Michael Sharpe on Radio 4 Today / Tom Feilden BBC (18th march 2019)

Jonathan Edwards said:
I am slightly perplexed as to why journalists are not bored stiff with this line of story. What is new. Another psychiatrist has got old and bored and wants to grumble.
Click to expand...

Me too! Most people reading/listening to this story are going to see/hear headline and go "oh yeah, I heard that story already; why are you telling me an old story?" My partner is a former journo and he always reminds me to never underestimate the laziness of journalists. And SMC has practically packaged the whole story up for them and handed it to them on a platter (and in this day when journos are expected to write several stories/podcast/tweet/insert-hustle-here, that's no small thing). I do wonder if Feilden and Kelland may even be part of the same dinner party set? Or are just so damn flattered that an Oxford don is spending time with them on a story?
 
JellyBabyKid said:
Looks like Radio 4 Today have picked it up & will be running it in the morning
Click to expand...

Cheshire said:
As a reminder, here are a previous article and an interview by Tom Feilden:
'Torrent of abuse' hindering ME research 2011
‘Death threats’ saga | Transcript of discussion on BBC Radio4 ‘Today’ programme | 29 July 2011
Click to expand...
Plus:
Tom Feilden, science correspondent for BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, won the UK Press Gazette's first ever specialist science writing award for breaking the story the SMC gave him about the harassment and intimidation of researchers working on CFS/ME. The SMC had nominated him for the award.

Tom Feilden was shortlisted for a MindMediaAward for his package that came directly from an SMC briefing on the role of mental health experts in Broadmoor Hospital.
Click to expand...
Review of the first three years of the mental health research function at the Science Media Centre, February 2013 by Dr Claire Bithell, Head of Mental Health, Science Media Centre,
http://www.sciencemediacentre.org/w...arch-function-at-the-Science-Media-Centre.pdf , p.4
 
Last edited:
It is very courageous of "the award-winning" Tom Feilden to announce his interest. I await his hearing his item. One might hope that the Today programme will be trying to rebalance the debate following the input from their old alumnus Liddle-who may have learnt all he knows in workig on the programme.

Some might think that articles and programmes are coordinated to prolong the debate and coverage for maximum effect. It would be unfortunate if the Beeb gave that impression.

It will be interesting to see whether he has taken the trouble to interview any dissenting voices. Given the coverage which there has already been one might expect that he would have spoken to @dave30th or possibly @Jonathan Edwards to provide balance.

Yesterday's disclosure of the withholding of publication of the Wilshire Kindlon paper is also something which should be addressed. As I said, this is going to be courageous.
 
Sharpe was just on the BBC.

The interviewer did push back a tiny little bit mentioning the JHP issue. Interestingly Sharpe dismisses all form of criticism beyond peer review and replication as activism and says there is no place science for campaigning (which he included everything but peer review and replication).
 
Poor Sharpe sounded a bit pathetic and I suspect barely credible. The presenter pointed out that the methodology had been questioned. Sharpe simply claimed that it was all hate campaign. It seemed a bit of a non-event. As if the editor had had their arm twisted to include it but was not that interested.
 
Stewart said:
Sharpe is on Radio 4 now - 8.45am if you're listening later.
Click to expand...

So he claimed "researchers are being stalked" and subject to "threats of violence". Funny how he forgot to mention either of these trivial facts to Reuters and chose instead to emphasis the unkind words on Twitter.

Jonathan Edwards said:
Poor Sharpe sounded a bit pathetic and I suspect barely credible. The presenter pointed out that the methodology had been questioned. Sharpe simply claimed that it was all hate campaign. It seemed a bit of a non-event. As if the editor had had their arm twisted to include it but was not that interested.
Click to expand...

It really was a "blink and you'll miss it" interview. Hopefully not long enough to make any sort of impact on the average listener.
 
I think it is interesting that on this occasion the complaint was not really about abuse or death threats but about criticism of the science. And that was portrayed as hate campaign. So now Sharpe is being a bit more honest - he is actually complaining about the critique of his science. And his story about 'how science works' is nonsense. It is how the self-perpetuating establishment mediocrity works maybe, but in complete violation of the principles of science where scepticism rules supreme.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom