Asked by regional BBC station to discuss falling vaccination rates - grand, except they wanted me on against someone claiming vaccines are dangerous. Explained this was textbook false balance, unethical, & against BBC trust guidelines. They wouldn't budge, so I'm not doing it😑
..this isn't being precious. You can't wring hands over declining vaccination rates whilst giving a platform to anti-vaccine claims. This isn't a matter of opinion, it's a matter of fact: vaccination saves lives, and all the evidence points one way. There is no 'debate' here
It's immensely frustrating to have to say this so often to journalists, but false balance is a serious problem and it's irresponsible and lazy to contrive a debate over something that has a real human cost, as I've said before in @guardian theguardian.com/science/blog/2…
@guardian Incidentally, I suggested as alternative we discuss fears & misconceptions WITHOUT platforming anti-vaccine figures. That would have been important, public service journalism - way more interesting too, I think. Would you prefer that show, a discussion rather than debate?
@guardian Also, I'd like to point out this isn't BBC bashing - I am a huge fan, and contribute to them on a regular basis. I do hold them to a higher standard than others, but this problem materialises on all networks on current affairs shows, with mindless debate in lieu of understanding
@guardian This is so bloody ubiquitous I've given a whole chapter to false balance in "The Irrational Ape" - I even briefly mention BBC trust findings with regard to climate change & skewed coverage😶- Out September 5th if you're interested, more on it here - 
https://twitter.com/drg1985/status/1162304188526813184
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
