The Express and salt (cont.)

Thursday's Express serves up another 'miracle cure' front page story:

This is not the same 'cure for high blood pressure' that the Express announced on 18 December 2012. It's different from the one from 1 November 2011, too.

Today, 'five easy steps' to 'curing high blood pressure' are revealed by Jo Willey:

Keeping active, slashing salt intake, eating a healthy diet with plenty of fruit and vegetables, cutting down on alcohol and not smoking all cut the chances of developing the deadly condition.

Most of these are rather obvious things that pop up frequently in 'secrets of a longer life'-type stories on the front of the Express.

But the inclusion of 'slashing salt intake' is interesting because in July 2011, one paper said:

cutting our daily intake [of salt] does nothing to lower the risk of suffering from heart disease

And

a study...shows although blood pressure reduced when salt intake was cut, this had no long-term health benefits.

The quote from the leader of the study pointing out it wasn't quite as simple as that was left until nearer the end of the article

“We believe that we didn’t see big benefits in this study because the people in the trials we analysed only reduced their salt intake by a moderate amount, so the effect on blood pressure and heart disease was not large.”

And all this appeared under the headline:

'Now salt is safe to eat: Health fascists proved wrong after lecturing us all for years'

Which paper? The Express, of course:

The article under that silly headline was also written by Jo Willey and it included this:

Earlier this year the Daily Express revealed how “nanny state” council bosses at Stockport Council banned salt shakers in fish and chip shops as part of a healthy living drive. But critics condemned the move, insisting customers should be free to make up their own minds.

While that is indeed what the Express claimed in a front page story ('Salt banned in chip shops'), it was not true. 

Express and statins (cont.)

The Express's coverage of the effects of statins (like their weather reporting) has always lurched from one sensationalist extreme to the other.

One day, statins are the key to a longer life, a wonder drug, a miracle pill that beats cancer, halts Alzheimer's and cuts the risk of an early death. Sometimes, these headlines pop up more than once:

On other days, statins are subject to health alerts - they can be a risk to health, can raise your risk of diabetes and could cause agonising muscle problems, lung disorders and kidney damage.

Sometimes, these headlines pop up more than once, too:

The latest front page - the one above right - is from today. This story claims statins 'can cause kidney damage'. Newly-published research has found:

patients taking higher strength pills were more at risk of suffering acute kidney injury.

But there is a telling quote towards the end of the story:

Prof Peter Weissberg, British Heart Foundation medical director, said: “Most people in the UK are on low doses of statins. Further research is needed to establish whether it is the statins or the underlying blood vessel disease in people taking high doses that causes kidney problems.”

The Express and salt (cont.)

On 6 July 2011, the Express revealed:

The story explained:

Salt is safe to eat – and cutting our daily intake does nothing to lower the risk of suffering from heart disease, research shows.

For years, doctors have been telling us that too much salt is bad and official NHS guidance aims to speed up new measures to control how much we eat.

But now a study, using more data than ever before, shows although blood pressure reduced when salt intake was cut, this had no long-term health benefits.

And anyone who says different is a 'health fascist'.

Today, the Express had another article about salt:

Now the paper says:

Reducing the amount of salt we eat could save 25,000 lives a year, health experts said last night.

Deaths from heart disease and strokes would dramatically fall if shoppers checked the ingredients of everyday foods like bread and cereals.

Doctors blame the high levels of salt-laden processed foods we eat for pushing up blood pressure levels, raising the risk of heart disease.

The Express and statins (cont.)

A couple of weeks ago, an Express front page referred to statins as 'wonder' pills that slashed the risk of cancer.

On 4 April, the paper claimed statins could 'halt Alzheimer's' - a claim described as 'wildly misleading':

In between those two, on 10 August, statins were described as 'key to a longer life' and a 'miracle pill':

 
And today, the Express warns:

Spinning the results of medical trials

On 11 September, a study was published on 'Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News Coverage'.

The aim of the research was to:

• evaluate the presence of “spin” in press releases and associated media coverage; and 
• evaluate whether findings of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) based on press releases and media coverage are misinterpreted.

