Responsible journalism

The Malta Independent On Line
Friday 15th January 2010
Editorial

http://www.independent.com.mt/news.asp?newsitemid=100156

Last week, The Malta Independent carried a report in which doctors were quoted expressing doubts whether the H1N1 virus is as dangerous as authorities are saying it is. They also questioned the safety of the vaccine’s components.

This report followed a series of others during which local health authorities were quoted urging people to take the vaccination. Currently, the government is promoting a vaccination campaign for the more vulnerable groups. In the coming months, the rest of the population will have the opportunity to be vaccinated too, on a voluntary basis.

A week has passed since our report expressing doctors’ doubts, and only one person questioned its validity, sending a letter saying that it was “reckless”, “irresponsible” and “sensational” journalism. In a letter published on Monday, he also called on the health authorities to take action against this newspaper for daring to expose these doctors’ doubts.

His advice, so far, has not been heeded, and seeing how the government machine is always ready to pounce with replies on media stories that somehow affect government business or policy, we take this to mean that there will be no such reply to our story.

And, frankly, we did not expect one, because the story was after all quoting doctors with many years of experience who are advising their patients not to take the vaccine because of the potential risks associated with it. These doctors have the duty to warn their patients against any possible adverse effects. That doctors have opposite opinions on this (and not only) matter is not something that is only happening in Malta.

It was not reckless, irresponsible and sensational journalism. We leave that to other media whose stories are shot down before the ink has even dried.

On the contrary, that report was intended to give our readers a different point of view to that which we previously had been reporting about. Until then, the reports we carried were on statements and press conferences held by the government to urge the people to take the vaccine.

But all stories have different angles and different points of view, and responsible media is duty bound to give its viewers, listeners or readers all the possible scenarios. And this is what The Malta Independent did. It is our duty to inform the public.

We were not the first to publish stories that quoted doctors and experts speaking against the vaccination and its potential risks. Foreign media have been doing this ever since the H1N1 virus became a household name. Even they felt they were being responsible in speaking about the different trains of thought.

There are, in fact, many doubts on the H1N1 virus. This week, the Daily Mail quoted Wolfgang Wodarg, head of health at the Council of Europe, saying that the swine flue outbreak was a “false pandemic” created by drug companies that stood to make billions of pounds from a worldwide scare.

He accused the World Health Organisation’s decision to declare a pandemic, which led to many countries using their meagre health budgets as millions were vaccinated against what he described as a relatively mild disease. Last August, giving comments to German newspaper Bild, Wodarg had questioned whether the vaccine increased the risk of cancer.

He brandished the H1N1 outbreak as “one of the greatest medical scandals of the century”.

Are these irresponsible newspapers as well? Or were they doing their duty of informing their readers about all the different sides to the story?

We believe that our readers should be exposed to all ideas and thoughts, especially on delicate matters such as health. Then, of course, it is up to them to decide what to do, naturally after seeking the advice of the doctor who enjoys their confidence.