BBC website pushing sCAM (why am I not surprised?)

[Asolepius]

I have complained to the complaints webpage again (this is #3!). I can't figure out how to use the ofcom page yet.

And sadly, I don't have an MP.

I'm just amazed that they keep telling me I can't read & write English. It's the most unprofessional response I've ever received from any organization (aside from the crazy religious ones).

I phoned OFCOM yesterday. This is outside their remit, they only deal with radio and TV in this context. They said there is no particular regulation of websites. I also phoned the BBC yet again, and still didn't get to speak to anyone of any use. Not sure where to go next.

 

[richardm]

I'm just amazed that they keep telling me I can't read & write English. It's the most unprofessional response I've ever received from any organization (aside from the crazy religious ones).

Can anyone make out a word Yahzi's saying? Perhaps if you typed slowly and more loudly I might be able to make some headway into this bunch of squiggles and lines.

I phoned OFCOM yesterday. This is outside their remit, they only deal with radio and TV in this context. They said there is no particular regulation of websites. I also phoned the BBC yet again, and still didn't get to speak to anyone of any use. Not sure where to go next.

this guy's been down this road and appears to have hit the buffers. He has some interesting things to say about producer's guidelines:

[SIZE=-1]...the Complaints Unit say that the impartiality (or not) of the main complementary medicine pages is outside their remit, unless there's a case to be argued for irresponsibility or potential harm. This, they said, is because the BBC's duty of due impartiality only applies to "matters of public policy or of political and industrial controversy" - and not to complementary medicine.
I queried this stance, since the Producers' Guidelines look perfectly clear in saying that impartiality applies everywhere:

2 IMPARTIALITY IN GENERAL
Due impartiality lies at the heart of the BBC. It is a core value and no area of programming is exempt from it.
3.7 Series that present a particular perspective
When a series is "authored" by an individual or a group representing a body of thought, it should maintain a proper respect for facts and truth and should not ignore opposing points of view.
3.11 Factual Programmes Not Dealing with Matters of Political or Industrial Controversy
Documentaries, magazine and feature programmes of various kinds often properly concentrate on a narrow area or give an opportunity, for example in an interview, for a single view to be expressed. Overall, such output seeks to represent reality. There remains an obligation to ensure that a proper range of views and perspectives is aired over a reasonable time.

But no: the Complaints Unit replied that the duty of due impartiality "applies to all areas only in the sense that no area of programming is exempt from it when dealing with matters where due impartiality is required"! This duty derives, they say, from section 5 of the Agreement associated with the BBC Charter.
I find this quite remarkable. It appears that there's no formal mechanism for questioning partiality in the BBC's coverage of complementary medicine, as their house rules don't even demand it be covered impartially.
This goes against the BBC's many statements elsewhere that imply impartiality in all areas, without defining "all" as only applying to a subset of topics. For instance, look at Inside BBC Journalism on Impartiality and using Internet links). Neither of these say impartiality is essentially restricted to politics, and the latter in particular notes that "BBC sites which cover a controversial or public policy matter should offer links to external sites which represent a reasonable range of views about the subject". The post-Hutton Neil Report also affirmed a commitment to impartiality, as well as journalism "rooted in the highest accuracy, well sourced and based on sound evidence".
[/SIZE]

[SIZE=-1]

That was back in 2003.

I wonder if an email or letter direct to the science editor would do any good?
[/SIZE]

 

[Cuddles]

Well I never had a response. Must be because I'm British and not USian. I'll try writing again when I have time, but I don't hold out much hope.

 

[Asolepius]

I have just phoned the BBC complaints line again (08700 100 222) and given the poor lad who answered a right ear-bending. He said I could escalate the complaint to:

BBC Information
PO Box 1922
Glasgow
G2 3WT

The next stage after that is:

Editorial Complaints Unit
Media Centre
Media Village
201 Wood Lane
London
W12 7TQ

Although I phoned the complaints line, they only log complaints there and can't connect me with anyone to discuss it. I told him that this appalling handling would be publicised. I think he got the message that I am not giving up. I suggest we all keep at it - phone the complaints line every day until they do something.

 

[Yahzi]

Perhaps if you typed slowly and more loudly

I S T H I S B E T T E R ?

this guy's been down this road and appears to have hit the buffers.

It makes me feel better to know the're getting it from more than just me.

 

[Yahzi]

I told him that this appalling handling would be publicised.

My hero!



Really, it seems like a straight-forward complaint. All they need to do is change one word; make it say, "How is it the same?"

But the idea that they can say, "How is it different," list what all doctors do, assure me in their first response that all doctors do that; and then assert I have a "personal problem" because I know what the word "different" means is just bizarre.

 

[Asolepius]

My hero!



