Jeni Barnett, the LBC radio presenter at the centre of the Goldacre/LBC case, has received ‘hundreds of extremely personal and abusive comments,’ her agent, Robert Common, confirmed to Journalism.co.uk today.
“[The comments] do not address the debate about the use of MMR and that is the reason for taking the comments off Jeni’s website,” Common said.
As Journalism.co.uk reported yesterday, support for Goldacre’s complaint against LBC had gathered fast, with high-profile figures such as Stephen Fry lending support to Goldacre. However, as Ben Goldacre has now made clear in a new blog post he does not want people to direct abuse at Jeni Barnett in such a personal manner.
“Do not send Jeni abusive emails, it’s not nice or helpful,” Goldacre wrote on his site, after being contacted by the programme director at LBC.
“I am sorry if people have sent unpleasant emails. I would want no part in that (…),” Goldacre said in a reply to the programme director.
The incident comes after a timely piece published by MediaGuardian on Monday, which looks at what happens when journalists face personal online attack.
Barnett’s agent, Robert Common, told Journalism.co.uk that he has “personally been very shocked at the hurtful level of criticism and and its very personal and threatening nature. LBC have aired the MMR debate several times in the last four weeks on other presenters’ shows where the debate has been continued.
“Jeni would never wish to restrict discussion on this topic or indeed any other, however, when that debate encourages threats and abuse it is impossible to do so and I have advised [her] not to continue to make any further comments,” Common said.
Update to post #1, 12/02/2009: In response to questions and issues raised in comments below this post Journalism.co.uk asked Robert Common what he meant by ‘comments’, since it has been suggested that the original comments on Barnett’s blog were not personal or abusive (e.g Andy / John ED’s comments below). Robert Common, Jeni Barnett’s agent, told Journalism.co.uk: “The comments/emails [to which he previously referred] are the ones that have been unpublished.”
Update #2, 12/02/2009: Journalism.co.uk took the additional questions raised in the comments below this post to Robert Common:
- Why was it decided to delete inoffensive comments (as re-published by various blogs)? Will there be a way in which people can raise (inoffensive/non-personal) complaints and comments with Barnett, or will she maintain this silence, which could be said to fuelling the outrage further? It has been alleged that you have deleted blog posts as well as comments: is this true? People feel that ‘primary sources’ (such as the originally published comments and blog posts) shouldn’t just be deleted. If they are (legal reasons etc.), it should be explained why. Do you have a comment policy [for Barnett’s blog]?
Robert Common told Journalism.co.uk that he would not be making any further comment. However, he said that if commenters have specific, non-personal and non-abusive, questions or points to raise with Jeni Barnett they could email him via talent at rcmgmt.co.uk.
Update in response to comments, 12/02/2009:
[Judith Townend, comment] Thanks for all your input. I’m extremely disappointed that many commenters think Journalism.co.uk has been unbalanced in its reporting. Perhaps I should have made it clearer in the original post (though content was linked) that since Friday I have run three articles based mainly on two lengthy interviews with Ben Goldacre, which I will provide links for at the bottom of this update, including a 30 minute audio interview, in which Goldacre explains the background of the case, as well as broader issues in science journalism.
Given that Barnett had removed the comment facility on her blog I thought it was important to put the many questions being raised around the web to LBC and Barnett’s agent – for example in the posts and comments at Holford Watch and Quackometer. LBC did not want to make an on-the-record comment. Robert Common eventually agreed to make this statement on the record although said that Jeni Barnett will not make further comment herself. All I have done is report what Common said to me – and that by no means endorses or tries to prove his claim. When I do occasionally provide my own opinion on issues via this blog, or our main site, I try to make that clear. This piece was simply reporting a quote given to me.
I can do my best as a reporter to put questions to the relevant parties but it will be very difficult to find out and clarify how many or what kind of comments were submitted as we don’t have access to any unapproved comments or the emails sent to Barnett. I have contacted Common with your questions about the comments: the challenge that the original comments (now deleted) were not personal and abusive, and to clarify the distinction between emails and blog comments. I will report back here with further information, if received. Any further suggestions please don’t hesitate to leave them below. Also, if you don’t see your comments immediately appear it’s because we have a pre-moderation system, but the majority of comments will be approved as long as they don’t present any legal issues. Also, you can subscribe to new comments on this post by checking the tick box.