The researchers identified:

• 41% of abstracts contained spin.
• 46% of press releases contained spin.
• 51% of news items contained spin.

(The researchers defined 'spin' as: 'reporting that emphasizes the beneficial effects of the experimental (new) treatment.')

NHS Behind the Headlines explains:

First, at the abstract (summary) level. Leaving aside any deliberate spinning, many researchers may just unconsciously “sex-up” their report abstracts to present them in the best possible light...

Second, at the press release level. Press officers for universities, research institutes or medical journals are under pressure to generate media coverage. And a lively, positive “breakthrough” will get more coverage than results that are dull and inconclusive.

Third, at the journalism level. Many journalists claim (with some justification) that they are over-worked and under-resourced so they simply read the press release (and some might read the abstract) before writing the story. The full study on which the press release is based is rarely read.

The result: articles about cake curing dementia, Page 3 making you brainy, and the cancer risk of turning the light on when you go to the toilet at night. 

NHS Choices has a 'How to read health news' guide, which suggests some key things to look for in such reporting. For example - was the research done on humans or mice? How many people were involved? Did the study assess what is mentioned in the headline?

(Hat-tip to Mike)

Two drinks a day...or three a week

Daily Mail, 7 September 2011:

Daily Mail, 31 May 2012:

Mail clarifies 'one joint brings on schizophrenia' story

In January, the Mail was awarded the Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation for its article 'Just ONE cannabis joint 'can bring on schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory'.

The research by the University of Bristol was:

not about cannabis, smoking or schizophrenia. Rather it is about an artificial compound that is not present in cannabis, which was injected into rats, and which led to changes in their brain waves.

The original article was deconstructed by Neurobonkers.

The leader of the research, Dr Matt Jones, was reported to have said:

“The study does NOT show that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia.”

And the UKCIA (who complained to the PCC) noted:

I spoke to the PR department of Bristol University who were “angry” with the way the Daily Mail reported this study. The report is a work of fiction, totally and utterly baseless lies.

Today, the Mail has published a clarification:

A report on research by the University of Bristol on 26 October was headlined 'One cannabis joint "can bring on schizophrenia".' We are happy to clarify that, as the article explained, the research on rats found that the active ingredient in cannabis could induce symptoms similar to schizophrenia, rather than schizophrenia itself.

This statement raises several questions.

The Mail changed the headline of the online article some time ago. Despite that, it has taken them five months to publish this clarification. 'Happy to clarify' indeed.

In addition, the clarification makes it sound as if there was only a problem with the headline. The article - which remains live - begins:

Smoking just one cannabis joint can bring on symptoms of schizophrenia, a study has found.

Researchers at the University of Bristol have, for the first time, looked in detail at the changes in the brains of cannabis users.

The study did not 'find' this - no joints were smoked - and it was actually the brains of rats, not cannabis users, that were tested.

The clarification also refers to the researchers using 'the active ingredient in cannabis'. In fact, they used an artificial compound called CP55940 which:

mimics the effects of naturally occurring THC (one of the psychoactive compounds found in marijuana). 

As Neurobonkers states:

The study did not use cannabis or any chemical present in cannabis.

Neurobonkers has complained to the PCC - will the Mail's clarification need further clarification?

Recommended reading: The PCC and health reporting

Following the PCC's ruling on several stories about the HPV vaccine and a girl in a waking coma, Martin Robbins has written a good article about all the health and science stories the PCC has considered this year.

Of eleven they have dealt with, seven were published by the Mail or Mail on Sunday.

Robbins notes:

Bad science reporting isn't just an irritant to nerdy pedants like me, it's something that risks people's health and undermines their ability to make informed choices. The PCC's recent statement suggests that they understand this, which makes it all the more frustrating that their rulings on the stories above - merely the tip of the bad science iceberg - were so weak.

Sure, boxes were ticked and compliance requirements were met. One story was taken down and several had amendments added to them at a later date, but by then the damage had been done. Thousands of people who read these articles may now have unwarranted doubts about the cervical cancer vaccine, or be afraid to touch a child with haemophilia, and that is serious damage that can't easily be undone.