Really, it seems like a straight-forward complaint. All they need to do is change one word; make it say, "How is it the same?"

But the idea that they can say, "How is it different," list what all doctors do, assure me in their first response that all doctors do that; and then assert I have a "personal problem" because I know what the word "different" means is just bizarre.

As far as I'm concerned they need to change a lot more. They can tell the truth about the Benveniste study, they can state clearly that there is no evidence for most of what they are saying, and they can achieve some balance with the external links they provide - and that's just for starters.

 

[John Jackson]

From the article:

"Please keep an open mind and enjoy the site."
​

You can bet your bottom dollar that whenever someone is asking you to keep an 'open mind' on something they're presenting - you're about to read a pile of crap.

Those pages support that tenet.

 

[Deetee]

From the Editorial Guidelines:


Misleading audiences: We should not distort known facts, present invented material as fact, or knowingly do anything to mislead our audiences.

Correcting mistakes: We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct mistakes quickly and clearly.

 

[Wudang]

I would have thought that the BBC claiming it had no duty of impartiality on its internet presence would be political dynamite. Can you imagine what Tory central office could do with that? Or the headlines in the Torygraph?

 

[Zep]

Why don't you tell ITV? Or News Ltd? Or the Tory Party headquarters? They would LOVE to have a Beeb-bashing story about tree-huggers to run with, wouldn't they?

 

[Asolepius]

BBC Newsnight tonight

To UK members - Newsnight will be worth watching tonight. Don't know any more than that, other than the word `quackery' was mentioned.

 

[Merko]

Surely alternative medicine would fall into the cathegory of "industrial controversy", even if that were an issue.

Anyway, I'm a bit miffed that some people here find it worth commenting on that the BBC used an image of an Indian couple at the website. So they should only use white people? There's about a billion Indians out there, if some of you guys have a problem with that then I'm really sorry for you.


Anyway, it is of course sad to see the BBC doing this, it has after all been one of the most credible sources of information during the previous century.

 

[Yahzi]

From the Editorial Guidelines:

Excellent, Deetee! Here is my latest complaint:

The BBC Editorial guidelines have this to say about correcting mistakes:

"Correcting mistakes
We should normally acknowledge serious factual errors and correct mistakes quickly and clearly. Inaccuracy may lead to a complaint of unfairness. An effective way of correcting a mistake is saying what was wrong as well as putting it right. Where we may have broadcast a defamatory inaccuracy Programme Legal Advice should be consulted about the wording of a correction."

The website listed above contains a serious mistake. Under a section entitled "How is it different," it contains 3 paragraphs of _similarities_ with conventional medicine. (The only difference listed is "spiritual health.")

This mistake is misleading and gives the distinct impression that the website is asserting that conventional doctors do NOT care about their patient's wellbeing, prevention, or personal responsiblity. That is offensive to conventional doctors, and (by admission of the CAM staff at that website) incorrect.

I have contacted the adminstrators of that website (most recently, Vis Karunaratne) and asked them to correct this mistake, but they have responded by asserting that my ability to read English is inadequate.

I find this response to be offensive, unprofessional, and manifestly incorrect. Please explain to the staff that maintains this website what the word "different" means.

Sincerely,

 

[Asolepius]

I got this reply at last yesterday:

Thank you for your comments on the BBC Health site's complementary health section. The BBC does not seek to 'push' homeopathy, or any other treatment, but to give information to our audiences about different treatment approaches available.

Regarding the article on Homeopathy you mention, the article is balanced with the following comments:

- In the intro: 'But this is one of the more controversial complementary therapies, and opinions are divided as to its effectiveness'
- In the How Does It Work? section: 'Many scientists, however, say homeopathic remedies don't work at all and that any improvement in patients is due to the 'placebo effect'.'
- In the Further links section: links are included to news stories challenging homeopathy's effectiveness.
- The reference to the Beneviste study also clearly states that it was 'controversial'.

The BBC's Health site is constantly being reviewed and updated, and the complementary health section is currently being looked at as part of this and you may find that some of the articles you were querying have already been taken down. We are having to streamline the site considerably due to resource constraints and the focus will be on providing some introductory information from which people can follow links to other relevant sites if they choose to. In line with plans to upgrade the design and navigation across the whole Health site, much of the existing content will be archived or revised. Any new complementary health section content we commission will of course reflect the more recent thinking on complementary treatments resulting from research that has been carried out since the original launch of the site some time ago now, though of course we will also continue to reflect the fact that opinion continues to be divided on this subject.

I will now hit them with a detailed critique of the whole site. I am not letting them off the hook.

 

[Asolepius]

....and here is my latest reply:

I have just received your reply, three months after your initial acknowledgment. It really is rather insulting to receive such an unsatisfactory reply after such a long wait. You reject all of my concerns, in flagrant disregard of the facts. Please allow me to correct your statements, as follows:

Intro: It is not a matter of opinions being divided, it is a matter of evidence. The body of evidence quite clearly shows no effect of homeopathy beyond placebo. The meta-analysis by Shang et al appeared in the Lancet well over a year ago and I would have expected your site to reflect the latest data. Not updating the site with correct information is laziness, and misleads the public.
'How does it work?': Again you present this as a matter of opinion when it is a matter of evidence. To achieve balance, you should say what the evidence is. By all means report what people think, but people can be wrong.
Links: You do not include any links to sceptical sites.
Benveniste study: This is not just `controversial', it was WITHDRAWN. This means that it no longer officially exists in the published literature and should not be cited.

I see that the whole homeopathy section has been removed from the site. I am rather puzzled that you have done this, while rejecting all my concerns. Overall, you really don't seem to understand the central issue here. This is not a matter of reflecting divided opinions. The facts are there for all to see. People are quite capable of understanding the facts if they are given them. That surely is the BBC's mission.

So they have taken done some pages of the site. I think this is a good sign. They won't admit defeat, but seem to be responding to objections. Let's keep it up.

 

[Blue Wode]

They won't admit defeat, but seem to be responding to objections.

Following my 4th August post…

Another complaint has just been sent in pointing out the misleading “essential facts” in its Manipulation section and its failure to highlight the lack of scientific evidence for Cranial Osteopathy, and (Applied) Kinesiology.

Regards its Manipulation section, it doesn’t make clear the differences between scientific manual therapy and chiropractic philosophy, and it fails to state that there is no evidence that chiropractic/spinal manipulation is more effective for lower back pain than conventional therapy and that there is no evidence that it is effective for any other disease.

Most worryingly of all, it makes no mention that there have been numerous case reports of serious complications, including stroke and death, arising from manipulation of the upper cervical spine.

…it’s good to see that they’ve removed their Cranial Osteopathy and (Applied) Kinesiology sections. However, their Manipulation section remains unchanged:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/complementary_medicine/therapies_manipulation.shtml

I’ve emailed them about it, but they’ve still to reply.

 

[Blue Wode]

Their reply is in and it’s almost an exact copy of the last paragraph of the reply that Asolepius received:

The BBC's Health site is constantly being reviewed and updated, some of the articles you were querying have been taken down. We are having to streamline the site considerably due to resource constraints and the
focus will be on providing some introductory information from which
people can follow links to other relevant sites if they choose to.

In line with plans to upgrade the design and navigation across the whole
Health site, much of the existing content will be archived or revised.

Any new complementary health section content we commission will of
course reflect the more recent thinking on complementary treatments
resulting from research that has been carried out since the original
launch of the site some time ago now, though of course we will also
continue to reflect the fact that opinion continues to be divided on
this subject.

It’ll be interesting to see how much scientific evidence is used to “reflect the more recent thinking on complementary treatments” when the new site content is unveiled.

 

[Q-Source]

I checked the link and they have changed it a little bit. At least they modified the sub-title Yahzi complained about.

Before:

How is it different?

Complementary medicine focuses on the whole person, with lifestyle, environment, diet and mental, emotional and spiritual health often being considered alongside physical symptoms. Diagnosis aims to identify the root cause of these symptoms; treatment is then designed not only to relieve the ailment or disease but also to restore health and promote general wellbeing. There's also a strong emphasis on prevention.

Many complementary therapies are based on the idea that the body naturally strives to maintain a state of balance, known as homeostasis. Treatments aim to stimulate this natural healing ability in the body.

Taking responsibility for one's own health is regarded as an important part of healing, so patients are often actively involved in their treatment.

Now:

How does it complement traditional medicine?

Complementary medicine focuses on the whole person, with lifestyle, environment, diet and mental, emotional and spiritual health often being considered alongside physical symptoms. Treatment is designed not only to relieve the ailment or disease but also to promote general wellbeing.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/health/healthy_living/complementary_medicine/basics_whatisit.shtml

In my opinion this is still misleading. It gives the impression that complementary "medicine" works, when it has been proven that it doesn´t. It puts a lot of people in real risk of deteriorating their health if they don´t take proper treatment.

PS. There is also a disclaimer, was it there before?

 

[Mojo]

Complementary medicine focuses on the whole person, with lifestyle, environment, diet and mental, emotional and spiritual health often being considered alongside physical symptoms.

My doctor often asks (and advises) me about lifestyle, environment and diet, and I would imagine he's at least interested in my state of mind.

Treatment is designed not only to relieve the ailment or disease but also to promote general wellbeing.

Again, what we have here is not what sCAM actually does, but what it claims to do.

Do they include homoeopathy in this? It does nothing but consider patients as collections of symptoms.