• Welcome to Phoenix Rising!

    Created in 2008, Phoenix Rising is the largest and oldest forum dedicated to furthering the understanding of and finding treatments for complex chronic illnesses such as chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), fibromyalgia (FM), long COVID, postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS), mast cell activation syndrome (MCAS), and allied diseases.

    To become a member, simply click the Register button at the top right.

New PACE paper, more SMC spin.

biophile

Places I'd rather be.
Messages
8,977
Fun fact: It's nearly been a year since Coyne blamed the Science Media Centre for this:

Hyped, misleading media coverage of a study in Lancet of CBT for persons with unmedicated schizophrenia left lots of clinicians, policymakers, and especially persons with schizophrenia and their family members confused.

Shilling at Science Media Centre: Thou shalt not shill.

http://jcoynester.wordpress.com/201...udy-of-therapy-for-persons-with-schizophrenia

Not surprising that the SMC often operates as effectively a public relations organization for scientists. It wasn't set up to critique science or provide nuanced debate, it was set up to facilitate more scientists to engage with the media. It depends on appeals to the authorities of their approved "experts"/members. So, do Wessely et al view the SMC as "fellow travellers"* on the road to quality science journalism, or do they view the SMC as "useful idiots"* for providing good publicity?

* I couldn't help using those terms given Fiona Fox's links to Living Marxism and the Revolutionary Communist Party.

Ivan Oransky, head of the health team for news agency Reuters in New York, does not think that the well-sourced journalists with whom he typically works will need such help, but he says that local newspapers and websites without that expertise could use an SMC. Still, he worries that such a centre could end up having an undesirable influence on the news. “If it's a force for smoothing over some of the legitimate disagreements that scientists have, if it is a force for putting science in the best possible light because of who the funders are, I don't think it's really doing all that much,” he says.

http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362
 

eafw

Senior Member
Messages
936
Location
UK
the "hate mail" and "death threats" are propaganda deliberately fed to the media to denigrate an entire patient group

It is very much proaganda. Also, in context - where health care workers do get hassled by stroppy patients - we never hear "Oh one time someone with cancer told their consultant that they'd be sorry (or some such thing) so we're now closing down the entire field of oncology because no one dare work in it"

It's ridiculous.

So, do Wessely et al view the SMC as "fellow travellers"* on the road to quality science journalism, or do they view the SMC as "useful idiots"* for providing good publicity?

Wessely and gang and SaS are very cosy with the SMC crew, all part of the same network. He was one of the scientific advisors for a while. All heavily sponsored/funded by coorporate interests too.

ETA link to more detailed info
http://www.meactionuk.org.uk/The-SMC-and-its-campaign-against-MECFS.htm
 
Last edited:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
So, do Wessely et al view the SMC as "fellow travellers" on the road to quality science journalism, or do they view the SMC as "useful idiots" for providing good publicity?
:zippit:

:whistle:
 

OverTheHills

Senior Member
Messages
465
Location
New Zealand
I would like to say THANKYOU and WELL DONE :thumbsup:to all those who have had substantial, well expressed e-letters published in the BMJ.

I have no science background but it seems to me anyone who actually reads these criticisms with a half-open mind or an open half-mind is going to realise that something smells very bad.

The lay media may still be singing White/Chalder/Wessley's tune but PWME have made real progress since the days when nonsense in journals went unchallenged.

Its a good step forward.:balloons: I am very grateful to all of you

OTH
 

Roy S

former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
Messages
1,376
Location
Illinois, USA
@biophile Thanks for this link. The story is quite revealing about the SMC and Fiona Fox.
http://www.nature.com/news/science-media-centre-of-attention-1.13362
 
It is dated July of 2013 and says she has a staff of seven. These statements are informative.
 
[The SMC provides] "select journalists with a steady flow of quotes and information from its database of about 3,000 scientists, and by organizing around 100 press briefings a year"
 
"But Fox and the SMC have also attracted some vehement critics, who say that they foster uncritical media coverage by spoon-feeding information to reporters, that they promote science too aggressively — the SMC has been called 'science's PR agency' — and that they sometimes advance the views of industry."
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
A better article in the Daily Mail today, with good quotes from the MEA and others...

