BBC TV interview

[Wildcat]

It was a seriously retrograde step to refer to the chief medical officers working group report (1998-2002) which brought us cbt/get. And harping on about the so called 'controversy' , physical or psychiatric blah, that's been the media story for 30 years .
There HAVE been significant amounts of bioresearch, just hardly any of it funded by our government. Anyone would think there had been no biomedical advancements in the last 20 years.

Who organised the news report?

 

[waiting]

It was a seriously retrograde step to refer to the chief medical officers report (1998-2002) and harp on about the so called 'controversy' , physical or psychiatric blah.
There HAVE been amounts of bioresearch, just hardly any of it funded by our government. Anyone would think there had been no biomedical advancements in the last 20 years.

Who organised the news report?

I don't think I have EVER heard a news report, or an official government (any government) comment that did not include the descriptor "controversial", usually in the very first sentence.

 

[Graham]

@Wildcat : I made a lot more, balanced comments in the actual interview, including the large number of small studies funded by the charities that should be followed up with big funding from the MRC, but they hit the editing floor. I don't know who did the editing. But the key thing is that we have got something up there, that there have been a lot of positive reactions to it, and none negative that I know of, so perhaps that will ease the way in for more.

 

[waiting]

But the key thing is that we have got something up there, that there have been a lot of positive reactions to it, and none negative that I know of, so perhaps that will ease the way in for more.

@Graham you are unfailingly modest!

This is an excellent piece of advocacy that you have achieved here. Your comments in the interview were direct, but also measured & reasonable.

It was also a very good selection of points to make (even the ones that ended up on the cutting room floor -- edited only for segment length, no doubt).

I also think it is important that you worked with a reporter who was not only open-minded but willing to dig into the topic. A fluff piece it was not! How did you meet this reporter?

And now, after the fact, you are keeping your eyes on the prize -- lots & lots of public (our) response to this piece is crucial to leading the way for more of its ilk -- balanced, measured & reality based reporting.

 

[waiting]

I don't think I have EVER heard a news report, or an official government (any government) comment that did not include the descriptor "controversial", usually in the very first sentence.

I sometimes wonder when I hear the term "controversy", is it a reasonable description of the whole mishandled ME mess (historically) or does the term, at least some of the time for some of the people who employ it, confer a (false) value judgement that ME is not real.

 

[leela]

The other thing that makes my blood boil is the dredging up of "yuppie flu". It's a bigoted, highly derogatory term, and needs to be laid permanently to rest, not resurfaced every time the illness is re-presented to the public. Its use has mercifully slowed, but did show up here, and every time I hear it I want to scream.

Because if one were doing a piece on the current state of civil rights in the US, for instance, (TRIGGER WARNING) a reporter would never say, "African Americans, once called niggers, are still fighting for social, economic and judicial equality, fifty years on."

Using yuppie flu is equivalent to that level of shocking bigotry, and I do NOT understand why so few people recognise that.

It's not funny and not worth remembering.

 

[waiting]

The other thing that makes my blood boil is the dredging up of "yuppie flu". It's a bigoted, highly derogatory term, and needs to be laid permanently to rest, not resurfaced every time the illness is re-presented to the public. Its use has mercifully slowed, but did show up here, and every time I hear it I want to scream.

Because if one were doing a piece on the current state of civil rights in the US, for instance, (TRIGGER WARNING) a reporter would never say, "African Americans, once called niggers, are still fighting for social, economic and judicial equality, fifty years on."

Using yuppie flu is equivalent to that level of shocking bigotry, and I do NOT understand why so few people recognise that.

It's not funny and not worth remembering.

Yes, you are right. You've made me think about this.

It's the same with other historically marginalized groups -- like the LGBTQ community, for one. A news story today would NOT reference the derogatory terms used for them -- unless the piece was specifically about the historical hatred & bigotry.

In all of these cases, it's not necessary to use the derogatory term simply in order to describe which group is being referred to. It does not add any information.

This would be a good point to make in future -- we should call it out when we see it. And I've also read it, heard it in pretty much EVERY media story on ME.

Llewellyn King had it so right in his piece a few years ago when he wrote (paraphrasing here) that with AIDS, the stigma was sex, and with ME, the stigma is sloth.

 

[digital dog]

Who's Wessley?

 

[Effi]

Using yuppie flu is equivalent to that level of shocking bigotry, and I do NOT understand why so few people recognise that.

It shows that we still have a looooong way to go... *sigh*

 

[Wildcat]

I bet you made a number of very important points, Graham. The real ME story is definitely newsworthy. But the media trot out the same 'controversy' 'mystery' storylines, decade after decade.

The BBC report on the Chief Medical Officers Working Group report on CFS in 2002 announced that the cmo working group (a government working group) had concluded that 'cfs' is an illness. Well, the WHO concluded that in 1969! Then the bbc interviewed wessely who pushed his psychological line. The 1998-2002 chief medical officers working group farted about for four years and wasted our time. Some of us will be pushing up the daises before our media report ME factually.

I think the journalist went to bbc archives and dredged up that dross 2002 cmo working group report, and its reporting by the bbc, ignoring Grahams important points that reflect the developments in ME research. It's either journalistic laziness, or maintaining a BBC party line on portraying ME as a controversy and a 'mystery' with psychological overtones.

 

[Graham]

Say @leela , what do you think the chance is of performing an ME research protest in rhyme? We've got a strong thread of skilled rhymers on PR. It has to be funny, but in a black and bitter way! Could it be MEAnalysis Youtube video number 9? Or shall we just draw the line under the sunflower song?