LINKS:
10/02/09 – Goldacre’s law: the Bad Science ‘nerd’ talks to Journalism.co.uk (with audio) http://www.journalism.co.uk/5/articles/533461.php10/02/09 -Online support for Goldacre gathers pace http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/02/10/online-support-for-goldacre-gathers-pace/
06/02/09 – Goldacre on the ‘intellectual property absolutists’ – LBC’s legal warning http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/02/06/goldacre-on-the-intellectual-property/
Whilst I would not approve of any threatening or abusive comments, the vast majority left on jeni’s blog were simple and robust criticism of her stance and behaviour. Plus the subsequent behaviour of LBC.
As so many people did take the time to explain quite carefully what was wrong I have reposted these blogs and comments on my own site. Make your own mind up.
Quackometer.net
This story doesn’t fully ring true. The debate that was taking place in Jeni’s blog comments was in the main civilised. Though deleted from her website they can be found on the website below.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
Jeni’s response to this sorry affair has angered people even more than the
What I belive has angered people even more than the radio show has been Jeni’s response to this sorry affair:
1. Her lack of an apology
2. Her attack on the nurse who called her show. Jeni described her as “vicious”. The transcript of the show, found on the link below, shows that she was far from viscous and was remarkable patient with her treatment at the hands of the “professional” radio presenter.
http://holfordwatch.info/2009/02/06/jeni-barnett-and-the-phone-call-with-yasmin-on-the-lbc-mmr-segment/
I read each and every comment on Jeni’s blog. They were a response to a combative phone-in programme in which Jeni perpetrated her personal unscientific views on MMR innoculation, and where Jenni described on her blog one of her callers as “vicious”. Jeni invited people to join in the debate on her blog so it is hardly surprising so many people responded to the invitation. Most of the comments were from people who disagreed with Jeni, some of the commenters were angry and rude and personal but the majority of the commenters simply disagreed with Jeni or the anti-MMR commenters and were articulate and intelligent in the debate. In fact as the debate continued, rather than being rude to Jeni, more of the comments were conciliatory and were offering suggestions to her on how to get out of this pickle and offering suggestions on how to inform herself better on the subject. It is a gross exaggeration to say that she received ‘hundreds of extremely personal and abusive comments’. But as the blog post and the comments have been removed you’ll never know.
It is of course a great shame that some people on both sides of this argument seem unable to debate the issue without resorting to personal attacks. However, two things need to be noted.
1. Jeni herself described at least one of her pro-MMR callers “vicious” and has been very dismissive of all of her critics. Regardless of the evidence they produced or how mannerly they were, their concerns were regarded as “sarcasm”.
2. The vast, vast majority of the 200 comments removed from Jeni’s blog were neither attacks nor personal. This is an easy assertion to support. These comments are now hosted here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
You can judge the tone of the comments by reading them here:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
Most of the messages have been saved and are on the Internet for all to see. None were personally abusive. On the other hand, Barnett described a perfectly reasonable and concerned nurse who called into the show as ‘vicious’, which is simply untrue. The transcripts are available, read them for yourself, see who’s indulging in personal abuse.
Pingback: More PR Blunder For Team Barnett – Just Hide Under The Duvet, It Will Eventually Blow Over. « The Great DBH Rant
Judith can I ask if you research this article, or just took the word of Jeni’s agent. The evidence relating to the comments left on Jeni’s blog , provided in the comments to this blog, seems to present a different reality to that found in the statement provided by Robert Common.
Pingback: Public Discourse About Important Matters Involving Public Health: Some Notes for LBC and Global Radio « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
Pingback: LBC and Global Radio, Currently London’s Biggest Sulk? « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
This is classic ‘spin’ – when losing the argument, attack a straw man. As earlier posters have observed, the person who started personal attacks was Jeni, who described an NHS nurse as ‘vicious’ and then deleted the civilised, temperate response from her victim. The vast majority of the posts were polite and sought to engage in the argument. A simple analysis of the preserved blog (see above) would reveal this agent’s assertions for the spin it is – and I would hope would be a worthy story for this site, not the uncritical reporting of a celebrity’s agent.
