Reply from IPSOS

[Diche]

I had had a reply from IPSOS regarding the Jasper Hamil piece, it is one of a series of communications that have been going back and forth. I would be grateful for some help drafting my response as I want to make sure I don't miss anything.

I would be grateful for your comments on the newspaper’s response – do you accept the newspaper’s position that there was not been a failure to distinguish comment from fact? If you disagree, and think that the article included inaccurate statements of fact, I would be grateful if you could set these out in your response.

Here is the original article as published on the 29th January

and here is the amended article published online on the 2nd of February

 

[Diche]

"A Californian Health Chief has confirmed" looks like a statement of fact to me, and it was changed in the amended release to "A Californian Health Chief has claimed"

My position on the amended article is that it makes a mockery of the rules because if it is ok to post what the hell you like and then update the online version 5 days later where does it stop.

steffijade can you be of any assistance on this one?

 

[steffijade]

"A Californian Health Chief has confirmed" looks like a statement of fact to me, and it was changed in the amended release to "A Californian Health Chief has claimed"

My position on the amended article is that it makes a mockery of the rules because if it is ok to post what the hell you like and then update the online version 5 days later where does it stop.

@steffijade can you be of any assistance on this one?

I'd be tempted to argue that the amended article doesn't offer a proper right of reply from a pro vaping standpoint. Yes, they added a hyperlink to Dr F's response but it's just 2 paragraphs in the whole article full of attacks.

As I understand it, the editor's code allows for a 'partisan' stance, but to dedicate the bulk of the article to attacking vaping and then only insert 2 paragraphs with a hyperlink (and to only do so retrospectively after receiving complaints) still leaves an overall misleading impression that vaping is dangerous.

IPSOS/Mirror might argue that alterations are limited by available space or a restriction on word count due to Hammill the hack's pay (maybe he's on so much per word?). To that I'd argue that if other parts of the article need trimming to make the space for an accurate representation, then that's what they should have done.

It wouldn't hurt to remind why IPSOS came into being in the first place (Leveson) and that the amendments appear to be piecemeal and grudging rather than aiming towards an ethical, honest approach. You're not appealing to the Mirror's better nature here, you're telling IPSOS that they're not doing their job properly and if they want to be seen to have credibility, they need to clamp down on this monstering (I'd definitely include the phrase 'monstering').

The part about posing a risk to children and unborn foetuses is something I picked up on myself. This isn't qualified anywhere in the article and to my knowledge, there's no actual scientific evidence to back this up. As such it represents conjecture masquerading as fact.

The causing house fires part is a 'gimme' in my opinion. It's the incorrect use of chargers that have been identified as the cause in most cases and to say it's the devices themselves is absolutely misleading as far as I'm concerned.

In summary, the article presents a biased presentation (IPSOS may say that's ok due the 'partisan' stance thing) and contains distinct inaccuracies (no evidence to back up claims of risk to children/foetuses and house fires were actually caused by incorrect use of chargers). Hammer home why IPSOS exists, refer to Leveson and the lack of trust in the press it caused, IPSOS should be aiming to stamp out monstering/demonisation and be demanding accuracy from the press or they run the risk of being seen to lack integrity and be unfit for purpose.

If IPSOS claim that the overall impression of the article isn't important, then I'd be tempted to ask them what feckin use they are. Although this sort of thing is supposed to be handled by IPSOS, if they're not seen to be doing their job properly it might just fall within the remit of the department for culture, media and sport. I'd be tempted to threaten going over their heads directly to the minister if they don't play ball.

If you don't mind me asking, when did you receive this response because I haven't received one from them in a few weeks now.

 

[Diche]

I'd be tempted to argue that the amended article doesn't offer a proper right of reply from a pro vaping standpoint. Yes, they added a hyperlink to Dr F's response but it's just 2 paragraphs in the whole article full of attacks.

