steffijade
Achiever
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2012
- Messages
- 3,405
I've gone for a log winded, high horsed, ranty approach (my speciality I believe). 
Hi Mel,
thank you for your response.
The headline of the article itself is inaccurate in using the phrase ‘ “serious” cancer risk of vaping’. To my knowledge there is no medical evidence to back up this claim and the use of ‘scarequotes’ in the headline does nothing to diminish the impression that it appears to be stating a fact. This use of ‘scarequotes’ is becoming more and more common within the media and the excuse that the use of quotation marks denotes probability instead of presumed accuracy, is frankly ridiculous. If I was to publish an article claiming the editor of the Mirror was an ‘imbecile’ I think said editor would be quickly looking to take legal action despite the use of quotation marks.
Rereading the article, it would appear that it may have been slightly amended to add a reference to Dr Farsalinos ( I don’t recall this reference being there in the original article). Despite this reference, the article is still completely biased towards opponents of vaping, with direct quotations attributed to them but only a hyperlink to Dr Farsalinos’s own article.
The study cited in the article relating to formaldehyde has been roundly discredited and even the authors of the study have stated that their work has been misrepresented, see here : http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/27/anti-vaping-researchers-called-out-for-m The fact that the authors themselves are saying that there is no basis for stating that ecigs are more dangerous than smoking tobacco should have given pause for thought before publishing such an obviously biased, scaremongering article. It should also be noted that the authors of the cited study were distancing themselves from saying that ecigs are dangerous, several days before this article in the Mirror was published. This would seem to indicate sloppy journalism at best and an utterly cynical, unprofessional, premeditated attack at worst.
There is no basis in fact to back up claims that vaping is more dangerous than smoking, in fact, the science to date indicates that vaping is far less damaging than smoking.
Why then should the Mirror be allowed to get away with repeating unfounded claims that vaping could be ‘MORE DANGEROUS than smoking’ ? (note the use of capital letters in the sub headline to emphasise the supposed danger?)
This article is little more than a thinly disguised attack on vaping and vapers, using a debunked study and obvious opponents of vaping to try and justify the attack. I would be interested to know if any of the shareholders of the Mirror hold shares in big tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, both of which are losing business on a daily basis as more smokers switch to vaping.
The article goes on to say ecigs “have been blamed for causing house fires and slammed as an ineffective way of helping people quit smoking”. Neither of these statements are true. The cause of house fires where ecigs are implicated are more often than not due to user error, where people have used the wrong type of charger to charge up their ecig, causing to overheat and the battery to vent, see here : http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_15041420_explodingecigcausesfire.asp#.VNJqzJ2sVs4 even the fire brigade makes the distinction that the use of improper chargers are the most probable cause. As to the statement that ecigs are ineffective as quitting tools, the NHS has reported the direct opposite, see here : http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/E-cigs-better-than-patches-and-gum-as-quitting-aid.aspx personally, I think the NHS are more reliable in giving out health advice than some redtop hack.
The article also states that ecigs “pose a risk to children and even unborn foetuses” , citing the World Health Organisation. There is no evidence that this is the case and even the WHO (which is certainly no advocate of vaping) showed caution by saying that they may cause a threat. The Mirror seems to have may and must confused and stating that ecigs “pose a risk to children and even unborn foetuses” is not only inaccurate, it is extremely irresponsible as it could easily deter current smokers from trying vaping, thus exposing themselves and potentially, others around them to combusted tobacco smoke. Even Action on Smoking and Health say that there is no appreciable risk to bystanders from ecig vapour, see here : http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/media/6093/E-cigarettesbriefing.pdf
The article quotes Dr Chapman saying “There is a lot of misinformation about e-cigarettes” and this is indeed true. Unfortunately, most of the misinformation is being put out by vested interests in the tobacco and pharma industries and also by people in tobacco control, whose very livelihoods are being put at risk. After all, if all smokers switched to vaping then there would be no tobacco to control and they would all be out of a job. Article like this (which I believe are referred to within the press as a ‘hatchet job’) are just spreading yet more misinformation and conjecture based on loose interpretation of science, cherry picked data and outright fear mongering.
There is what appears to me to be a widespread effort to smear vaping, probably instigated by vested interests that are losing out financially to vaping and have influence within the mainstream media. If you organisation has such a thing as a monitoring unit, I would urge them to look out for articles such as the one in the Mirror that I’ve complained about. These sorts of ‘hatchet jobs’ based on unfounded or debunked claims are appearing more and more often and could be having a detrimental effect on the health of readers by misleading them.
Is this the sort of ‘free speech’ that YOU want the press in this country to enjoy? I certainly don’t want to see such nonsense. Far from being in the public interest to spread unfounded speculation masquerading as fact, such media articles are more likely to end up causing public harm.
I believe this article is in direct contravention of the editor’s code and I hope that you uphold my complaint, request that the Mirror retract the article and make an apology for publishing it in the first place.
I also hope that any apology will be given the same prominence as the original article.
Thank you for your attention.
Not sure if I should tone down the ranting or not before I send.