It is obvious that the comments almost entirely addressed the debate about the use of MMR and were on the whole never extremely personal and abusive.
It seems she is being very badly advised. This weak attempt to portray Jeni as some sort of abused victim in this affair is frankly pathetic.
All she needs to do to turn this whole thing around and regain some respect and credibility would be to publicly retract and apologise or at the very least, invite some knowledgeable expert on to her show to present the scientific side of things.
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
from original post:
“LBC have aired the MMR debate several times in the last four weeks on other presenters’ shows where the debate has been continued.”
Which other shows? I was personally unaware that other shows had been carrying this debate forward – I would be very interested in hearing what they have to say and the manner in which the other presenters conduct the debate.
It appears you have been selectively informed- I have no doubt that 1) some random Internet malcontent has sent abusive emails, some people are very strange, and 2) that she has received hundreds of comments. These are two different facts, however, and should not be combined lightly. Her blog showed a reasoned debate from the opposing side to her own strongly held position with many links to clinical research, not pages and pages of blistering personal insults (a few commentators call her wrong and misinformed but this just echoes her own admission of being unprepared)
This is very weak attempt at PR and brand management. These people should engage with the issues, what we are seeing now from the PR machine behind LBC and Jeni Barnett is simply embarrassing. Issues, facts, evidence.
“[The comments] do not address the debate about the use of MMR and that is the reason for taking the comments off Jeni’s website,” Common said.
What debate? There is the people who are informed, and the people who think they are informed.
While I do agree that ad hominem attacks aren’t warrented. She should be ridiculed. People in her position should know better.
This is very one-sided. Anyone reading the comments would see that this agent has spun himself around in a circle. There was very little said about Barnett, most of it being directed towards her opinions and lack of evidence to support them.
It is quite underhanded of LBC to try to smear the characters of Goldacre and others who criticise Barnett’s show. I would have expected more of Journalism.co.uk… did you even bother to research the claims or did you take the PR agent at his word??
“Jeni would never wish to restrict discussion on this topic or indeed any other”
This is pure marketing bull. Please don’t treat it as reportage. Her, and LBC’s actions include:
i) Posting two blog entries that, when filled with comments containing views contra to her own, firstly deleted those comments, then deleted the entire posts.
ii) Threatening legal action in an attempt to deny the public the right to hear Jeni’s views.
Despite her attempts at censorship you can find the full radio broadcast on wikileaks and youtube, written transcripts are available, and archives of her now deleted blog posts are available at quackometer.net – the debate continues, despite of, not thanks to, Jeni and LBC’s censorial actions.
How about some evidence of this alleged abuse. Surely we’re not supposed to just take Robert Common’s word for it, are we?
I do not condone any personal and abusive email sent to Ms Barnett and I do feel sorry for her.
However, this latest statement from Robert Common smells of a very, very bad attempt at damage control by Ms Barnett’s PR team.
It is a bad attempt because it is not true.
The victim card does not work when your attempts to wipe the discussions off the face of the internet failed miserably. The posts and their comments are posted on numerous blogs for all to read and judge (links all above in other comments). None were abusive and all were in keeping with the “debate” which Team Barnett kept banging on about.
A particular disappointing aspect of this piece of journalism by Judith Townend relates to the lack of references to the recovered blogposts and comments, so widespread now through the Streisand effect, but instead had to rely on individuals commenting on this piece of writing to provide the links to the recovered comments.
It was hardly impartial reporting.
As far as I can tell, those comments contain a number of pertinent criticisms of Jeni Barnett’s stance of MMR. There will always be some noise in any exchange but, in all fairness, as signal-to-noise ratios go that is rather impressive particularly as the frustration level must have been ratcheted up when Jeni Barnett posted her unfortunate attempt at a put down.
