This is thought provoking.
Are you saying we shouldn't mention PACE because it draws attention to it ?
Sorry if my understanding is wrong. Could you explain a bit more ? Tks.
Hi
@BurnA -
Something like that - but a little more. Most readers will (I assume) not have heard of PACE and will likely have no more than a vague idea of what ME is. It's a rhetorical "rule" that bringing up any fact or contested fact will cause the reader to consider it, and could cast doubt--lawyers learn, for example, "never make the other side's argument" by trying to debunk it (in certain situations--other times it is necessary to pull the argument apart piece by piece).
So, if the psych model and/or PACE are mentioned--even in a negative light, as flawed models that are harmful to patients--the reader automatically tends to think in "sides," and begins to give weight to both. This happened with health debates around tobacco and sugar in the States-- "teach the controversy" is wholly intended to give the reader/listener the idea that
1. there IS a controversy; and
2. the "sides" are equal in weight at least. You don't have to actually say that for people to automatically react that way... and then without meaning to, you've called into question your positive facts.
Spin doctors use "teach to controversy" to try to make sure that there is never certainty that tobacco/sugar is bad for you, that climate change is a danger, etc.
This is an issue so often in pieces about ME, because themes that "it is controversial" and "we don't know what it is" are what reporters have used over and over for years. There may be lots of good information in the article, but readers are overall left with the feeling "but it's controversial."
The psych lobby always talk about controversy, and never mention biomedical research. They just ignore it, so the reader doesn't have that doubt arise.
Of course, truth-telling about PACE and the psych model is also important! Here, I was thinking of the 700-word limit, and the general audience, which leads me to think the more positive approach would be effective.
However, I found your very different approach quite compelling too
-- calling it out is also tempting. I'm just not sure we're at a place of public understanding where there would be outrage in response. Maybe it would just be confusion, and play into the "controversy made up by angry and unstable patients" narrative.
@Esther12 also makes a good point, though--I'm not British, so could be missing where the public are there.
In any case, thanks to
@harveythecat for doing this! Whatever resonates with you will be the best approach for your piece, of course.
-Vasha