PCC rules on complaints about HPV vaccine stories

On 14 November 2011, several newspapers reported on the case of Lucy Hinks.

The Mail ran this headline:

The Telegraph (Cervical cancer jab left girl, 13, in 'waking coma'), Sun (Cervical cancer jab puts girl, 13, in 'waking coma') and Metro (Cervical cancer jab leaves girl aged 13 in a ‘waking coma’) all ran similar headlines.

The articles were based on a report in a local paper, the News and Star, although that ran under the headline 'The Cumbrian girl who sleeps 23 hours a day'.

Several people were concerned at the way these headlines and articles definitely linked the jab with the girl's condition. Sense about Science said the 'articles are based purely on the parents' tentative suggestion' yet the headlines made this sound like proven fact. And there were at least three complaints (one by blogger JDC325, one by Heather Doran, and one by Josh, a reader of this blog) made to the PCC.

Josh told the PCC:

the fact that this unfortunate girl developed ME after the jab is not proof that the jab caused the Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME), nor is it even, on its own, any sort of evidence at all that the jab caused ME.

The Telegraph reacted soon after the complaint was made, adding 'claim parents' to the end of the headline to make it clear it was an allegation from the family. The PCC cleared the Telegraph, ruling:

While the Commission acknowledged that the headline itself did not clearly denote the assertion as representing a claim, the sub-headline clearly stated that “the parents of a 13-year-old girl believe the cervical cancer jab has left their daughter in what they describe as a “waking coma”. Readers would understand from the outset that the article reflected allegations made by the parents rather than established fact...

There was no breach of Clause 1 (i) or Clause 1 (iii). That said, the Commission welcomed the newspaper’s decision to further clarify the headline by altering it to make clear that it reflected the parents’ claim.

However, the PCC ruled against the Mail, Metro and Sun:

These all presented as fact that the jab was responsible for the subsequent illness. However, this was not the case. The claims in fact reflected the belief of Lucy Hinks’ parents that the vaccine had led to their daughter’s illness. There could be no dispute that the newspapers were fully entitled to report the concerns raised by the Hinks; however, Clause 1 required them to present the concerns as conjecture clearly distinguished from fact. It was the view of the Commission that the headlines had failed to comply with this requirement and as a result that they had the potential to mislead readers into understanding that the connection had been established. This constituted a breach of Clause 1 (i).

The Sun had already acted and, like the Telegraph, added 'claim parents' to the end of the headline. This came as something of a surprise to Josh, as the original response from the Sun - written by Executive Editor Fergus Shanahan - was very firm:

The Sun's story is a factual and balanced account of the way a young girl has fallen seriously ill after having the cervical cancer jab. We make no editorial claim one way or the other for the safety of the injection, although we are at pains to point out that - in the words of the Cumbrian Health Authority - it has "a strong safety record." We also note that girls have been immunised this way since 2008 and quote the manufacturers as saying the jab is safe.

Our headline accurately reflects precisely what has happened: the girl had a cervical cancer jab and then immediately fell into a state of extreme lethargy described as a "waking coma". Ergo, the jab put her into the waking coma. She wasn't in a coma before the jab but she was after the jab. That is a statement of fact, not opinion.

Josh dismissed this as 'laughable' - how could Shanahan say the Sun made 'no editorial claim one way or the other' yet a few sentences later state 'the jab put her into the waking coma'? And 'immediately' too, although the Mail's article states that it was two months after the final jab that Lucy began 'sleeping almost round-the-clock'.

So the Sun offered to change its headline and note the change with this line added to the end of the article:

The headline has been amended to make clear it reflects only an allegation that Ms Hink's illness was linked to the jab.