Criticising the comments seems rather like a deflective/avoidance manoeuvre. It is difficult to imagine that any such comments were markedly different from those experienced by many of the bloggers who seek to educate on public health issues such as vaccination and are so accustomed to being labelled Pharma Shills etc. that there is now a list of such rhetorical gambits that numbers over 100.
It is indicative of a culture in which discourse has coarsened to the point where some do seem to think it appropriate to ignore the ball and go for the player. In my experience, that is rarely true of sceptical bloggers, some of whom go to absurd lengths to be scrupulous about their criticisms under extreme provocation.
It is, sadly for my sex, difficult to imagine a situation in which (say) Nick Ferrari or James O’Brien felt it necessary to adopt the protective shield of ignoring the people they had invited to ‘debate’ and then hiding behind an agent – too timorous to engage directly. Particularly if they had been as rude to Yasmin as Jeni Barnett had been. If a male presenter had been as boorish to Yasmin (both on air and later on his blog) there would have been an outcry and calls for his suspension.
There are some very unsavoury double standards here.
Pingback: Unbroken record « This page intentionally left Frank
:gobsmacked:
Everytime Jeni/LBC open their mouths they shoot themselves in the foot.
Quite. What hypocrites. This affected whining is a further attempt to detract from the debate and just makes Jeni and her agent look even worse. Given the tone and content of the original talk show segment (itself peppered with Jeni’s detractions from civilised rational debate), and the seriousness of the issue, the comments on her website were remarkably restrained.
Pingback: » Jeni Barnett’s agent claims she was subject to personal and extremely abusive comments on her blog
…the original comments are archived at quackometer.net, and when you read them, you see that the comments are NOT abusive. What kind of journalism site is this that you don’t even check your sources for their truth?
Judge for yourselves whether or not the posts were so abusive they needed to come down:
http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
I looked at the 121 comments on the MMR and Me post. I found 6 comments that could be thought of as in anyway aggressive:
You have to stretch the definition of abusive to include the first 5:
1) You are to be singled out as a harm and danger to society as you are not only placing your children at risk, but mine and everybody else’s. This is not opinion, but empirical fact. You are a danger to your children and your community.
2) Jenni, I really think you should apologise for what was clearly a stunningly absurd and inaccurate piece of broadcasting and also for rudely describing the phone call from the nurse as “vicious”. I know Yasmin and the last thing that she is is vicious. You, on the other hand, have behaved disgracefully. Saying sorry may be a good way to draw a line under it. I would praise you for only one thing – allowing people who disagree with you to post on your blog. Now I hope you take notice of them, and of their weight of opinion.
3) Stupid disregard of advice from persons who understand the complex interaction of systems is profoundly dysfunctional. Supremely dysfunctional because being faced with a complex system, Barnett and her fans choose to deny the odds by substituting a simple model based on a series of unconnected observation.
4) I would propose that Jeni Barnett’s behaviour is essentially neglect, and Social Services should seriously consider removing her child from her.
5) You should be ashamed of yourself.
The 6th is more abusive. Unfortunately it’s directed against Ben Goldacre!
6) The thing about the folk at BAD SCIENCE is that they are very BAD SCIENTISTS as well as flea-bitten disciples of a snake-oil salesman, name of Dr Benjamin Goldacre MD. Watch out for the flea-bites posing as viper-venom.
This is a story based on PR spin. There were no ‘threatening’ emails and the abuse was far less than Miss Barnett regularly dishes out on her show. What a load of codswallop
Well done Jeni, shot yourself in the foot again with these rather childish allegations of foul play.
All that has happened is that Ms Barnet tried to perpetuate the outrageous MMR scare stories with what can only truthfully be described as ill-informed ranting. When challenged -very politely and patiently – by a nurse, Jeni responded with personal scorn.
Why do Barnet and LBC continue with these libelous allegations against posters on her blog, and why do they refuse to deal with the real issue?
MMR is safe. Tell your friends.
James.
If Jeni thought the comments were ‘extremely personal and abusive’ and did ‘not address the debate about the use of MMR’, then why did she post them on her blog? She is the moderator of all comments on her blog and it was she who had to individually allow each and every one of them to be posted on her blog.
