EDMUND BURKE* IS ROLLING IN HIS GRAVE

By Jane Johnson

You learn a tremendous amount when you have a child on the spectrum.  One thing that has shocked me is what I've learned about journalists.  I thought people entered the field out of a noble urge to find and spread the truth; a person doesn't become a journalist because they want to make money.

Last summer Bryan Jepson and I received a letter from a Dr. Richard Swinney, an emergency medicine physician from Missouri and a Fellow of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine (he does not have a child on the spectrum), to the effect that our book "Changing the Course of Autism" had changed his mind about the US vaccination policy: "During my military service, I personally administered hundreds of vaccinations -- and oversaw the administration of more than 10,000 doses of a wide array of vaccines including yellow fever, typhoid, Japanese encephalitis, plague, etc. My first child (now 14 years old) received every scheduled vaccination on time. Although firmly in the 'vaccinate early and often' camp, I have always tried to remain open-minded and objective. My wife and I discussed many of the passages in the book at length. I pursued independent confirmation of several specific issues, including the alleged 'retraction' of Dr. Wakefield's 1998 Lancet article. To date, I have only located one minor error in the entire text -- on page 113 the Shakespeare reference is incorrect." It was an arcane bit from Hamlet, and we were impressed by Swinney’s diligence.

In jarring contrast, the BBC News said last week: "MMR coverage began to drop in the late 1990s when Dr. Andrew Wakefield wrongly suggested that there might be a link between autism and the jab.  He and two colleagues are currently facing professional misconduct charges over their controversial research into the MMR."  No one has proven that Dr. Wakefield's suggestion of a link was incorrect, nor can he be faulted for suggesting the hypothesis deserved investigation, for this is how science proceeds. Furthermore, it's disingenuous to imply that he's guilty of professional misconduct. Anyone who's read the synopsis of the GMC hearing on Cry Shame knows that the prosecution has failed to make its case.  BBC News is not alone—more often than not, Wakefield is referred to in the press as "discredited," even though there is no foundation for that claim.  The original Lancet paper stands, and there's no reason to believe that the GMC will revoke his license to practice medicine in the UK. 

As far as I can tell, the number of journalists interested in finding the truth can be counted on one hand.  At what point does failure to investigate become a passive form of libel?  A Missouri doctor checked the facts in his spare time—shouldn't we be able to rely on the people whose job it is to keep us informed to do the same?  How is it possible that our media are so wholly unconcerned with accuracy?  There was a journalism tradition a hundred years ago called “muckraking” that served the public interest by uncovering crime, corruption, waste, fraud, and abuse in both the public and private sectors.  Now reporters write reams about starlets in drug rehab; character assassination in the press is fashionable, and matters of staggering importance lie unexamined by the wayside.  In 18th century London, Edmund Burke looked up at the Press Gallery of the House of Commons and said, "Yonder sits the Fourth Estate, and they are more important than them all," (i.e., than the clergy, the nobility, or the Commons). The Fourth Estate today has dropped the ball.  Good journalism by good journalists seems crowded out by the parroting of misinformation, which proves nothing and yields nothing new.

Note: On12/08/07 an article appeared in The Mail on Sunday (UK) concerning a tragic case of malpractice at the Royal Free Hospital in 1998.  A child was injured during what should have been a routine colonoscopy.  Dr. Wakefield was in no way connected to the case, yet the Mail included a large photograph of him and titled the article "£500,000 payout for autistic boy left fighting for life after being used as an MMR guinea pig," even though the child was not involved in any research.  Dr. Wakefield's response to the Mail can be read at the THOUGHTFUL HOUSE site.

Jane Johnson is the co-author of Bryan Jepson's CHANGING THE COURSE OF AUTISM and she sits on the board of directors of Thoughtful House and ARI.  She lives in New York City with her husband and three children.

* Who was Edmund Burke? 

Comments

[Ricci King]

Thank you, Jane, for this eloquent essay. Suffice it to say that as a parent of a child with autism, I have developed some serious "trust issues" over the years, especially when it comes to the mainstream medical professionals, and the media. It used to be that whenever there was an article in the news about autism, or something on television, my friends would call or email to let me know they had seen it. They wanted to let me know that all of my concerns about vaccines had been refuted, or the gf/cf diet is a waste of time. I would fire back with hard facts, scientific research, and personal experience. They were always amazed that the media had been so far off in their reporting. Today things are a bit different. When friends and acquaintances see autism in the media, they now call or write and ask if the journalist got it right this time. The answer is rarely "yes". Many thanks to everyone involved with AGE OF AUTISM for providing this wonderful resource.