The PCC's ruling on the Mail said:

The Daily Mail had altered the headline by placing the assertion that the ‘waking coma’ had occurred after a “severe reaction to cervical cancer jab” in quotation marks. It was common practice to identify a claim or allegation in a headline by placing it in quotation marks. The newspaper had also offered to publish the following statement: The headline has been amended to make clear it reflects only an allegation that Ms Hinks’ illness was linked to the jab. In the Commission’s view the wording offered, in addition to the amendment already made, would amount to sufficient compliance with Clause 1 (ii). It was appropriate for the newspaper to delay publication of the clarification pending possible agreement of its terms, but in order to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii) – and subject to the complainant raising any objection – it should now be published without further delay.

And for the Metro:

Unlike the other publications, the Metro had carried the headline under complaint in its print edition in addition to on its website. It had offered to alter the online headline – placing the assertion in quotation marks to identify it as a claim – and publish the following wording as a footnote to the article: The headline has been amended to make clear it reflects only an allegation that Ms Hinks’ illness was linked to the jab. It had also offered to publish the following wording in the print edition of the newspaper: In an article published on 15 November, we reported concerns raised by Lucy Hinks’ parents that the cervical cancer jab had caused their daughter’s chronic fatigue syndrome. We are happy to make clear that it has not been established that the jab causes CFS. 

Again, the Commission considered that the offers made by the newspaper in regard to online and print clarification would amount to sufficient compliance with Clause 1 (ii). It was appropriate for the newspaper to delay publication of the clarifications pending possible agreement of its terms, but in order to avoid a breach of Clause 1(ii) – and subject to the complainant raising any objection – it should now be published without further delay.

The Mail and Metro have now added the explanation to the end of their articles.

In summing up, the PCC made this point:

The Commission emphasised the importance that newspapers take adequate care when reporting on health issues to present the situation in a correct and clear light. This is due, in part, to the potential effects misleading information may have on readers’ decisions in regard to their health. It was clear in these cases that the newspapers had roundly failed to take the required care with their headlines not to mislead readers. While it was on balance satisfied the steps offered or taken would sufficiently remedy the breaches of the Code in these cases, the Commission expected that greater care would be taken when presenting articles on health issues in the future.

Josh responded to that, telling this blog:

These are words to placate, not to resolve a problem. They have simply echoed my sentiment, without outlining any kind of action that might cause any kind of change in the press' behaviour.

My feeling is that this sums up just how useless the PCC is. Thousands of people read the original articles, a handful will read the corrections, and of those, it's unlikely that a single dry line can undo the impression formed by the sensational original stories.

The PCC's main role is not to regulate the press, but just to exist, enabling people to say "but look, we have a press complaints commission!" and therefore by its mere existence, it sustains the necessary charade that the press is accountable and responsive to criticism. It provides a sinkhole down which criticism can be funnelled away, an endless bureaucratic maze seemingly designed to frustrate and bore and exhaust complainants into submission. 

JDC365 was also dissatisfied as he did not feel his complaint had been considered at all:

I’m not sure what went on during the three months in which I waited to hear the verdict, as the PCC negotiated with the newspapers and the lead complainant. This meant that I did not know what progress (if any) had been made. More importantly, it meant that I was unable to provide any input. I couldn’t give an opinion on any defence or any remedy offered by the Mail, and I could not complain that only the Daily Mail’s headline was to be amended – with the article remaining untouched.

'Not about cannabis, smoking or schizophrenia'

A Mail article about the dangers of cannabis has been awarded the 2011 Orwellian Prize for Journalistic Misrepresentation (of scientific research) by Dorothy Bishop, a professor of developmental neuropsychology at Oxford.

The Mail's story originally carried the headline: 'Just ONE cannabis joint 'can bring on schizophrenia' as well as damaging memory'. Although this headline was (slightly) modified later, Parker points out that the academic paper this article was 'based on' was:

not about cannabis, smoking or schizophrenia. Rather it is about an artificial compound that is not present in cannabis, which was injected into rats, and which led to changes in their brain waves.

The article was debunked at the time, including by Neurobonkers and Clear. In the latter, it says:

Dr Matt Jones, lead author of the study in question...told me that he was “disappointed but not surprised” at the Daily Mail’s coverage of his work. He gave me permission to quote him in saying that “This study does NOT say that one spliff will bring on schizophrenia”.

(Hat-tips to Craig Silverman and Kevin Arscott)

Wine and breast cancer

Daily Express, 1 October 2011:

Daily Express, 2 November 2011:

(See also the Mail's versions of the same stories)

'Misleading and alarmist'

The front page of Thursday's Express contained yet another health scare:

'Britain on alert for new super-flu: Killer virus could spread in 24 hours', it screamed.

Jo Willey's article begins:

A new strain of killer flu which could spread to Britain within 24 hours is “one of the biggest biological threats of our time”, experts warned.

The alert comes after people started to fall victim to seasonal flu and the more virulent swine flu at the same time.

The Mail followed it up with the article 'Fears of new deadly super-flu which 'could spread to Britain within 24 hours''.

The 'could' is important because the 'deadly' 'new super-flu' - which Britain is 'on alert for' - isn't known to exist.

Secondly, the people who have 'started to fall victim' to seasonal and swine flu at the same time, are two people who fell victim in 2009.

In Cambodia. 

As the NHS Behind the Headlines report explains:

The research the news was based on was actually a small, but important study that had examined a Cambodian patient who became unwell during the swine flu pandemic of 2009. Examining the man and four of his contacts, scientists determined that two of the five subjects were infected with both swine flu and a seasonal flu virus that was circulating in the environment at that time. None of the five infected individuals required hospitalisation and all made a full recovery.

This is valuable research in the light of the very real public health threat faced by flu pandemics; particularly as co-infection also offers the possibility for different viruses to combine their genetic material and produce new strains. However, such a ‘super-flu’ or ‘killer-flu’ has not been found, and is merely a possibility.

So what of the Express' front page headline?

Although news coverage has reflected the findings of this study accurately and quoted flu experts, the overall emphasis of reports has been misleading and alarmist. Their headlines suggest that a “deadly super flu” has been found and is ready to spread to the UK...[but] these are laboratory findings from five people infected in 2009 with swine flu and/or seasonal flu. None had severe illness or required hospitalisation, and none died from a ‘deadly new super-flu’.

'Wonder diet'

On 23 June, the front page of the Express revealed the 'secret' to losing weight. It was: eat fruit and veg and cut down on crisps and sugar-sweetened drinks.

On 2 August it revealed the 'secret to a longer life' which was:

not smoking, regular exercise, not being overweight and eating a Mediterranean-style diet.

On 17 September, the front page explained the was a 'miracle diet' that could  'stop heart disease'. The 'miracle' was:

Taking more exercise, eating more fruit and vegetables, reducing alcohol intake and slashing the amount of saturated fat in our diet

On Wednesday, the front page says:

Yes, this latest health 'wonder' is that eating fruit and veg is good for you. Some 'wonder'. And while the research suggests fruit and veg can help reduce the risk of heart disease in people with 'specific genetic risk factors', that's not the same as a 'cure'.

But why would anyone have got the impression fruit and veg wasn't good for your health?

(Hat-tip to Nick Sutton for the 'dangers' front page)

(Post updated with NHS Behind the Headlines link)

Questions only the Mail would ask

The headline writers at the Mail certainly enjoy posing odd questions.

For example, in March they asked:

And on 29 August:

On Saturday, they came up with this poser:

And today, perhaps the most curious yet:

The dangers/benefits of 'wine with dinner'

Last week, the Daily Mail reported:


The article by Daniel Martin explained the 'deadly risk' of 'wine over dinner':

Couples who share a bottle of wine over dinner are putting their lives at risk, according to a report.

The middle classes are unwittingly becoming ‘risky drinkers’ by regularly having wine with their evening meal, significantly increasing their susceptibility to conditions such as cancer and stroke.

These ‘suburban tipplers’ rarely get drunk, never binge drink and are not heavily dependent on alcohol, but they are still putting their lives in jeopardy.

And because women’s alcohol tolerance is lower than men’s, they are at greater risk than their partner if they each drink half of a bottle of wine.

Today, just over one week later, the Mail reports something rather different:

Now the paper explains:

A glass or two of alcohol in middle age could help women enjoy a happy and healthy retirement.

Those in their 50s who regularly have a little wine with their dinner are more likely to be free of the ills of old age, from cancer to heart disease, than those who are teetotal or drink to excess.

So wine with dinner is, apparently, bad for the middle class, but good for the middle-aged.

Advice for people who are middle-aged and middle class will, presumably, follow next week...

Dentists and dementia by the Daily Mail

The Daily Mail, 14 July 2011:


The Daily Mail, 19 July 2011:

The Sun, video games and rickets

On Friday, a press release from Southampton University Hospitals NHS Trust reported on research from consultant orthopaedic surgeon Professor Nicholas Clarke and Dr Justin Davies, a consultant paediatric endocrinologist. After checking over 200 children in Southampton for bone problems, Clarke and Davies found that more than one-fifth showed signs of rickets.

CVG point out that when the Sun got hold of the press release, their 'Staff Reporter' produced an article that looked like this:

But by Saturday, in the hands of Health and Science Editor Emma Morton, the story changed to this:


As Tim Ingham at CVG noted:

Both pieces...contain exactly the same information and quotes.

Could it be that the first story has been hastily edited and re-printed in a desperate attempt to mould it to The Sun's anti-games news agenda?

We're not cynical enough to suggest so. It's just... aside from its screaming headline, the second story only mentions video games once, in its opening paragraph. The rest is pretty much a carbon copy of the original report. Even The Sun's own doctor, Carol Cooper, doesn't mention games in her analysis.

Nor indeed does the Mail, which always likes to blame video games for something.

As Ingham points out, Clarke is quoted as saying that this increase in rickets is:

"...a completely new occurrence that has evolved over the last 12 to 24 months."

Yet kids have been playing video games for rather longer than that. And there's simply no mention of video games in Southampton Hospital's press release, which makes clear:

...the disease is now making a comeback around the world due to low vitamin D levels caused predominantly by lack of exposure to sunlight and also poor diet.

It also says absolutely nothing about whether 'game addict kids' are more likely to suffer with rickets.

But this isn't the first time this year this has happened. Ingham recalls similar research by Professor Simon Pearce and Dr Tim Cheetham of Newcastle University that was published in January and which led to the Times and the Metro to make the same link. When contacted by Nicholas Lovell about the media reports, Cheetham said:

"We do not say that gaming causes rickets."

Pearce added:

"The average age of a child with rickets is around 20 months old: too young to use a keyboard and mouse!"

(Hat-tip to Jay and Tim Ingham)

The Express and statins

Today's Express has yet another 'miracle cure' headline on its front page:



Statins have been around for years so it's not clear what is 'new' about them.

And to call them a 'wonder drug' may surprise Express readers who remember this front page from 21 May:


A wonder drug that can be a risk to health? Apparently so.

Indeed, the Express' coverage of statins has fluctuated between those two extremes for several years.

They're good:


Then, maybe, they're not:


A week later they're good again:


But still, maybe you should learn:


Just in case:


But the next day:


Which is good news, until:


And:


And the 'agonising side-effects' mentioned here:


But soon after that, news that even healthy people may get prescribed statins:


Eventhough:


And:


They can cause 'cataracts, liver damage and kidney failure'?

But they're not that much of a 'health risk' because:


And then the reassuring news that:


Whoever said they did? They may also give:


And last month, the Express claimed, statins were partly responsible for:


It may seem all very confusing that one newspaper can go from 'health scares' to 'miracle cures' about the same drug so often (they also do it with aspirin).

Good job the Express has a handy guide:


Yes, it is 'impossible to know what to believe.'

Yes, conflicting advice can cause 'confusion' and 'make it difficult to judge what's safe and what isn't.'

The Express' coverage doesn't make it any easier.

'I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC'

There is another highly recommended article on Martin Robbins' Lay Scientist blog today.

This one is written by Richard Wilson and it explains his seven-month battle to get the Daily Mail to correct an article - 'The Great Asbestos Hysteria' - by Christopher Booker.

The Mail eventually published this clarification but the wording suggests they substantially stand by the original piece.

But Wilson's reflections on the process of dealing with the PCC (and, indeed, the Mail) are worth noting:

The newspaper's claim that an HSE study had found the dangers of white asbestos cement to be "insignificant" was also easy to disprove: Booker had made the self-same claim in the Sunday Telegraph back in 2008, and been rebutted in detail by the HSE.

Neither was it hard to show that the Mail had got it wrong in claiming that "it is virtually impossible to extract even a single dangerous fibre" from white asbestos cement. An HSE lab report from 2007 notes that "the claim that respirable airborne chrysotile fibres are not able to be released from asbestos cement products was refuted by the individual airborne fibres sampled during the breaking of the test sample with a hammer".

In theory, this should have been the end of the matter. According to the PCC's code, "a significant inaccuracy, misleading statement or distortion once recognised must be corrected, promptly and with due prominence". What happened instead, in my view, speaks volumes both about the character of the Daily Mail, and the credibility of the newspaper industry's self-regulatory body.

After a delay of several weeks, the PCC forwarded me a dismissive response from the Daily Mail's executive managing editor, Robin Esser. While acknowledging some minor errors, Esser insisted that the disputed HSE study did indeed back up Booker's views on asbestos. The fact that the HSE had put out a statement explicitly rebutting this merely proved that "those responsible for HSE press releases are similarly unable to grasp the significance of findings published by their own statisticians". For good measure, Esser accused me (falsely, just in case you're wondering) of being "allied to a well-organised and well-funded commercial lobby", who "stand to benefit financially" from the "anti-asbestos campaign".

Rather than take ownership of the process, assess the various bits of evidence and come to a judgement, the PCC instead asked me to go through this new set of claims and produce a further response. Here I began to see why so many people have given up on the PCC. If a newspaper digs in its heels and simply denies all the evidence that's been presented, there doesn't seem to be much that the PCC can do except bat the issue back to the complainant.

And having been through this process, what of the PCC's 'fast, free and fair' slogan?

More time-consuming exchanges followed, with long gaps in between, while we awaited a response from the Daily Mail. In the end we won, sort of. The newspaper agreed to make some amendments to the text of the article, publish a short correction, and write a private apology to Michael Lees over Booker's comments about his wife. But to get even this far has taken seven months, and a substantial time investment, while the Daily Mail seems to have been able to drag the process out with impunity. "Free", perhaps – but hardly "fast", or "fair".

When someone complained about Richard Littlejohn's claim that most robberies in the UK were committed by Eastern Europeans, the Mail took nearly six weeks to reply to the PCC. In total, it took the paper two months to correct a claim that was obviously false.

Here's what Mail Editor Paul Dacre said in July, when he argued that fines for serious breaches of the Editor's Code shouldn't be introduced:

It cannot be said too often that the imposition of sizable fines would result in complainants and particularly the press having to use lawyers to defend their interests - signalling the death of a FREE fast system of complaints adjudication.

If it is taking seven months to resolve a complaint, this system is neither fast nor alive and well.

Mail thinks one third more is the same as three times more

Recent research from the University of Cambridge revealed babies born at night were very slightly more at risk of death than babies born during the day (9am-5pm).

As NHS Behind the Headlines says:

However, these results must be interpreted in the correct context, as the risk of newborn death was very low in both groups: 4.2 out of 10,000 births in normal working hours, and 5.6 out of 10,000 births out-of-hours.

That is one third more. It is not:


'Three times more' would be 12.6 out of 10,000 - a vast difference to 5.6.

Journalist Sophie Borland gets this right in her article, but the headline writer couldn't tell the difference - either because they didn't understand it's not the same, or because 'three times more likely' sounded more sensationalist.

However, Borland doesn't get everything totally correct. Her first sentence says:

Women who give birth at night or weekends face a higher risk of their baby dying due to hospital staffing shortages, research suggests.

However, as Behind the Headlines points out:

It is misleading to report that the associations may be ‘due to hospital staffing shortages’, as the causes of different death rates have not been examined in this research and any such claims are based on speculation.

(Hat-tip to Alex P)