OFFICIAL ITV Rise of The E-Cig discussion

[Mawsley]

I'm a glass half-full kinda guy at heart.

If there were to be a hysterical over-reaction it would have been in the tabloids the next day. On balance the program contained more good than harm, even if I think the interview with the bereaved woman was sensationalist tosh...but the voice over announced that no other similar cases have been reported and showed it up for what it was - something to appeal to the antis.

As Chris Choi said, the program has to rely on ratings and if you are coping equal levels of abuse from both sides then you've done your job. A factually based program would have done nothing more than see everyone not interested in statistics and scientists change channel.

It opens the door for a proper debate program, something Choi has said he wants to pitch for. Something where the likes of Dave Dorn and Dr Ican'trememberhisnametinos will be able to lay fact upon fact into the faces of the likes of McAvan. That's the program that would influence the people who make laws, not the fluff that went out this week.

That door was shut to us before the Tonight show, it's now ajar.

I don't care if some illiterate spouts on about vaping causing bubonic plague, they aren't part of the war. This was a battle and both sides walked away with a draw, and in my opinion our team played better.

It's like winning the league, it's not about the game - it's all about the season and we have a head of steam and confidence...and facts.

When the debate comes, McAvan loses.

 

[Szaxe]

The program included a direct violation of the code of practice for OFCOM, "Impartiality". Such a serious claim .. a persons death warranted a balance .... There are balances available from scientists showing Lipoid Pneumonia can not be caused by vaping, which should have been aired .... If (and a big if) ITV were not aware of the available evidence they should have been, its what they are paid extraordinary amounts of money to do ...

That ITV were willing to clearly violate OFCOMS rules, shows that their Agenda outweighed the possibility or the consequences of their action.

People are free to think positively about that perverse program, that is their choice, but don't expect me to agree ....

 

[Mawsley]

I would never expect you to agree with me Saxe

And they didn't transgress the codes of practise becasue it was balanced with a voice-over and a pop-up box.

 

[Szaxe]

Husband thinks wife was murdered by "place name here " because of the opinion of a traffic warden (part time detective) (pop up) "the court ruled an open verdict" (voice over) this is just the opinion of the husband based on the Traffic Wardens opinion.

Facts ,,,, Scientists state that the fatal blow could not have been caused by the accused ....

ITV "we were balanced we had a pop up and a voice over" .... however would you trust someone who had been named on TV as a murderer/killer?

 

[Mawsley]

Complain to Ofcom if you think they have broken any codes of practise. They haven't, your complaint will not be listened to. Not trying to change your mind, you have your perspective on it and you're entitled to it.

But the forum misses your pictures and contributions Saxe so I hope that this indicates you'll be back to posting here more often

 

[Szaxe]

And you know that because???? E liquid has been linked to Lipoid pneumonia ... it was not for ITV to "Balance" the accusation/insinuation made against a product. Even in the unlikely event that crooks had been selling the man car oil, they should have been highlighting the crooks and giving them a chance to answer ...

They didn't they just accused the whole industry of possibly selling deadly products and didn't give any effort to have the insinuation balanced. They couldn't, no one from the e cig industry was made aware prior to the show ....

 

[Mawsley]

I'm trying to be nice.

You don't seem to want to play nice.

My discourse is over.

 

[Szaxe]

I was making a point about impartiality, you said I was wrong because the ITV answered an accusation made by a doctor through a bereft wife.

Impartiality means what it states ... Balance between two opposing opinions ... The ITV aired a bereft wife's accusation made because of a Doctors opinion ... The ITV merely pointed out that it wasn't proven ... That they aired the accusation shows the ITV considered there was some merit in the accusation. The opportunity from the e cig industry to deal with the accusation should have been the very least offered to cover the basics of the principle of impartiality ....

PS .... I wonder if any one would consider a court as impartial if it allowed a tenuous accusation to be made and rather than give the accused a chance to offer a defense, the judge just advised the jury there was no evidence he knew of to consider the accused guilty or innocent ????? While a weeping widow was the only witness included in the court room??

 

[VaperCaper]

The program included a direct violation of the code of practice for OFCOM, "Impartiality".

If you think so the best course of action is to complain to Ofcom and ask them for an official ruling.

I've typed up a transcript of the relevant segment below. It might not be perfectly accurate, but it's pretty close.

