BBC interview with Ron Davis

[Snowdrop]

Its a mistake to consider a massive organisation like the BBC as having particular views. For example there has been some good coverage from local radio/news. I see it as a problem with the medical correspondents across the media rather than a BBC issue.

I kind of expected that's what people meant but were short-handing it. BBC is a lot faster to type.

 

[Snowdrop]

I don't think that's remotely likely. I think that sort of clear-cut corruption plays little to no role in most of the problems around PACE. It's more the way people trust authorty figures without thikning critically or looking at the evidence that it the problem... and the desire for easy stories that make one feel good about oneself, etc.

I think I feel worse about that if someone like JG can be so easily manipulated. But I suspect you may be right in that he saw no material gain just a continued sanction to be one of the lads in the old boys we are the champions club. Monetary gain doesn't have to be direct though to exist. I doing what is politic one stays in the exclusive circle that gives access to relationships that can benefit in any number of ways.

I believe this is what is meant when they publicly state; I've worked hard for my money: the things they've had to do (against their conscience) the backslapping and gladhanding and boring speeches they've had to endure etc.

 

[Esther12]

Monetary gain doesn't have to be direct though to exist. I doing what is politic one stays in the exclusive circle that gives access to relationships that can benefit in any number of ways.

I think that sort of corruption is endemic in UK society. People know who it's best to say on side with, what the 'sensible' opinions to have are, etc. Lots of people don't even seem to see anything wrong with it.

Also, re JG specifically, it seems that there may have been some misunderstanding re the conference interview, which we were never sure was him anyway.

 

[Mrs Sowester]

@user9876
It's not a conspiracy it's a policy.
The DWP doesn't do vanity projects.
The PACE trial was created to back up the cross party government public health policy that 'people are happier in work (and not on benefits)'. Remember the 'nudge theory' that people and attitudes can be gently nudged in a more healthy direction? And the happiness survey that happened round about the time of the census? This public health policy has been backed up by the media, think Jeremy Kyle's rants about benefit cheats and all the focus on disabled athletes achieving great things.
There will be senior civil servants at the DWP pulling the strings working hand in hand with the SMC propaganda machine feeding the public their message. The PACE team know they have the protection of the government - they were government funded to provide evidence to lower UK benefit payouts. And, as anyone who followed the Levesson Inquiry will be aware, the old school tie network and people in positions of real power and influence (like editors of the BMJ and knighted psychiatrists for example) are all in one big jolly club playing polo and having kitchen suppers.
My belief is PACE wont be brought down, it'll fade away quietly in the face of overwhelming medical research superseding it or by a sensational expose by journalists from outside the UK.

 

[bullybeef]

If anyone is unbeknownst to the Hillsborough Disaster, Operation Yewtree or Orgreave, examine how easily corruptible the UK media have been in the last 30 or so years. They accept what they were told by peers, police etc, and dont tend to fact-check because the UK hierarchical and sycophant nature of officialdom creates greed and hubris, which can be irrelevant to the truth.

I believe when 'cover-ups' are eventually outed in the US, it because the media investigates them, whereas here the media are part of the machinations. There is very little free-press in the UK as things stand.

By the time anything is as come to light, the criminals are either too old and forgotten for anyone to care, or death as ended their problems.

 

[erin]

I'm not at all surprised. BBC always has an agenda and it is not only when broadcasting science. It is about every broadcast. You don't need to see it along the conspiracy, it is very real. As mentioned on some of the above posts, it is about skimming money, services etc. The society runs on the idea that only healthy, young and beautiful is valued and has a right to be here. It is seriously fascistic. Don't get me wrong, there are many BBC programs claims otherwise to cover their backs against the minorities who are slightly aware and subject of the broadcast. You'll never see anything against the "agenda" broadcasted in prime time and in popular shows

I don't want to get political but in my opinion media is there to inject society with these fascistic opinions and BBC is media and coming from the mouth of imperialism. I say no more.

 

[viggster]

I don't think that's remotely likely. I think that sort of clear-cut corruption plays little to no role in most of the problems around PACE. It's more the way people trust authorty figures without thikning critically or looking at the evidence that it the problem... and the desire for easy stories that make one feel good about oneself, etc.

An American journalist friend of mine spent four years in the U.K. a while back. I asked him about the PACE controversy and how it's played out in the UK media, the role of the Science Media Centre, etc. He gave a pretty succinct answer: People in the UK, reporters too, are used to taking sides. In this case, it's the scientific establishment vs. 'campaigners.' Pick a side. Well, reporters who spend their time in establishment circles tend to choose that side. It's easier, it conforms to their world view, it makes sources inside the establishment warmer to them, etc. Given how class-conscious the UK still is, this sounded like a reasonable (if partial) explanation. When BBC people are on the board of the SMC, it further cements the 'us-versus-them' mentality.

Edit: The time-constraints of the modern journalist no doubt play into the problem. Reporters are generally expected to work very quickly, and when the SMC offers a bow-wrapped package of quotes, stats, etc., it's very easy to take that and write a quick story. Delving into the murky reality - where evidence has been so distorted for so long - is a very daunting venture. Just look at the amount of work David Tuller has had to do to get to the bottom of PACE. It's taken him YEARS.

 

[Snowdrop]

An American journalist friend of mine spent four years in the U.K. a while back. I asked him about the PACE controversy and how it's played out in the UK media, the role of the Science Media Centre, etc. He gave a pretty succinct answer: People in the UK, reporters too, are used to taking sides. In this case, it's the scientific establishment vs. 'campaigners.' Pick a side. Well, reporters who spend their time in establishment circles tend to choose that side. It's easier, it conforms to their world view, it makes sources inside the establishment warmer to them, etc. Given how class-conscious the UK still is, this sounded like a reasonable (if partial) explanation. When BBC people are on the board of the SMC, it further cements the 'us-versus-them' mentality.