As stated by earlier posts, the comments are there to be read at quackometer: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/02/jeni-barnett-have-you-lost-something.html
The majority of comments were not personal or nasty, but measured and thoughtful responses, often with suggestions for Jeni to improve her knowledge.
Surely any personal and rude comments could have been moderated individually rather than by taking down every single comment. This action only opens Jeni and LBC radio up to accusations of media manipulation and an attempt to deflect attention away from the real story: that Jeni Barnett was allowed to push her anti-vaccine ideology on air and no proper debate or presentation of the facts was allowed during, or seemingly after, the broadcast.
The only comment I read which I would have described as “abusive” was not directed at Ms Barnett, it was written by a poster called “cybertiger” and was a tirade of abuse directed against Ben Goldacre himself.
As others have said, the vast majority of commenters were courteous, if rightly annoyed, at Ms Barnett’s admitted ignorance of the topic, which did not stop her from broadcasting an ill-judged rant, and herself abusing a hard working, underpaid NHS nurse who does not have Ms Barnett’s PR team behind her and so has no right of reply to being publicly branded “vicious”
[Damn my lack of proof-reading! Here’s a proof-read version…]
Spin.
If Jeni had only removed the ‘personally abusive’ comments then why did she remove perfectly reasonable and personable comments? Over 200 have disappeared but thanks to the observance of bloggers, they are hosted elsewhere (see previous posts) which will allow people to decide for themselves.
As I understand it, Jeni’s producer was quite unpleasant to Ben over the phone!
You quote very selectively from Ben Goldacre’s website- it seems to be down right now so I can’t substantiate my impression that if you had included the complete sentences then you would have a very different image with the quote.
Jeni has stated her belief media/press debates should be 50-50 (which is arguably wrong). This article which seems to have been instigated by her agent, hardly an impartial source, only presents _half_ of the story- Jeni’s spin.
In the world of science and medicine, where debate runs rampant and is the cornerstone of evidence based medicine, criticism is essential. People are expected to base their arguments on provable and previously demonstrated and reviewed evidence. This evidence should be referenced so it can be checked. If it is from such a notoriously inaccurate source as ‘the internet’ then it should rightly be criticised.
Debate and criticism exposes presented research to great scrutiny with the aim of improving knowledge and high scientific standards. Sadly, as evidenced by the now infamous Andrew Wakefield /Lancet/ paper which appears to have featured massaged figures [read as false figures] and has landed Wakefield in front of the GMC, it doesn’t always work.
On talk radio where the presenter doesn’t know or understand the factual basis of her discussion this critical analysis falls down, even more so when she can cut off people she disagrees with. The presenters can and do get away with saying anything under the guise of ‘opinion’ even when the message is dangerous.
When the show is about which frock to wear then this is merely frivolous.
When the media tells you not to protect your kids from serious diseases with no evidential basis then this is irresponsible and dangerous reporting.
Sadly, the article I have read here today is an opinion piece- the opinion of Jeni’s agent only. It demonstrates no attempt to contact Ben. Your link to the MediaGuardian article ‘The weight of opinion’ is quite simply inappropriate here. If you research- look at the mirrored posted replies that Jeni deleted- they really aren’t hard to find! When you read them you will see that the level of vitriol in the article is leagues above anything posted on Jeni’s blog!!!
Should anyone be surprised by what this article says?
Disappointed by the quality of reporting? Yes. Surprised? No.
