False Balance

Wikipedia describes the phenomon of  false balance as follows:

False balance, also referred to as false equivalence, is a real or perceived media bias, where journalists present an issue as being more balanced between opposing viewpoints than the evidence actually supports.  Journalists may present evidence and arguments out of proportion to the actual evidence for each side, or may censor information which would establish one side's claims as baseless.

Classic examples of "false balance" in the media are the debates over climate change and evolution.  Frequently, the media goal behind false eqivalence is simply to generate sensationalism.  Producers hope that, by presenting a story as a contentious debate, it will attract more readers or viewers than a more accurate account of the issue.  Of course, in the process, the public receives false information, which interferes with its ability to make well-informed decisions. 

I made the mistake last night of tuning in to a news broadcast by a local CBS affiliate.  And the story was the continuing "controversy" over vaccinations, especially vaccinations for measles.  It was truly horrifying.  In this debate, they pitted Jeff and Jessica Murphy, parents of a two year old, against Dr. Craig Shrift, a Board certified pediatrician.  As far as I could tell, the Murphy's had no formal medical training whatsoever.  At one point, however, Jeff claimed as his authority his father, who was a chiropractor.

So intent was the broadcast on creating a controversy, it falsely presented a Mayo Clinic article on vaccines.  At one point, the reporter states, "These parents believe a diet of organic food will give their daughter natural immunity to fight disease much stronger than vaccines.  But is it true?  The Mayo Clinic says yes."  A quick review of the referenced Mayo Clinic report reveals that it says no such thing and, indeed, says nothing about an immunity advantage from eating organic foods.  

Rather, the article, Childhood vaccines: Tough questions, straight answers says this: "A natural infection often provides more complete immunity than a series of vaccinations...."  In other words, if you're lucky enough to survive a disease without any ill effects, your immunity may be stronger than one produced by a vaccine.  The article also points out that taking this route to obtain immunity involves considerable risk:

a natural chickenpox (varicella) infection could lead to pneumonia. A natural polio infection could cause permanent paralysis. A natural mumps infection could lead to deafness. A natural Hib infection could result in permanent brain damage.

Anyway, here is the grotesque broadcast:

The fact is:  these false balance reports about vaccinationcan be harmful .  The Guardian cites research that shows that stories about vaccines that include false balance are actually more dangerous than those that are purely anti-vaccine.   See Anti-vaccination activists should not be given a say in the media.. One author sugests that, because it is spread so easily, measles presents a more serious health threat to an unvaccinated population than ebola.  See Understand the Measles Outbreak with this One Weird Number .

Now, as many of you know, I am a big proponent of the notion that all knowledge is provisional.  So, probably, we have a lot more to learn about immunity.  But that does not mean that you don't go with the best you've got at the time, or that you give credence to clearly erroneous views.  We don't have the final answers, but we know a lot that are wrong.

Finally, just like the creationists, there's no value in attacking the anti-vaccination people as immoral or stupid or selfish.  As Scientific American points out, Vilifying Parents Who Don’t Vaccinate Their Kids Is Counterproductive.  While there's no point in criticizing the anti-vaccination people, a report suggesting that their view might be valid is irresponsible and, pure and simple, is not news.