Media Watch brands Catalyst episodes “unbalanced”
Media Watch concludes controversial Catalyst episodes were "sensationalist and grossly unbalanced."
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
Media Watch last night weighed into the now-controversial Catalyst debate in which medical experts slammed its “Heart of the Matter” episodes claiming people were wasting their time taking cholesterol-reducing drugs called statins.
Both episodes were high-rating for ABC1 but Media Watch concluded they were “sensationalist and grossly unbalanced.”
“If you make claims like that on an ABC Science program you’d want be sure they’re pretty well-sourced, especially when they contradict the vast weight of mainstream medical opinion,” said host Paul Barry.
Experts used on the show, Dr Jonny Bowden and Dr Stephen Sinatra, were both co-authors of the book The Great Cholesterol Myth, with a third expert, Dr Michael Eades, writing the introduction.
“Three men with one mind, presented as three independent points of view,” said Barry.
“And what exactly is their expertise?
“Well, ‘Doctor’ Jonny Bowden isn’t a medical doctor at all even though Catalyst claimed he is.”
Media Watch claimed he held “a Clayton’s PhD obtained by correspondence from the Clayton College of Natural Health in Alabama, which offered degrees in naturopathy, holistic nutrition, herbal studies and iridology before it went out of business in 2010.”
“So why on earth did Catalyst end up relying on people like this to take on the world’s medical establishment and rubbish the views of heart experts around the world?
“And why did Maryanne Demasi fly all the way to America to interview them?”
Media Watch also said the case for their argument comprised 27 minutes of airtime, but just 4 minutes for the accepted argument against cholesterol. It noted two of the doctors sold cholesterol pills on their websites, which compete with statins.
Catalyst told Media Watch “Our intention was to explore a provocative thesis. Inevitably a larger percentage of each 30 minute programme was taken explaining that thesis.”
“Thousands of lives and billions of dollars are at stake; and the ABC should be free to challenge established medical wisdom,” Barry responded.
“But it needs to do it much much better than this.”
Share
- Tagged with Catalyst, Media Watch
10 Responses
@Armchair Analyst
I find it odd that you think Barry was at odds with the ABC by claiming bias, and like you I have not yet seen last nights Media Watch, but possibly this should not matter very much if one does not comment on the actual content of his particular critique, as much depends on the delivery tone and style,and finally the eventual substantiation of his own research or that of others.
As it is indeed is a fine line between bias from both sides involved in a for and against strong argument, especially when billions of $$$$ are at stake, and if something like this is discussed freely and often enough, eventually agenda’s and motivations will be exposed, and sadly sometimes proven as sinister, as proven with the tobacco and asbestos industry
i found both episodes very informative. I think those episodes rated well because of people’s already suspicious views of the drug companies and the treatments themselves. I didnt watch last night’s episode of Media Watch but it kind of seems odd that Paul Barry would accuse the ABC or Catalyst of bias.
Pity they did not interview our own Australian renowned Cardiologist Dr Ross Walker re statins and cholesterol,,, he has his thoughts on it all and differs again
How does Barry know what the truth is?
He claims one side is biased because they make money arguing for one theory. Yet ignores that fact that the other sides makes trillions of dollars selling and prescribing statins.
It is a matter of opinion not science because no one has done the large scale long term objective studies that would make up the science.
And if nobody is allowed to have any alternative views and question “the consensus” then no proper research will ever be done.
The story was tabloid but anyone who believes the ABC doesn’t do tabloid or dress up reporters op-ed as news all the time is naive. You can always dress up op-ed as reporting of someones opinion, which is why inquisitions into what is the facts in complex matters are a waste of time, especially in an age where universities teach relativism as the main belief structure.
Barry should complain…
Shockingly poor journalism from ABC who you would expect better from.
Should we expect the ABC to be better than this? I’m wondering if it’s time to start a discussion about whether the ABC needs a “Chief Content Officer”. There are so many and strange missteps when the EPs don’t seem to have to take responsibility for the intellectual and ethical quality of their content and no-one seems to be in charge of the Commissioning EPs. I still find it hard to believe every second word in Jaime Private School Girl is the “F” word and no-one asked whether it could be funny without such overuse of one offensive word.
It is interesting that Catalyst admitted it had to re-edit to include a more balanced perspective. How did it get as far as it did before that sort of intervention. To spend 2 eps on a subject, without the sort of checks and balances before editing is surprising. Media watch certainly lambasted Catalyst and the reporter.
Dr Demasi just applied the same thinking as climate change deniers do.
Ignore the 97% or so of scientific evidence and just believe the 3% that agree with your gut instinct.
This was very similar to the 4 corners episode that screened last night as well.
There’s sufficient evidence to prove that JFK was assassinated by more than one person (Oswald probably being one of them) but the show ignored all the that and concentrated on proving that Oswald acted alone.
Catalyst was shoddy journalism and so was 4 corners last night.
I expect this from shows like ACA, TT and Bolt Report – but not Catalyst or 4 corners.
The dumbing down of the ABC has started.
Shame.
I honestly don’t know who to believe. I don’t trust many Doctors as they are in the pockets of the drug companies. Then again I don’t want to take the word of fake ‘Doctors’ with a crappy online degree from Alabama.
We should all now eagerly await for catalyst to do an in depth segment to verify there own claims and motives on this topic.
In hope that the glossy coating used on so many legal drug treatments, is only used to hide the taste, and not mainly used as a protection against the threat of a lower bottom line on a company’s revenue balance sheet?