As I understand it, the editor's code allows for a 'partisan' stance, but to dedicate the bulk of the article to attacking vaping and then only insert 2 paragraphs with a hyperlink (and to only do so retrospectively after receiving complaints) still leaves an overall misleading impression that vaping is dangerous.

IPSOS/Mirror might argue that alterations are limited by available space or a restriction on word count due to Hammill the hack's pay (maybe he's on so much per word?). To that I'd argue that if other parts of the article need trimming to make the space for an accurate representation, then that's what they should have done.

It wouldn't hurt to remind why IPSOS came into being in the first place (Leveson) and that the amendments appear to be piecemeal and grudging rather than aiming towards an ethical, honest approach. You're not appealing to the Mirror's better nature here, you're telling IPSOS that they're not doing their job properly and if they want to be seen to have credibility, they need to clamp down on this monstering (I'd definitely include the phrase 'monstering').

The part about posing a risk to children and unborn foetuses is something I picked up on myself. This isn't qualified anywhere in the article and to my knowledge, there's no actual scientific evidence to back this up. As such it represents conjecture masquerading as fact.

The causing house fires part is a 'gimme' in my opinion. It's the incorrect use of chargers that have been identified as the cause in most cases and to say it's the devices themselves is absolutely misleading as far as I'm concerned.

In summary, the article presents a biased presentation (IPSOS may say that's ok due the 'partisan' stance thing) and contains distinct inaccuracies (no evidence to back up claims of risk to children/foetuses and house fires were actually caused by incorrect use of chargers). Hammer home why IPSOS exists, refer to Leveson and the lack of trust in the press it caused, IPSOS should be aiming to stamp out monstering/demonisation and be demanding accuracy from the press or they run the risk of being seen to lack integrity and be unfit for purpose.

If IPSOS claim that the overall impression of the article isn't important, then I'd be tempted to ask them what feckin use they are. Although this sort of thing is supposed to be handled by IPSOS, if they're not seen to be doing their job properly it might just fall within the remit of the department for culture, media and sport. I'd be tempted to threaten going over their heads directly to the minister if they don't play ball.

If you don't mind me asking, when did you receive this response because I haven't received one from them in a few weeks now.

My complaint so far has focussed on the fact that changing the article in it's online version several days after the fact in no way compensates for having released an article that fails to meet the required standards. Otherwise the newspapers could publish any old bollocks on their pages and just update the online version at a later date. News is news on the day that it is published, not 5 days later when they have had a few complaints. If they breached the regulations they need to publish a full correction in the same way they published the original article in the News, not in the archives.

This is the actual rebuttal from the Mirror

MGN ltd does not accept the complainant's position that the original article was significantly misleading. While the first version of the article did not include the counter arguments, it was set out as claims rather than facts and therefore did not fall foul of section 1(iii) of the code of Practice. Nevertheless, an amended article was published online on 2 February 2015 to reflect a more balanced view of the research by including a counter claim. Please find both the original and amended versions attached. As we do not believe there has been a breach of the Code, we believe that the additional material should address any non - Code concerns relating to balance.

So I really need to point out areas that were presented as facts rather than 'claims' the section of the code they seem to be charging the Mirror with breaching is:

iii) The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact.

So I need to concentrate my reply on that aspect of the report if I want to have a good chance of having my complaint upheld imo

 

[Diche]

I got the response today, first I have had in quite a few weeks.

 

[steffijade]

I jumped down a rabbit hole to try and chase something up. If you want to follow me, take the red pill.