Having read the comments linked to in several replies above (but not in the original post), the vast majority of the posts were polite and insightful (though some were repetitive). A sparse few were just insults, which could have been removed or moderated so as not to appear. That is the cost of appearing in the public eye. Dismissing the over a hundred good comments (from both sides, though mostly pro-evidence that MMR is safe) becuase of a few idiotic postings is not a good way to behave – for either a scientist or a journalist. Jonathan Ross no doubt received abusive comment after the Sachs affair – should the BBC and Ross have ignored the criticism because some of it was simple abuse (“trolling”)? I think you’ll agree that the substance of the complaint was correct. In Ross’ case, it could be argued that the majority of the complaints were uncalled for. With Jeni and the anti-MMR piece the complaints are justified, and it appears OFCOM regulations may have been broken. I am not angry with Jeni, just disappointed that she has allowed herself to be mislead, didn’t perform basic research on a topic she knew she would be covering, and dismissed a polite and informed caller to her show as “vicious” and dismissing the DoH as scaremongering, while complaining about the vitriol directed towards her. I hope Jeni realises her mistake, that MMR is serious, and that uninformed broadcasts cost real lives. I hope she will in future exercise due diligence and has learned from this, and will now be a better journalist because of it. I also hope that some of the good information provided to her will have caused her to reassess her opinion of MMR, and single jabs (which are not as safe as MMR).
All the best,
Jon
As noted many times over, the vast, VAST majority of the comments from the pro-vaccination crowd were articulate, to the point and professional. She (or her web person) was personally responsible for choosing which comments to post. In contrast, her posts, and a number of the anti-vaccination comments she posted, were far less courteous and quite insulting to Ben Goldacre. (This is true for the responses he’s had directly from LBC’s management as well, I believe.)
Just like when Yasmin was trying to make her point, when you try and politely point out what’s wrong with Barnett/LBC’s behaviour you’re greeted with NOISE NOISE NOISE back at you.
Pingback: Jeni Barnett’s agent can’t get the facts right any more than she can. « The Milligan
Thanks for the update Judith-
It was an excellent interview with Ben Goldacre.
I am of the opinion that any piece which seems to be initiated by Jeni’s agent should allow for more obvious comeback from the other side. It sounded little more than a statement release from his office. These never seem to ring true and almost always never address the issue at the heart of the matter.
The comments that have been deleted from Jeni’s website can be seen elsewhere on the net (as people have linked to above) and I would appreciate direct comment from Jeni’s agent (if not Jeni) about which were offensive and why.
Simply stating the ones that were offensive were ‘unpublished’ doesn’t help them as they proceeded to delete ALL comments and even her blog entries too.
Of course this tirade will carry on, and until Jeni gives an interview controlled by someone outside of LBC where she is asked difficult questions.
When you next post, if you would post a list of all the questions you posed and all the responses they gave it would give us far more insight into the situation here.
Good to see a reporter who doesn’t ignore the comments!
Pingback: Jeni Barnett, LBC and Global Radio, MMR Segment 7 Jan 2009 and the Ben Goldacre Coverage: Part 2 « Holford Watch: Patrick Holford, nutritionism and bad science
It is great to see a journalistic blog that is professional and responsive to criticism- thanks for the update.
I have followed this story from the beginning and also saw that the vast majority of the (now-deleted) posts on Jeni’s website were articulate, polite and critical of her position rather than personally abusive.
I feel that an apology from LBC is in order for attempting to damage the online reputation of Ben and his well-informed fellow bloggers.
Thanks Oli – I think some important questions were raised. Of course I’d like to record an interview with Barnett and put some of the questions raised on all the blogs to her, but at the moment she does not want to comment. I agree it’s useful for a journalist to be transparent as possible when reporting, and whenever we quote from a press release we are very overt about that. In this case, I had several conversations with Common and he eventually made that statement by email.
I will now ask him: Why was it decided to delete inoffensive comments (as re-published by various blogs)? Will there be a way in which people can raise (inoffensive) complaints and comments with Barnett, or will she maintain this silence?
If he has further comment I will update.
In regards to Oli’s earlier comment about selectively quoting from the Goldacre post: yes, they’re not in full, but a link is provided to his post, and the quotes used were intended to clarify the point that Ben Goldacre does not, and never has, endorsed any kind of personal abuse towards Barnett.
JohnED, and others: I did research this piece – see links at end of post. I was simply reproducing the only on-the-record comment (as far as I know, beyond the original statement from Global) in direct quotes, and you can form your own judgement on the ‘spin’, or the angle Barnett’s representative is putting across; in the same way people can listen/read the interview with Goldacre and decide if they agree with him or not.
