilitate the anti-vax message.
References
1. ‘Doubt is our product’: David Michaels (ed.) Doubt is their product: How industry’s assault on science threatens your health. Oxford University Press (2008).
2. Goldacre B. Bad Science. Harper Collins Publishers (2008).
Competing interests: No competing interests