Ok, the WHO report Hammill refers to is here : http://apps.who.int/gb/fctc/PDF/cop6/FCTC_COP6_10-en.pdf

On the top of page 4 of that report it says :

" (c) The evidence is sufficient to caution children and adolescents, pregnant women, and women of reproductive age about ENDS use because of the potential for fetal and adolescent nicotine exposure to have long-term consequences for brain development.1 "

The 1 at the end is a reference to a Surgeon General's report from 2014, which is here : http://www.surgeongeneral.gov/library/reports/50-years-of-progress/full-report.pdf (be aware, it's a large pdf and may take a while to load)

The WHO report refers to page 126 of the Surgeon General's report, which is a conclusion that states :

" 3. The evidence is sufficient to infer that nicotine exposure during fetal development, a critical window for brain development, has lasting adverse consequences for brain development. "

The Surgeon General's report bases this claim on a 2011 study, here : http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2011/08/24/peds.2010-3811.full.pdf

This study is based around Swedish snus and the effect they can have during pregnancy. The conclusion states :

" Our study indicates that snuff use during pregnancy is associated with an almost doubled increased risk of neonatal apnea, a finding that is consistent with animal studies of prenatal nicotine exposure. Our results suggest that nicotine is also responsible for these effects in humans, and that alterations in neural programming may be an underlying mechanism. In this perspective, snuff use and NRT should not be regarded as being safer than smoking during pregnancy. "

There is no mention of vaping and the study seems to have been based on topical absorption of nicotine (orally with snus and dermally with nicotine patches). The study conclusion suggests a link with nic (note suggests not absolutely proves) but the conclusions are based on constant topical absorption. Vapers use inhalation in self titrated 'bursts' rather than constant topical absorption.

The study also states that it has weaknesses because it was carried out on neonatal babies, who are more prone to the conditions they were testing for.

It looks like the Surgeon General took the Gunnerbeck study as proof that nic can affect brain development in foetuses. The WHO seem to have latched onto this and tagged vaping in with topical absorption because it suits their agenda.

I'm not an expert, but I think there's a distinct difference between topical absorption and inhalation, particularly when the topical absorption is constant and the inhalation is titrated. (anyone who happens to have forgotten to wear gloves when handling 50mg nic base, accidentally spilled some on their hand and decided they'd finish what they were doing before washing it off could tell you how potent topical absorption can be... ahem ).

The NHS advice on nicotine patches is that they're best avoided during pregnancy but that " use of a 16-hour patch may be appropriate " in some cases :

Who can use nicotine replacement therapy (NRT)? - Health questions - NHS Choices

So, basically the Gunnerbeck study says avoid using snus/nic patches during pregnancy, the Surgeon general extrapolates this to say don't use nicotine at all during pregnancy and the WHO narrows this down to vaping (ENDS) to suit their agenda. Hammill is a lazy hack who couldn't be bothered to research any of this and just parroted the WHO.

In my opinion, this backs up that there is no concrete evidence to suggest that vaping is a danger to unborn foetuses because the original study doesn't offer concrete evidence that nic is the cause of the conditions. It's also based specifically on topical absorption which I believe is more potent than ingestion by inhalation (like I said, I'm no expert but maybe some of our medically minded apes might be able to correct/clarify on this?).

Also, if Hammill was going to use that reference, why did he use it specifically to paint a scaremongering picture re vaping and not nicotine patches/snus? That's what the study used after all.

I'm sure you've seen studies relating to passive vapour and the effects (or lack of) it can have on bystanders, so any inference that it could cause harm to children can be shot down by referencing those. There's a good few references to ETS (that's secondhand tobacco smoke to me and you) in the Surgeon General's report, but quite a few of them show as 'insufficient evidence' and let's not forget, it refers to SHS, not passive vapour, which as we all know has a very much lowered risk profile.

Hope at least some of this helps.

 

[steffijade]

I got the response today, first I have had in quite a few weeks.

Still waiting on a response to mine but I fecked the Mirror off after their first bullshit repsonse, referred it back to 'first level' of IPSOS who said they backed the Mirror. I refused this told them they didn't have the expertise to make a valid judgement, gave them links to a few people to consult and escalated it to the 'top tier' of IPSOS.

Pishing in the wind trying to argue with MGN, arrogant obnoxious tosspots. If IPSOS 'top tier' won't do the right thing it'll be going up over their heads. If it happens to get out that IPSOS aren't doing the right thing, that could make for some bad media coverage for them.