Memo
To: Jeni Barnett
cc: LBC, Robert Common, RC Management
RE: Handling of your MMR programme fiasco
If this is the way your agent handles legitimate criticism of you, I can only suggest you get new agent. You and/or your agent and/or LBC have made a complete hash of this right from the start.
All it would have taken was an apology from you for your ill-informed comments, an apology to the NHS Nurse Yasmin for your treatment of her and taken the time to invite someone on to your show who knew what they were talking about, then you might have limited the harm done – not just to yourself, the reputation of LBC and your agent, but, more importantly, to the many children who may now have to suffer the consequences of you ill-informed rant. You might even have enhanced your reputation.
It ain’t rocket science. All it takes is some humility and common sense.
I read many of the comments before they were taken down, and I haven’t, of course, been privy to private messages. However, whilst many of the comments I read were critical, it would be very difficult to describe them as abusive. That is, of course, unless suggestions that she was wrong, acting irresponsibly, aggressively or is misinformed can be considered “abuse” rather that fair critcism.
I suspect that the real problem is that a lot of opinionated columnists are having trouble coming to terms with the “democractisation” (for want of a better word) of journalism. This means that criticism and opinion is no longer a one way street. Those who are making ill-researched or unfounded statements are now much more open to criticism from the well informed (and not so well informed) who have not previously had access to such outlets. Previously such responses would have primarily been from a small club privileged journalists. Now we have experts with access to powerful distribution channels.
So, Jeni Barnett, and others who specialise in personalised diatribes on important public matters, be prepared for more of your utterances to be held up for public examination. The days when much of populist journalism provided for power without responsibility are long gone. Do your research, be a bit more open minded and stop thinking a personally held opinion is correct by divine right (are you also listening Melanie Phillips?). There are people more qualified on any subject – listen to them and be at least a little humble. Personal annecdotes do not constitute a truth.
I’d like to clarify that my criticisms of journalists not doing research were directed towards LBC, although I question whether Jeni and Ken et al be described as such.
Judith, thanks for responding to comments and for the updates. An example to others.
Thanks for the update Judith! I look forward to seeing any response from the agent!
re the quotes from Ben Goldacre- fair enough.
You were right and I can see where you are coming from. Now his site is back up I can see I stand corrected- the quotes were not out of context in their isolation.
On a slightly different point on journalism in general, I do find it interesting that I always get the impression that the person quoted actually spoke to the journalist… I suppose it details my ignorance of what actually happens in journalism.
I would be interested if others get that impression too, or if I’m alone in my ignorance.
Can anyone tell me how do these press-releases work? Are they simply put up in a forum run by the agent, or sent to news agencies individually? Or is there some central repository for these things- like my imaginary pressreleases.org.uk, and the journalists simply subscribe to specific sources and wade through the rest?
All the best
Oli
“[The comments] do not address the debate about the use of MMR and that is the reason for taking the comments off Jeni’s website,” Common said.
Well here is my comment – no personal attack, just focused on the issue. As were the vast majority of (now deleted) comment:
43. At February 7, 2009 12:30 PM neoconnell wrote:
Critical thinking is a big challenge for everyone. At the heart of this matter are these simple facts:
Some children who receive the MMR vaccine have autism.
Some children who do not receive the MMR vaccine have autism.
Having the MMR vaccine bears no relationship with which child has autism and does not increase the chances of autism. It is a classic example of a false association.
In the current climate where people seem inherently suspicious of pharmaceuticals it seems plausible that MMR might be bad – it’s a gut feeling for those who immerse themselves in the modern media with a level of trust for its authority.
Gut feelings are unfortunately often wrong even when they feel really really right.
As a great scientist once said when asked what his gut feeling was on an issue:
“I try not to think with my gut”. (comment ends)
When faced with being outrageously wrong and irresponsible it is much easier to pretend that you are being victimised than to show some humility. So much for debate.
