http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/francis_sedgemore/2007/07/more_bad_science_colu.html

I think I’d have more respect for the ‘it’s not journalists’, it’s scientists’ fault’ arguments if they were made better – scientists can be involved in dodgy spinning of their own data (Wakefield) but he’s just throwing around references to the ‘medical establishment’ without any actual basis, it’s handwaving argument of the worst kind – I’m not convined he even knows the difference between medical research and comments from the Tory shadown health secretary.

Dear Sir,
Your recent coverage of autism and its possible connection to MMR highlights the potential conflict between a reporter’s desire to get the story out, and their obligation to ensure reasonable accuracy. This is especially so when, as in the case of MMR, this pertains to matters of grave public interest, affecting the safety of children.

After reading Simon Pritchard’s responses there still appears to be a gulf between the Observer and dissatisfied readers regarding what are a newspaper’s reasonable duties to accuracy. I support the proposal that the Observer should join with those readers who, like myself, remain dissatisfied and refer the matter – jointly and with agreement – to the Press Complaints Commission for adjudication.

This MMR/autism debacle has confirmed my decision. Shame on them.

What makes Radford’s defence even more pathetic is to consider the notion of swapping scientists for politicians and then follow the same “principles” of the journalists asking the questions they “know” the public want to hear and then “expecting” the politicians to give them the answer.

I’m pretty sure that Brian Deer, Greg Palast and other quality investigative journalists don’t work like that! Maybe that naivety might be expected of a school student newspaper but I wouldn’t want to make unfair comparisons of student journalists to this shambles!

But as someone else above (sorry can’t find you now) mentioned what can you expect of a newspaper that runs a horoscope page – it’ll be changing to a red masthead next.

They have failed in a duty of care they owe the public in reporting, and they have increased FUD on a difficult topic leading ultimately to a worse public health outcome.

For what it’s worth, I’ve posted on my own blog about this too, http://hobcot.blogspot.com/2007/07/pathetic-observer-non-apology.html

Good work Ben on pushing this and doing such a thorough job.

That this was sanctioned from the top in the first place is the only possible explanation I can think of for why the Observer is now having to have an apology dragged out of it like a small child.

Incidentally the Guardian is overseen by the Scott trustees – how do things work at the Observer? – is there a board of trustees to whom one could complain about the editor??

Even the most fuckwitted journo should be able to get their head round “you have to compare like with like”. Epecially when it is spelt out for them.

Basically, this was a scare story, pure and simple. Having got the report, almost certainly leaked to them via some MMR-autism-scare-motivated douchebag, The Observer decided editorially to run it as a scare story – at which point any critical analysis was suspended, and the sole driver became “NEWS (splash) value”.

PS Note that the Stephen Glover “press gossip” story in the Indie – linked by Wilsontown above – stil repeats the same old “balance” line – “although (Ben) Goldacre makes a convincing case, I’m sure the Observer has more to back hier line up than he implies.”

Er, no. They don’t.

When will the journos ever learn that in scientific matters there is actually a consensus based on best evidence? And not just the usual politicos’ post-modern “you say potato, I say poTAA-to” duelling lawyers’ bullshit.

Ho hum.

It looks like Scott was only temporarily drawn to the dark side, unlike Stott, who is a true believer. Five years ago I thought Wakefield might be right. But no-one offered me any serious money for my opinion, which has changed, BTW!

although the placement of the Fiona Scott part is confusing, coming, as you say, under a heading of “Dr Carol Stott” and following discussion of Stott’s links with Wakefield, the article does in fact draw a distinction between Scott and Stott early on: “…we did not reveal the links between Dr Carol Stott, and Dr Andrew Wakefield…and that we did not accurately reflect the views of another of the authors, Dr Fiona Scott…”

http://www.badscience.net/?p=464#comment-14942

Even if it were true, damn right. The Observer needs beating into shape. It’s a disgrace.

http://news.independent.co.uk/media/article2791090.ece