Sounds like a very fair description. I guess the more established we look and the more 'out there/plain silly' the BPS look then we might gain some traction with media.
A good question to ask your friend is, in his experience do establishment people go down with their ship?

 

[Yogi]

A bit off topic but the BBC are too afraid of taking on the UK government as it is a state broadcaster.

For next weeks general election they have even banned/censored a song which was top of iTunes chart and the highest new entry in the official chart at number 4.

It has not been played on any of the radio stations. It should be played as part of official chart.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...labour-conservatives-government-a7767101.html

This article published a few hours ago partially explains the problem.

Liar Liar

Enjoy!

 

[UKmum]

He may be looking for particular types of quotes (A) and already have other people saying other types of things (B) and not need more people saying B types of things. I have been giving him background information but have not been recorded. He rang me last week and also again yesterday so it seems a good chance that it is the same guy.

I am aware of a family that were facing CFS related child safeguarding issues being interviewed for BBC radio 4 this week. If its the same reporter I am encouraged the tide may be turning.

 

[Seven7]

Did they invite the international press to the event?? If so then maybe they will refrain from going too crazy

 

[Snow Leopard]

Edit: The time-constraints of the modern journalist no doubt play into the problem. Reporters are generally expected to work very quickly, and when the SMC offers a bow-wrapped package of quotes, stats, etc., it's very easy to take that and write a quick story. Delving into the murky reality - where evidence has been so distorted for so long - is a very daunting venture. Just look at the amount of work David Tuller has had to do to get to the bottom of PACE. It's taken him YEARS.

The real question is why does the public accept poor quality journalism as truth? I mean even uncontroversial scientific papers are routinely reported incorrectly and this is widespread across the field (hugely hyped headlines etc).

 

[Barry53]

The real question is why does the public accept poor quality journalism as truth? I mean even uncontroversial scientific papers are routinely reported incorrectly and this is widespread across the field (hugely hyped headlines etc).

Because generally "the public" rely (and blindly trust) the very journalism that is misleading them into not realising there is even a problem, and should itself be under scrutiny. I wonder if David Tuller could himself tackle the reporting bias aspect, or if maybe that is too big a mountain to climb even for him?

 

[charles shepherd]

I have known the very experienced health journalist from the BBC who is making this programme for many years

This is a serious investigative programme that is looking at the management of children with ME/CFS, child protection issues and controversies surrounding activity management, GET and the PACE trial

I have had some long discussions with him over the past two weeks and provided a great deal of background information - as well as listing people he should be making contact with to interview

I did not manage to catch up with him today at the Invest in ME conference as he was inteviewing during the afternoon session when I was in the conference hall

I have made several investigative programmes with the journalist in question (who is NOT connected to the SMC) and have always been impressed by the way in which he has covered stories relating to ME/CFS

If problems have occurred with any of the interviews today they should be pursued with the journalist in the first instance

I am also happy to speak to him if anyone who has been interviewed wants me to do so

Dr Charles Shepherd

 

[Starlight]

Thanks so much Dolphin and Charles Shepard for this reassurance. My heart tumbled into my stomach when I read about this development at first.

 

[charles shepherd]

Thanks so much Dolphin and Charles Shepard for this reassurance. My heart tumbled into my stomach when I read about this development at first.

Thanks - As I've already indicated, I am very happy to speak to the BBC if anyone who has given an interview feels unhappy with either the interview or the format of the programme

Having skimmed through some of the earlier comments here I would caution against jumping to false conclusions about SMC involvement and firing off angry letters to the BBC

That would be counter productive……….

 

[Barry53]

I have known the very experienced health journalist from the BBC who is making this programme for many years

This is a serious investigative programme that is looking at the management of children with ME/CFS, child protection issues and controversies surrounding activity management, GET and the PACE trial

I have had some long discussions with him over the past two weeks and provided a great deal of background information - as well as listing people he should be making contact with to interview

I did not manage to catch up with him today at the Invest in ME conference as he was inteviewing during the afternoon session when I was in the conference hall

I have made several investigative programmes with the journalist in question (who is NOT connected to the SMC) and have always been impressed by the way in which he has covered stories relating to ME/CFS

If problems have occurred with any of the interviews today they should be pursued with the journalist in the first instance

I am also happy to speak to him if anyone who has been interviewed wants me to do so

Dr Charles Shepherd

That really is very encouraging to hear, and very much looking forward to seeing/hearing the result in due course. Do you have any idea if this will be aired in the near future or not?

 

[Jenny TipsforME]

This is a serious investigative programme that is looking at the management of children with ME/CFS, child protection issues and controversies surrounding activity management, GET and the PACE trial

Good that this is now getting picked up by the BBC.

 

[Barry53]

Good that this is now getting picked up by the BBC.

For me the jury will remain out until the BBC report is aired. Really hope it proves to be objective, thorough, and high integrity. From what @charles shepherd says, there is a good chance of this. I would dearly love to have my faith in BBC investigative reporting restored.

 

[charles shepherd]

That really is very encouraging to hear, and very much looking forward to seeing/hearing the result in due course. Do you have any idea if this will be aired in the near future or not?

I don't think a firm date has been fixed but I would guess that it will appear within weeks rather than months

NB: This is for BBC radio - not BBC TV