LYMEPOLICYWONK: A Question of Ethical Reporting–Chicago Tribune/Los Angeles Times.
Biased reporting harms the credibility of journalism, harms patients, and misleads the public. The recent Tribune piece, which is now being republished in other Tribune outlets (including the Los Angeles Times) distorts and manipulates reality and makes a ‘good story’ at the expense of professional journalism. It does this by ignoring science, and by characterizing patients as hapless victims and their physicians as frauds. It was called to task for its profound lack of professionalism by Knight Science Journalism Tracker. Articles on science that do not present both sides of a legitimate controversy in science do a serious injustice and may violate the canons of journalist ethics established by the Society of Professional Journalism. Today, I look at some of those canons and point out how the Tribune article fell short. More after the jump. . .
The Society of Professional Journalism has established a Code of Ethics for journalism. In my view, the Tribune piece fell far below these standards, what do you think?
“The duty of the journalist is to further those ends by seeking truth and providing a fair and comprehensive account of events and issues.”
The controversy is framed as one between predatory charlatan physicians and ignorant hapless patients, on the one hand, and true men of science, on the other. Only one view of science was represented in the piece. Opposing researcher viewpoints were either not solicited or not reflected in the piece. For instance, peer reviewed articles documenting persistence of the Lyme bacteria after treatment were ignored even though the reporters were provided references. Evidence against treatment is said to be “especially strong”. Yet the 4 treatment trials referred not only had mixed results, they had sample sizes (fewer than 80 patients) that were far too small to base broad conclusions on. To detect clinically relevant moderate treatment effects sample sizes in the thousands or tens of thousands are required. Hardly, “strong”. This fact was pointed out to the reviewers.
Journalists should test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
Again the notion here is that “all sources” are reflected. Excluding the views of highly regarded scientists who disagree with the authors’ premise is not acceptable.
Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
The title of the Tribune articles was “Lyme disease: A Dubious Diagnosis”. A subtitle of the Los Angeles Times article was “Most Doctors Agree Chronic Lyme is a Sham.” No opposing science is presented and a highly complex controversy is overly simplified and described in black and white language. The use of the word “Sham” in particular and the lack of support for the notion that the authors know what most doctor’s think is egregious.
Journalists should support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
This article had nothing to do with inviting an open exchange of ideas or views. The science of one side of the debate was suppressed. Credible opposing scientific viewpoints by highly respected academics were mothballed.
Journalist should give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid. . . .Journalists should show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
In this case, the journalists have made a mockery of a serious illness and described patients as hapless dupes. Their actions may result in a grave social injustice by chilling essential scientific research and by making it more difficult for these patients to be treated.
Journalists should distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
The article could well have been written by a PR person for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. For example, the article notes that a review panel exonerated the IDSA guidelines, but fails to point out that because the panel consisted almost exclusively of members of the IDSA who would have an organizational loyalty and conflict of interest, it was hardly neutral or independent—leaving out this critical fact, which was provided to the journalists, is a distortion of reality.
Patients with Lyme disease deserve more than sound-bite sensationalism. Democracy, justice and science all progress through open debate. As the code of ethics makes clear, ethical journalism requires that journalist seek truth and report it, minimize harm, act independently, and be accountable. None of these principles seems to have held much sway in this case.
You can contact Lorraine Johnson, JD, MBA at lbjohnson@lymedisease.org.
The IDSA does seem to have conflicts of interests but so do many (but not all) "LLMDs".
An 850.00 one hour initial consult with a family practice doctor who treats Lyme smacks of conflict of interest too.
How's that for fair and balanced?
I see conflicts on BOTH sides and the end results are the patient is the looser.
My $600.00 one-hour (ILADS) Specialists appointments – SAVED MY FAMILY THOUSANDS/THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS from MEDICAL NEGLIGENCE/MALPRACTICE/ Up to $5,000.00 per EMERGENCY ROOM VISIT(S), CRIPPLING PAIN, DISABILITY and FURTHER DISABIITY) – most importantly – SAVED MY LIFE (and those severely infected)!!!
I suffer complications of chronic (IgG) Borrelia complicated by Bartonella and Babesia w/ positive Spec/MRI/cardiac scans w/ known complications of late disseminated infection, crippling pain and disability.
With known pregnancy complications – history of miscarriages, hyperemesis graviderim, dehydration, polyhydraminos premature labor, etc., unable to work, w/ costly (IV)'s/hospitalizations w/ known related/confirmed (motor neuron) neurological/developmental and learning disabilities of my youngest daughter.