Hi Mel,
thank you for your response.
The headline of the article itself is inaccurate in using the phrase ‘ “serious” cancer risk of vaping’. To my knowledge there is no medical evidence to back up this claim and the use of ‘scarequotes’ in the headline does nothing to diminish the impression that it appears to be stating a fact. This use of ‘scarequotes’ is becoming more and more common within the media and the excuse that the use of quotation marks denotes probability instead of presumed accuracy, is frankly ridiculous. If I was to publish an article claiming the editor of the Mirror was an ‘imbecile’ I think said editor would be quickly looking to take legal action despite the use of quotation marks.
Rereading the article, it would appear that it may have been slightly amended to add a reference to Dr Farsalinos ( I don’t recall this reference being there in the original article). Despite this reference, the article is still completely biased towards opponents of vaping, with direct quotations attributed to them but only a hyperlink to Dr Farsalinos’s own article.
The study cited in the article relating to formaldehyde has been roundly discredited and even the authors of the study have stated that their work has been misrepresented, see here : http://reason.com/blog/2015/01/27/anti-vaping-researchers-called-out-for-m The fact that the authors themselves are saying that there is no basis for stating that ecigs are more dangerous than smoking tobacco should have given pause for thought before publishing such an obviously biased, scaremongering article. It should also be noted that the authors of the cited study were distancing themselves from saying that ecigs are dangerous, several days before this article in the Mirror was published. This would seem to indicate sloppy journalism at best and an utterly cynical, unprofessional, premeditated attack at worst.
There is no basis in fact to back up claims that vaping is more dangerous than smoking, in fact, the science to date indicates that vaping is far less damaging than smoking.
Why then should the Mirror be allowed to get away with repeating unfounded claims that vaping could be ‘MORE DANGEROUS than smoking’ ? (note the use of capital letters in the sub headline to emphasise the supposed danger?)
This article is little more than a thinly disguised attack on vaping and vapers, using a debunked study and obvious opponents of vaping to try and justify the attack. I would be interested to know if any of the shareholders of the Mirror hold shares in big tobacco or pharmaceutical companies, both of which are losing business on a daily basis as more smokers switch to vaping.
The article goes on to say ecigs “have been blamed for causing house fires and slammed as an ineffective way of helping people quit smoking”. Neither of these statements are true. The cause of house fires where ecigs are implicated are more often than not due to user error, where people have used the wrong type of charger to charge up their ecig, causing to overheat and the battery to vent, see here : http://www.london-fire.gov.uk/news/LatestNewsReleases_15041420_explodingecigcausesfire.asp#.VNJqzJ2sVs4 even the fire brigade makes the distinction that the use of improper chargers are the most probable cause. As to the statement that ecigs are ineffective as quitting tools, the NHS has reported the direct opposite, see here : http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/E-cigs-better-than-patches-and-gum-as-quitting-aid.aspx personally, I think the NHS are more reliable in giving out health advice than some redtop hack.
The article also states that ecigs “pose a risk to children and even unborn foetuses” , citing the World Health Organisation. There is no evidence that this is the case and even the WHO (which is certainly no advocate of vaping) showed caution by saying that they may cause a threat. The Mirror seems to have may and must confused and stating that ecigs “pose a risk to children and even unborn foetuses” is not only inaccurate, it is extremely irresponsible as it could easily deter current smokers from trying vaping, thus exposing themselves and potentially, others around them to combusted tobacco smoke. Even Action on Smoking and Health say that there is no appreciable risk to bystanders from ecig vapour, see here : http://www.ashscotland.org.uk/media/6093/E-cigarettesbriefing.pdf
The article quotes Dr Chapman saying “There is a lot of misinformation about e-cigarettes” and this is indeed true. Unfortunately, most of the misinformation is being put out by vested interests in the tobacco and pharma industries and also by people in tobacco control, whose very livelihoods are being put at risk. After all, if all smokers switched to vaping then there would be no tobacco to control and they would all be out of a job. Article like this (which I believe are referred to within the press as a ‘hatchet job’) are just spreading yet more misinformation and conjecture based on loose interpretation of science, cherry picked data and outright fear mongering.
There is what appears to me to be a widespread effort to smear vaping, probably instigated by vested interests that are losing out financially to vaping and have influence within the mainstream media. If you organisation has such a thing as a monitoring unit, I would urge them to look out for articles such as the one in the Mirror that I’ve complained about. These sorts of ‘hatchet jobs’ based on unfounded or debunked claims are appearing more and more often and could be having a detrimental effect on the health of readers by misleading them.
Is this the sort of ‘free speech’ that YOU want the press in this country to enjoy? I certainly don’t want to see such nonsense. Far from being in the public interest to spread unfounded speculation masquerading as fact, such media articles are more likely to end up causing public harm.
I believe this article is in direct contravention of the editor’s code and I hope that you uphold my complaint, request that the Mirror retract the article and make an apology for publishing it in the first place.
I also hope that any apology will be given the same prominence as the original article.
Thank you for your attention.
Not sure if I should tone down the ranting or not before I send.