Judith
Thank you for the response and the update, but I have to take issue with one aspect of what you say. You claim that you have indeed researched what has been happening around this story, and posted links in this article. True enough, but if you had followed those links yourself you would already have known that the vast majority of comments posted on and now deleted from Jeni’s blog were, contrary to her agent’s claims, polite, well-written and to the point. Had you already known this, perhaps it would have made you think again about reproducing Commons’ statement without any qualification. You say that your readers are able to judge Commons’ ‘spin’ for themselves – they’d be better equipped to do so if you’d pointed out from the start that what he said was far from the whole truth.
That said, thank you for continuing to cover this story and for updating it as developments take place.
Yours,
James
That’s a fantastic update – that’s true investigative journalism and I’m glad to read it. This is frankly what the Internet revolution that we’ve all been promised – the ability of a journalist to report on a press release and the reader’s ability to post a comment that says “Whoa, hold on here” and the ability of the journalist to go back to the source with the questions and additional sources that the comments have raised.
I think Common has a rock solid case there “You can’t see them but, my god, there’s hundreds of nasty comments.” To make an analogy – I have a bridge, you can’t see it but I’ll sell it to you anyway.
I suggest that Common familarise himself with the horror stories of random online cranks (“an hero” being the terrible archetype) before he suggests that it must have been something that Ben Goldacre has control over. People can be very nasty without an NHS doctor leading them.
Strange, every comment I read on Jeni’s blog seemed to be reasonable criticism of her programme. Some were a little harsh but certainly nothing which could be construed as offensive, unless you’re offended by people pointing out when you’ve made a massive mistake.
I wonder if anyone has started research into whether peoples’ epidermal layers are shrinking in recent years. It seems the slightest comment about anyone’s opinion, religion or anything else is suddenly offensive and such speech must therefore be banned immediately. It’s a bit depressing really.
@Oli: Good questions raised Oli. It’s all a bit of a minefield and one that Goldacre’s work certainly addresses. Nick Davies’ book ‘Flat Earth News’ has some good examples of the press release driven nature of news, and some examples of how PR infiltrates/influences journalism. You’re right – many quotes in the news are either from agency-obtained quotes (AP/PA etc) or from press releases and often journalists don’t speak to the people themselves.
From a Journalism.co.uk perspective: we get sent press releases (about media and journalism although completely irrelevant ones too) every day from either external PR companies on behalf of their clients, or companies and organisations (or individuals!) directly. Our policy here is to always reference a quote to a press release ‘……[insert quote] he said, in a release’ for example, and link to it directly (where possible). It’s not as easy as saying using press releases = bad journalism because sometimes they include important or interesting announcements. We also have a system of putting releases straight to our blog in a category ‘media releases’ e.g in this manner: http://blogs.journalism.co.uk/editors/2009/02/11/media-release-dow-jones-grants-515000-in-newspaper-fund/
That allows us to publish announcements quickly without spending too much time repeating what will probably be covered elsewhere on other news sites. Readers can then read the press releases themselves and make their own judgements on them and what is (or isn’t being said). If there are important points to be pulled out or investigated we would do that.
You ask if there’s a repository. Well, funnily enough we host one here, separate to the part of the site which reports on media and journalism – a press release service called PressGo: http://www.journalism.co.uk/66/ Companies can register to have their press releases uploaded and they are circulated to journalists via a newsletter and a Twitter account http://twitter.com/pressreleases (chris@journalism.co.uk for more details). I think there are other similar services but I don’t have experience of them personally.
But PR-journalism relationship is perhaps an issue to expand on in another blog post…
@James: Point taken – I could have been clearer in labelling it as a claim by Common and I hope the updates now clarify this was the case. I maintain that it’s not my position to judge whether there were or were not offensive comments made; I have absolutely no way of knowing that. I would stress that Common said his remark refers to unpublished comments and emails -a statement I have no way of further researching as we cannot verfify the nature or volume of these (so cannot be compared in volume to the inoffensive comments that were posted).
One more update coming now – see post.
Wow.
That really is an excellent and revealing post!
Thank you Judith for following this one so closely- I find it amazing that Common’s (and hence Jenni Barnett’s) position has been exposed by something so simple as a handful of questions thrown together from comments on his own press-release!
Excellent stuff- I really do hope this takes off! It really does deserve to into the mainstream primetime news!
All the best-
Oli