[10:00]
[Ron Heseltine] that to me is very very satisfying. without coughing and spluttering and God knows wat. but I enjoy it. um so I'll continue, hopefully and I like nicotine, it's my high.
[Cliff Clark]I used to have angina attacks, quite regularly. Since I've been vaping I very very rarely have an angina attack now, never use my spray, I find it exceptionally brilliant, y'know?

[10:30]<voiceover> but Glynis Miller believes there are too many unanswered questions about e-cigs.

[Glynis Miller]It was my 39th wedding anniversary, the day that Terry died.

<Voiceover> Her husband Terry, a heavy smoker who had started in his teens, had switched to e-cigs.

[Glynis Miller]We were 16 when we first met, he was a do anything for anybody kind of person, y'know. He was a family man, loved, especially his grandchildren.

<Voiceover>30 times a day and for 8 months, Terry inhaled what his doctor referred to as 'oil blended with concentrated nicotine' a reference to the viscous fluid found in e-cigs. In 200 he was admitted to Queen Elizabeth hospital in Gateshead. He was breathless, coughing. 5 weeks later he died.

[Glynis Miller]the last words he actually spoke to me was "I don't know what I would do without you."

<voiceover>Terrys consultant believes an unusual type of Pneumonia contributed to his death. Glynis thinks e-cigs may have played a part.

[Glynis Miller]Something called Lipoid Pneumonia, which is caused by the oil on the lungs, which is a very , apparently, I'm not really sure about this, apparently it's a disease that used to occur a lot of years ago during um when we had a lot of heavy industry, where people were inhaling oil. um so it was quite a rare thing I think, I believe.

[Chris choi interviewing]It's important that we point out that nothings been proven

[Glynis Miller]Oh no, nothings been proven.

[Chris choi interviewing]It's a theory

[Glynis Miller]Uh huh

[Chris choi interviewing]you think it's a possibility, but there's been no research and we can't say difinitively,

[Glynis Miller]Oh no no no, definitely not. But at the same time they cannae say it wasn't

<Voiceover>The Coroner recorded an open verdict. Terrys consultant shared his report with us.

[caption]'The post mortem findings were non-specfic...'

<Voiceover> He concedes that Terrys' old smoking habit could have done the damage, but he has his suspicions of a link between e-cigs and his patients lung disease.

[caption] A Chest X-Ray showed worsening of the interstitial lung disease'

<voiceover>Terrys' death is the only one we came across where a consultant has such concerns, but the chest physician is adamant that further research is needed.

[Glynis Miller]Who can tell me how that oil got into Terrys' lungs. If they can give me an answer to that, that it definitely wasn't that cigarette, that put that oil in my husbands lungs, then I'll say 'fair enough'

I don't think there was a violation. The program got the interviewed widow in her own words to agree that they didn't know the cause. A later voice over states that the doctor concedes that the smoking could well have been the actual cause.

Lets not forget, Terry started smoking in his teens, and had been married for 39 years when he died. That's a lot of smoking. there were 2 positive real people talking to camera stories immediately prior to this.

Such a serious claim .. a persons death warranted a balance .... There are balances available from scientists showing Lipoid Pneumonia can not be caused by vaping, which should have been aired .... If (and a big if) ITV were not aware of the available evidence they should have been, its what they are paid extraordinary amounts of money to do ...

I don't think the Lipoid Pneumonia piece should have been included. However I can understand why they put it in.

I wish more had been made of the fact that the consultant in this case is a rabid anti-nicotine campaigner and that it was the ONLY case of serious health issues *maybe* caused by vaping, and that statistically if you could contract Lipoid Pneumonia in 8 months then we'd already have hundreds of such cases, and also that there is no oil in the vast majority of e-liquids, and that if anything Terry's tragic death might highlight the need for quality controls on e-liquids to make sure there are no oils in any of them.

 

[Szaxe]

Some one on UKV has put a complaint into OFCOM .... Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, I don't think anyone has a right to state anyone's opinion is wrong without offering some evidence (I know you did not do that) ... I believe it violated the principle of impartiality, whether OFCOM agree with that principle is a different matter. I don't know the threshold that OFCOM considers as a violation on a basic principle, but I am not wrong to hold that opinion without something other than some else's "OPINION".