As I wrote about at Forbes today, PBS Frontline aired an updated version of their 2010 documentary “The Vaccine War” last night, including information about the current measles outbreak that started at Disneyland and the legislative effort in California to roll back personal belief exemptions for vaccines that allow parents to opt out of getting recommended vaccines for school attendance. During the show, discussion on Twitter followed the hashtag #VaccineWar. Most of those participating had been invited to do so by the digital content manager at Frontline.
Although I did not participate in the Twitter discussion, I did watch it and retweeted a handful of tweets I particularly found appropriate.
I had also been invited to participate, but I declined. For one thing, spending my time, unpaid, to provide free marketing to a documentary airing on a publicly funded medium is inappropriate in my opinion. But above and beyond that, the email invitation mentioned that PBS Frontline was seeking people “from all sides” of the issue. So I asked for clarification about what that meant. The first response was not specific enough, so I spelled out my question in my second email: “I’m sorry to belabor the point, but I’m still not clear on what kind of diversity you have invited. I suppose I should be more blunt. Have you invited people who explicitly believe that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits? Have you invited [list of four known anti-vaccine activists who propagate misinformation] or similar individuals?”
I received the following response: “I guess my email wasn’t to the point enough. Yes! We are looking to include more people who specifically believe that the risks of vaccines outweigh the benefits. We are still reaching out and adding to our list.”
Those who follow my work know my deep concerns with false balance in the media on scientific issues. Therefore, I wrote the following response back:
“Thank you for the clarification. I will have to decline participation in the event because it sounds as though it will be counterproductive and confusing to parents who see it, and I am not comfortable in participating in something that can cause damage to public health. You mentioned in your original email that you were seeking informed discussion on Twitter about the film, but specifically seeking individuals who hold a non-science-based belief that is counter to the evidence to participate would not lead to an informed discussion. It will only lead to the confusing back-and-forth “debate” that further confuses and isolates parents, and that is not something I can participate in in good conscience. I have spent a great deal of my writing discussing the perils of false balance — see the links below — and I will not participate in a program specifically designed to contain false balance. When you present “both sides” as equally valid despite a consensus of scientific evidence on one side and a combination of cherry-picked, misunderstood, non-representative papers or anecdotes on the other side, you do a disservice to parents and to public health. In fact, as Curtis Brainard excellently covered at the Columbia Journalism Review, the media has already played a pernicious role in the current levels of vaccine hesitancy: “Sticking with the truth: How ‘balanced’ coverage helped sustain the bogus claim that childhood vaccines can cause autism”: http://www.cjr.org/feature/
Peer reviewed research has further shown the damaging effects of inaccurate or misleading comments made online which reflect beliefs instead of facts, which is exactly what will be brought by those who believe incorrectly that vaccines’ risks outweigh their benefits: http://www.sciencedaily.com/
The tenor of comments can play a role as well, and when those who refuse to accept the scientific consensus on vaccines participate, the tenor often becomes unpleasant, which can also influence parents’ perception of vaccine science. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/
Why Is Katie Couric Promoting Vaccine Skeptics?: http://www.politico.com/
Thanks,
Tara”