Tony Britton, of the ME Association, told MailOnline: "Patients on the receiving end of this nonsense are pig sick and tired of it all."

'I'd rather have CANCER than chronic fatigue syndrome': Woman who's battled condition for 10 years says people with it are unfairly labelled 'attention seekers'
22 January 2015
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ople-unfairly-labelled-attention-seekers.html
 

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
Has the Daily Mail suddenly found what is left of it's conscience and humanity, and decided that there just might be another side to the story?
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Has the Daily Mail suddenly found what is left of it's conscience and humanity, and decided that there just might be another side to the story?
I doubt it. Perhaps if it generates traffic, then they'll publish many things?! (Except for certain stuff that goes against their big 'p' political leanings.)
 
Last edited:

Sean

Senior Member
Messages
7,378
It is one of the ironies in all this that entities like the DM, who have been one of our bigger problems on the propaganda and public perception front, can also be a major ally if they choose to be.

Getting to the point where I will seriously consider shaking hands with Lucifer himself if that is what it takes to see a result in my lifetime. Perhaps even with the Daily Mail.

(listen to the very end

:p
 

eafw

Senior Member
Messages
936
Location
UK
Has the Daily Mail suddenly found what is left of it's conscience and humanity, and decided that there just might be another side to the story?

No. This is nothing to do with telling "another side", it happens to be good copy for them. They couldn't give a flying toss about anything else here. The hooks for them in this case are cancer and a belly dancer (who used to be a scientist). They are particularly fond of cancer, it's what provides them with a lot human interest sensational fillers in between the more blatant political hate that they churn out.

can also be a major ally if they choose to be.

They have no interest in being our allies. That they may occasionaly publish articles that reflect a little more the reality of our condition is incidental, the stopped clock effect, or stopped calendar even - right once a year.
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
Last edited:

eafw

Senior Member
Messages
936
Location
UK
This is an old article, criticising the SMC for promoting corporate spin etc.
Worth a read if you haven't already...

I thought this was very telling, this is Fiona Fox quoted:

"She adds that “the SMC does not believe that ‘links’ to industry automatically equate to a compromise in the quality or integrity of a piece of science”. "


Hm, SMC doesn't believe it yet we know that it does have an effect. There's a reason that scientists are supposed to declare competing interests and funding sources.

And

“We have generally taken the view that the main responsibility for investigating and exposing any significant conflicts of interest should lie with the journalists reporting science stories and we applaud those reporters who take that responsibility seriously and report serious abuses prominently in the media,”

Hang on though, SMC have set themselves up as an impartial and expert one-stop service for journalists, but here admitting that they're nothing of the sort and it's all the journos fault if they don't investigate further ?

In summary: "we like to pretend that we're not massively compromised but actually we are, and are laughing all the way to the bank as the gullible media dance to our tune without question"
 

Roy S

former DC ME/CFS lobbyist
Messages
1,376
Location
Illinois, USA
" "I would close down the Science Media Centre," said Connie St Louis, former president of the Association of British Science Writers and a senior lecturer at City University, London. She conducted a small study on the centre’s impact on UK science reporting in the 12 national newspapers in 2011 and 2012. "
 
That's interesting. This is from that article and her study would cover the time frame that the SMC did the media blitzkrieg on ME/CFS activism.
 
 
 
 

Bob

Senior Member
Messages
16,455
Location
England (south coast)
“We have generally taken the view that the main responsibility for investigating and exposing any significant conflicts of interest should lie with the journalists reporting science stories and we applaud those reporters who take that responsibility seriously and report serious abuses prominently in the media..”
Hmm, that seems to conflict with their mission statement:

"Our Mission
To provide, for the benefit of the public and policymakers, accurate and evidence-based information about science and engineering through the media, particularly on controversial and headline news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs."

With ME research, they certainly aren't fulfilling their mission, but are sowing confusion, and promoting misinformation to the media. (We have evidence.)

"To provide [..] accurate and evidence-based information [..] through the media, particularly on controversial [..] news stories when most confusion and misinformation occurs."

If it wasn't so serious I'd really be enjoying the wealth of irony here! They're the ones causing the controversy and confusion by promoting the misinformation! :rolleyes:
 
Last edited: