Post by roland on Feb 24, 2010 14:35:50 GMT
“Panorama: What Next for Craig?”, BBC One, 12 November 2007
1. Summary of finding
The programme was an edition of Panorama that reported on new scientific research into the treatment of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
This is a third party appeal brought by the complainant who argues that the programme was seriously inaccurate and unbalanced in the way it dealt with the issue of how ADHD
should be treated.
He says that the broadcast of the programme was likely to cause
serious harm to children with ADHD. The complainant also raises issues about the handling of his complaint at each stage of the complaints procedure. Decisions on those aspects of the complaint will be made separately.
The Editorial Standards Committee concluded:
Accuracy
• That the programme failed to accurately report the findings of a three year follow up study in the USA to the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). The MTA had been the most comprehensive study of its kind, looking at the safety and comparative effectiveness of medication (properly managed) and behaviour therapy, alone and in combination, and comparing those treatments to routine community care over a period of 14 months.
The programme did not make it clear that all the treatment groups had improved at the 36 month stage and that
medication did offer a significant improvement over time, albeit not over the other treatment groups, at 36 months.
• That the programme makers should not have relied solely on the views of Professor Pelham, one of the authors of the MTA 36 month follow up study, but should have included the views of other authors of the study as well.
• That the programme distorted some of the known facts in its presentation of the findings of the MTA 36 month follow up study.
• That the programme failed to report the MTA 36 month follow up findings in context. As a consequence the programme took insufficient care to avoid worrying the audience about health issues.
• That the BBC had failed to acknowledge a serious factual error.
• That the programme makers did not deliberately produce a programme that they knew to be inaccurate.
Impartiality
• That although the subject matter of the programme was not a “controversial matter of public policy” within the meaning of the editorial guidelines, this was a controversial subject within the medical community, and for those affected by ADHD. The programme was bound to comply with the requirement of due
impartiality.
• That the programme failed to meet the requirements of impartiality in that the programme makers were not fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, nor were they even handed in their approach
to the subject.
• That the audience should have been informed there was a wide range of views. The programme did not acknowledge that the view expressed by Professor Pelham was not the only view and that there were significant counter views. The arguments of those who believe that medication still has an important part to play in the treatment of children with ADHD, should have been included. The programme should also have provided more context.
There is more and the full report is available here:
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/panorama.pdf
1. Summary of finding
The programme was an edition of Panorama that reported on new scientific research into the treatment of children with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD).
This is a third party appeal brought by the complainant who argues that the programme was seriously inaccurate and unbalanced in the way it dealt with the issue of how ADHD
should be treated.
He says that the broadcast of the programme was likely to cause
serious harm to children with ADHD. The complainant also raises issues about the handling of his complaint at each stage of the complaints procedure. Decisions on those aspects of the complaint will be made separately.
The Editorial Standards Committee concluded:
Accuracy
• That the programme failed to accurately report the findings of a three year follow up study in the USA to the Multimodal Treatment Study of Children with ADHD (MTA). The MTA had been the most comprehensive study of its kind, looking at the safety and comparative effectiveness of medication (properly managed) and behaviour therapy, alone and in combination, and comparing those treatments to routine community care over a period of 14 months.
The programme did not make it clear that all the treatment groups had improved at the 36 month stage and that
medication did offer a significant improvement over time, albeit not over the other treatment groups, at 36 months.
• That the programme makers should not have relied solely on the views of Professor Pelham, one of the authors of the MTA 36 month follow up study, but should have included the views of other authors of the study as well.
• That the programme distorted some of the known facts in its presentation of the findings of the MTA 36 month follow up study.
• That the programme failed to report the MTA 36 month follow up findings in context. As a consequence the programme took insufficient care to avoid worrying the audience about health issues.
• That the BBC had failed to acknowledge a serious factual error.
• That the programme makers did not deliberately produce a programme that they knew to be inaccurate.
Impartiality
• That although the subject matter of the programme was not a “controversial matter of public policy” within the meaning of the editorial guidelines, this was a controversial subject within the medical community, and for those affected by ADHD. The programme was bound to comply with the requirement of due
impartiality.
• That the programme failed to meet the requirements of impartiality in that the programme makers were not fair and open minded when examining the evidence and weighing all the material facts, nor were they even handed in their approach
to the subject.
• That the audience should have been informed there was a wide range of views. The programme did not acknowledge that the view expressed by Professor Pelham was not the only view and that there were significant counter views. The arguments of those who believe that medication still has an important part to play in the treatment of children with ADHD, should have been included. The programme should also have provided more context.
There is more and the full report is available here:
www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/assets/files/pdf/appeals/esc_bulletins/2010/panorama.pdf