Wouldn't that be ironic?

 

[Diche]

I finally had a chance and the right mindset to draft my reply today, here is what I sent. I took your advice on the subject of the word 'monstering' and included the house fires and efficacy in my rebuttal.

Thank you for your response.



I think it is fairly obvious from some of the amendments that were made that the paper were concerned that some of the claims had been represented as fact. The most obvious of these is the start of paragraph 2. Where the phrasing 'A Californian Health Chief has confirmed' is altered to 'A Californian Health Chief has claimed'. The word "confirmed" clearly indicates that the statement is one of fact rather than conjecture.



The article then goes on to discuss the subject of formaldehyde content of ecigs. The specific study referenced MMS: Error is one that was published in the form of a letter to the Editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, and had the journalist responsible for this piece done some basic research, he would have discovered that it's findings had been debunked several days prior to the publication of the article. For example, here Spreading fear and confusion with misleading formaldehyde studies « The counterfactual , here http://www.nytimes.com/2015/01/27/opinion/joe-nocera-is-vaping-worse-than-smoking.html?_r=0 , and here Verified: formaldehyde levels found in the NEJM study were associated with dry puff conditions. An update There are many more examples I could draw on, but needless to say the information was in the public domain well before the statement by the Mirror that portrayed the presence of Formaldehyde in e-cigs as fact.



Finally in the last two paragraphs we have another two statements that are extremely misleading. "Ecigs have also been blamed for house fires." Cheap and inappropriate ecig chargers have been blamed for house fires in much the same way that cheap and inappropriate mobile phone chargers are a risk. "And slammed as an ineffective way of helping people quit smoking" In reality the science shows that ecigs are at least as effective a quitting method as most traditional forms of NRT and due to the fact that they 'appeal' to smokers may actually be more effective. These two sentences are added to the article without any attempt at qualification or justification and as such clearly lead the reader to consider them as fact rather than conjecture or a 'claim'. They certainly aren't written in such a way as to suggest they are the opinion (comment) of the author.



Clause 1 iii) of the Editors code of Practice reads "The Press, whilst free to be partisan, must distinguish clearly between comment, conjecture and fact." I think I have clearly indicated at least 3 occasions when this article failed to live up to this requirement.



I also stand by my previous statement that altering the online record of an article after original publication in no way complies with the requirement to correct errors with due prominence. As it would only be seen by those looking at back issues of the publication for research purposes and would not reach the majority of the audience of the original publication who may have come to an erroneous conclusion by reading the article.



I will also point out that after the publication of the article and the ensuing outcry the journalist in question spent some considerable time engaging with the online community via the medium of Twitter and winning their trust, only to come out with this article E-cig bigwigs reveal plan to SILENCE health critics after raising $110,000 fightback fund in THREE HOURS - Mirror Online which comes perilously close to a charge of monstering by taking the tweets of certain people and publishing them completely out of the context in which they were made. As I was not personally effected by this I am not moved to make a complaint in regards to it, I merely provide it as context you might be interested in when making your decision as to the best way to deal with this publication.



Yours sincerely

 

[steffijade]

Well thought out and well worded response.

Let's hope they take note and decide to act as they should do, not side with the mirror because they pish in the same pot.

If they're not seen to act correctly/appropriately it calls the integrity of IPSOS into question.

I see MGN are getting a hammering in court atm over the phone hacking and they can ill afford any more bad publicity.

 

[Diche]

...the newspaper has offered to published a footnote which would make clear that an earlier version of the article had been amended to include responses to the original claims.

I would be grateful for your comments on the newspaper’s offer – might you be willing to resolve your complaint on this basis? If not, it would be helpful if you could set out what action, if any, the newspaper could take to resolve the complaint to your satisfaction

Any suggestions folks? Personally I don't think a foot note on an article buried in the archives is good enough, but I don't know what to ask for instead.