For the last few years, the Guardian has been pretty much a lone voice pleading for rationality and sense; the Observer has happily pushed any old cobblers (Henry Porter being the notable exception). As far as I’m concerned, the Observer has little credibility at all, but it damages the Guardian because it is often perceived as the “Sunday Guardian”.

So please trash this MMR nonsense and try to knock some sense into the morons at the Observer, or at least make it damn clear to the world that the Guardian and the Observer are not singing from the same sheet.

“Comment is free, but facts are sacred… …The voice of opponents no less than that of friends has a right to be heard.”

- C.P. Scott -founder of the modern Guardian.

Seems like The Guardian doesn’t even want to listen to a friend on this one..

If the Guardian don’t want to take an article from Ben (which would be better grounded in facts than the original article on past form) then shame on them.

Perhaps a quick re-read of C P Scotts inspirational take on how to run a newspaper would be in order:

www.guardian.co.uk/newsroom/story/0,11718,850815,00.html

Meanwhile, I speculate that enforced silence is forcing Ben to try ever more imaginiative and devious experiments – when’s the next book coming out, Ben?

@raygirvan – I’m not naive, I’m not surprised that the Guardian might not want to print a column critical of the Observer, and I know that scientific truth is not the top priority for a newspaper. None of that means that I shouldn’t ‘bewail’ their actions. As you say, “newspapers maintain their readership by printing material that matches the pre-existing views of their readers”. In my case that pre-existing view is that science is important and that internal dissent should be allowed. If I don’t let them know that, they how will they know how to retain my readership?

Nobody should be surprised that newspapers don’t allow in-house conflictsj. Nor should anyone be surprised that scientific truth is not the top priority; newspapers maintain their readerships by printing material that matches the pre-existing views of their readers. All this is newspaper realpolitik.

Rather than directing all the energy at bewailing that they’ve done it, it would better focused on arguing to them why this issue is so important that it should override these tenets of newspaper practice.

1) we dont know whether the Graun stopped the publication of Ben’s article because it was critical of an observer piece. we have no evidence. altho we can speculate, we can’t be sure.

2) if it is the case that the Graun didnt publish to avoid criticising its sister publication, that would indeed be serious. nobody would want to lessen the impact of ensuing wrath once this was confirmed by pre-emptively appearing indignant at the editors’ conduct. that’s a badly worded point but you get my drift right…?!

3) not wanting to bite the hand that feeds you is an understandable position, and as Ben says himself above at other publications he’d have been burned at the stake for even suggesting a counter-article to the observer guff.

4) besides, next week we may see this controversy resolved when the Graun see the light, a bit like when UCL re-instated prof colquhoun’s website.

5) please, please please do not let my comments here or on the forum stop you from sending a letter to anybody, that isnt my aim – i’m just a little wary of the consequences thereof. please dont think i’m trying to stop you, i just hope that if you do write to observer editor/guardian editor, you wont regret it at such a point that we have all the facts in front of us…!!

Are we discussing the “Bad science outwith the Guardian and Observer” column?

A BMJ article preaches only to the (hopefully) converted but a (presumably) watered down Guardian piece reaches the target audience.

Obviously no course of action with which anyone will be entirely content.

Difficult for you: my sympathies.

The question I’m asking myself is, had the Obs’ article appeared in, for example, the Mail on Sunday, would Ben’s column on it have mysteriously disappeared from the following Saturday’s Guardian? I suspect not. So is it acceptable that Ben’s column has been nixed or delayed, for however short a time, in this case? Surely the answer is no, and surely this is exactly the kind of issue that the readers’ editors of the two papers concerned are there to address.

The National Autistic Society is apprehensive. “The charity is concerned that the forthcoming GMC hearing, and surrounding media coverage, will create further confusion and make it even more difficult for parents to access appropriate medical advice for their children.”

I do think that if a week is a long time in politics, as the wildfire proliferation of that stupid 1 in 58 prevalence figure for autism non-story demonstrates, a single headline could take years of work to undo. What will happen if only 1 side of the story is presented for 3 months?

IMHO, and for what it’s worth, it is indeed understandable that the Guardian has difficulty printing your article straight away, as it may have adverse consequences for its sister paper. us lot on the outside may well be indignant at the apparent censorship, when it may be no such thing. we may be outraged at the Graun reluctant to criticise the Observer, whereas they may just be taking advice and taking stock. who knows – only Ben presumably.

what might help is a little more info from both Ben (i understand you have to be careful what you let us blogsters know in this delicate situation, so no pressure to nail your colours to the mast btw) and especially from the Guardian. if we knew exactly why there was no article, and whether there may be room for such an article later, some of us may be placated…

[/rant]