That piece is not perfect, nor is it as heinous as one or two in this thread seem to think that it is. Researchers being threatened is factually correct. Christ, I know people on our side, including patients who have been abused and threatened by those who take against them. However, we know that those threats are then used as a smokescreen to divert from the genuine issues. I know that, because I've been ill for a very very long time and have followed things intimately. How could a journalist, writing for the first time, know every nook and cranny of the story? Yes, she appears to have misquoted Mary Dimmock, and that is poor, but I see no grand conspiracy or malice here, just as I saw none in Isabel Hardman's piece. She was simply a novice who took the word of one of those considered to be one of the most senior researchers in the area.
We know that there are journalists in the UK with agendas. Hanlon and Pemberton are prime examples. But that does not mean that we fly at every journalist who writes something which isn't quite to our taste and give them so much jip that they never hang around long enough to get to the truth. A certain amount of paranoia is understandable in our situation, with our deep understanding of the politics of this illness, but the whole world is not against us.
A brief story. A couple of years ago on Twitter I commented on a link another patient had tweeted. Five minutes later I got a message from an anonymous account named something like 'ME warrior' (I don't remember exactly). The tweet accused me of being Peter White. I protested repeatedly that I was not, each time being met with the response that I was. My avi was and is a picture of myself, a 39 year old man, and the account uses my real name. Eventually I persuaded him/her that I wasn't PDW. Instead they then concluded that I worked for the insurance industry, working in tandem with White. At this point I disengaged.
There are people representing (truthfully or otherwise) our community online who make irrational accusations at people. When a journalist writes a story on us and is immediately bombarded by (mostly) rational patients wanting to redress the balance and (unfortunately) a number of people who tell them that they should be 'ashamed' of themselves, that what they have written is 'mindless propaganda', or utter shite or accuse them of being part of some grand conspiracy, which side of the story do you think they'll write next time, if they aren't scared away altogether?
There is a patient on Twitter (he may or may not post on here, I don't know) who has compiled a list of every journalist he considers to have written an inadequate article on ME in the last twenty years so that when the truth outs he can contact every one and make sure they never forget they were complicit in the death and neglect of thousands of patients. I don't think that's a healthy situation, for the patient or our cause. I write freelance in another field when I'm well enough and I wouldn't touch our story with a barge poll if my initial foray into the topic was met with the stuff that some receive.
This battle will be won by research and the spread of information. The best way to spread that information as wide as possible is through the media. So how about we cut some journalists some slack before damning them and scaring them away. It's self defeating. @Viggers explained how this story and the media worked and a little background on the author who is clearly well intentioned. How would you like it if every day you did your job and then the fruits of your labour were dissected and flayed by a large group of folks on the Internet, who then sent you messages telling you how stupid and incapable you are?
I'm new to PR, although I've lurked for a long time. I like it, because largely media and research is evaluated by a large number of very intelligent, knowledgeable people. Criticism is mostly rational and constructive. It strikes me that raving about journos, charities and conspiracies in hyperbolic fashion is probably better saved for Twitter or Facebook or, preferably, just not shared at all.