[Sandy Gottstein]

PS Here are a few articles I wrote awhile back on the subject of the media:
Tiptoeing Through The Minefield of Possible Vaccine Reactions - Mainstream Media's Sins Of Omission - http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/Aug_30_02/Scandal31.htm
The Irresponsible Media Coverage of the Institute of Medicine Meeting on Autism and Vaccines - http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/2004/Feb_17/Scandal72.htm
Has Dan Rather Once Again Failed To Responsibly Investigate An Important Issue? - http://www.vaccinationnews.com/Scandals/2004/Oct_22/Scandal73.htm

All the best, Sandy

[Sandy Gottstein]

More than once I have had a reporter for my local (remotely owned) paper interested in doing a fair-minded story about the vaccine issue. But the newspaper refused, repeatedly, to allow them the opportunity. (I even had parents of vaccine-injured children lined up to be interviewed.) You would think that such a time had come, but sadly, apparently nothing will change until enough people are harmed that they simply cannot be ignored. (BTW, they did do a story on David Kirby when I brought him to Anchorage, but only because he had won a prestigious journalism award.)

All the best, Sandy

[Lisa Ackerman]

Thanks for the post Jane. I too am truly amazed and bewildered by the press on what the standard headlines read as it relates to autism. Today - rather than hard hitting journalism in the search of the truth and reporting that follows - it appears a large portion of this reporting community is either a) bought and paid for or b) lacks the desire or time to read beyond the 1" of details coming off the wire.
What a sad state of affairs. I can only hope an "Edward R. Murrow" like group of journalists emerges to go after the "McCarthy like" (not Jenny) tactics experienced today. Our kids needs these heros to get on the ball to help change the tides. One can hope...

[Cherry Misra]

I would like to tell people about an incident that happened 4-5 years back. My daughter is a pediatrician working in California and she took the trouble to going to San Francisco to hear a leading authority on autism in California speak on the topic , for doctors only. After the talk, which must have been the usual stuff about autism- my daughter met the doctor speaker and here is the quotation from that person, " If you know anyone with autism, tell them to try the alternative treatments. Some of themm have done miracles" So there you have it- For all the talk about how crazy the parents of autistic kids are- in fact, the leading medical authority in California believes that some of the treatments work. Cherry Misra, New Delhi

[Kristina Brown]

The so called "free press" has become as corrupt a political system as many of the governments. The same news organizations that dish out the "Britney" news are expecting us to take them seriously when they try to influence the vote in the presidential race. Sad to see! Thanks for the wondeful commentary.

[Kevin Barry]

Jane, The Columbia Journalism Review agrees with you.

"In an interview with Myron Levin of the Los Angeles Times after the
publication of the IOM report, Dr. Stephen Cochi, the head of the
CDC's national immunization program, dismissed supporters of the
thimerosal theory as "junk scientists and charlatans." If so, then
such universities as Harvard and Columbia, among others, employ
charlatans - scientists who believe that a link between mercury
exposure and autism is plausible…" http://www.grcjr.blogspot.com/

[Jessica Glover]

Jane,
You are by far a gifted writer and a passionate advocate for Autism. I am so impressed by your research. Dr. Wakefield has been wrongly accused for too long. He is an advocate for our Children and I am so glad he has not withdrawn from his research. I know that uneducated Physicians who are famous and appear on the various tv shows have actually stated that his research is invalid. This is infuriating to me. Famed Journalist from the UK Brian Deere I am sure has someone lining his pockets. I just want to say Thank You for your advocacy!
God Bless
Jessica Glover

[Stagmom]

I spoke with a reporter from The Cleveland Plain Dealer a couple of years ago about a series they ran on a set of triplet with autism. One photo showed the Dad feeding the toddlers Pop Tarts and many of us moms went nutty. POP TARTS? Could you pick a worse breakfast food for a child with autism? Wheat, artificial colors, corn syrup, artificial flavors... The series was one long advertisement for the Cleveland Clinic school and focused only on ABA. I asked the reporter (in a voice sweeter than a Pop Tart) why they weren't looking at diet and other treatments. His answer? "No double blind studies and we can only write about defined treatments." I thought that was total BS. And a lack of journalistic curiosity. Great piece, Jane.

[Mark Blaxill]

Jane, you make an important point here about the moral responsibilities of journalists and the widespread failure to live up to these responsibilities today. At one level you can chalk it up to the corporate media management model (you get the news the advertisers pay for) so pervasive in the mainstream media. At another level you can blame this journalists becoming captured by their usual sources (e.g. Judith Miller serving as a propaganda channel for WMD propaganda). But at the end of the day, I think you need to go back to the laziness of the typical reporter. They just aren't curious enough, they're just not skeptical enough and they don't really care very much about what they're writing. So it falls to all of us to challenge the media to do better while we raise the alarm and stand up for people like Andy who have the courage and the vision to make the right moral choices.