"Most likely acquired transplacentally to my (2) minor daughters from their infected mother." Both daughters confirmed w/ Lyme and co-infections" after pregnancy and, after tick bites w/ Erythema Migrans rashes w/ misdiagnoses of serious progressive neurological and systemic complications of Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever, (IgG) Human Granulocytic Erhlichia, (IgM) and (IgG) Borrelia and (PCR) Mycoplasma fermentens.
My youngest daughter presumably w/ the largest bacterial load born failure-to -thrive (hospitalized (5) weeks fighting for her life).
During divorce proceedings, denied rights of referral(s) to Columbia, a Lyme/co-infection Adult/Pediatric University Medical Center by and thru alleged federal violations under(HIPAA) and (ADA),Title I, II, III, IV, VII, 504 Rehabilatation by private, local and state employees, entities and officials.
Further, during divorce proceedings, w/ alleged "flagrant," intentional unlawful-Discrimination/victimization/
(injury), Abusive Harassment (humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion and manipulation) and Malicious Retaliation (emotional, psychological, physical and financial harm) – denied my human, civil and constitutional rights under (ADA) federal law, Title I, II, III, VI, 504 Rehabilatation of 'prescribed' (IV) antibiotic treatment for complications of bacterial encephalitis prescribed by (ILADS) Specialists and a 'referred' neurologist.
During divorce proceedings, intentionally charged/prosecuted for fabricated Fraud and False Statements, representations, and misrepresentations of "Munchausen's by proxy" w/out prior notice or an opportunity to be heard, w/ sudden unlawful termination of legal/physical parental rights and visitation, w/ arrest and incarceration (w/self incrimination) denied Demand for Jury Trial, further (w/ double jeopardy), maliciously prosecuted for alleged intentionally-fabricated, Fraud and False Statements, representations, and misrepresentations of "Delusional, Somatic-type" – (w/ self-incrimination) in alleged violations under (HIPAA) and (ADA) federal law, denied contact/collaboration with my choice of physicians and referred Specialists, at my monetary expense while disabled and unemployed under (ADA) federal law, denied rights and requests for an attorney and contact with family members, maliously assaulted/battered, drugged and sedated w/an excessive nondisclosed (IM)substance, transported in an ambulance to a (DPHHS)-contracted psych facility, retrained in solitary isolation, at my expense, denied rights of prescribed (Bicillin (IM), oral antibiotics, cardiac, pain, nausea, stress medications)- w/ brutal, cruel ill-treatment (mental and physical torture) w/ Petition for "Involuntary Commitment to the State Mental Hospital, this patient requires solitary isolation for up to (3) months or longer as deemed by the court," denied substantive and procedural due procedural due process under the 4th and 14th Amendments with cruel and unusual treatment and excessive force, declared incompetent to stand trial (by reason of insanity) found 'probable cause' for involuntary commitment by the prosecuting attorney and the court, in alleged violation(s) under (HIPAA),(ADA) federal law, the lst, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th and 14th Amendments of the US Constitution and other human, civil, constitutional/statutory state/federal laws.
"This patient suffers from a serious mental illness. None of her physical symptoms nor the physical symptoms of her (2) minor daughters have ever been substantiated by any physicians. She is a harm to herself, her children and others."
During divorce proceedings, w/ alleged severe Sex (Gender), Disability, Fair Housing, Age, Insurance, Professional (RN) Continuing Education under the US Department of Education (and other) unlawful-Discrimination/victimization(injury), Abusive Harassment (humiliation, intimidation, threats, coercion and manipulation) and Malicious Retaliation (emotional, psychological, physical and financial harm) denied rights of privacy, dignity and respect, choice of health providers, fair housing, spousal support, basic life's necessities and access to community-owned assets after (21) years of marriage to maintain health in violations under (HIPAA),(ADA) federal law, Title I, II, III 504 Rehabilatation and human, civil, constitutional rights (noted supra), while w/ neurological and stroke-like complications, severe head/pressure/pain, blurred/double vision, chest pain, arm pain, weakness, dizziness, SOB, vomiting, dehydration, crippling myalgia/joint pain (swollen joints), paralysis, etc. – documented by ethical treating physicians, "Mary is being falsely-accused of "Munchausen's by proxy, Delusional, Somatoform, Mary does not have Bipolar, these are wrong diagnoses for Mary. Her children have been removed and she is not being allowed contact with them, this is causing Mary understandable stress and anxiety. Mary needs a civil rights attorney."
Unfortunately, this seems to be the trend journalism is headed down, which is bad not only for Lyme, but for democracy.
I am reading Wendell Potters Deadly Spin and it is only reinforcing my belief in this.
In his book he says some reporters aren't even checking the facts any more and just use what the PR people give them. I wouldn't be surprised if this was analogous to the Tribune case.
And judging by how successful the insurance companies are with what they do, I can easily see us losing a propaganda war for some time.