0/5

Catalyst “heart disease” episode breaches ABC standards

ABC rules Catalyst's controversial report on statins & heart disease breached ABC standards on impartiality.

2013-11-12_0123ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs Unit has ruled that one of two controversial Catalyst episodes on statins and heart disease breached ABC standards on impartiality.

The two-part “Heart of the Matter” episodes, which aired last October, had been roundly criticised by medical experts and the Heart Foundation, for giving weight to a minority opinion.

At the time the Heart Foundation said, “Australians need to be aware that the information presented by the ABC is not supported by the Heart Foundation and that there is international scientific consensus that replacing saturated fat with ‘good’ unsaturated fat, in particular polyunsaturated fat, reduces your risk of heart disease.”

ABC backed the show at the time as contributing to a medical debate, with Director of Television Richard Finlayson saying, “It was inherently controversial and was always going to be, and the team knew that.”

Media Watch however criticised, “Three men with one mind, presented as three independent points of view” and refuted that one expert was even a doctor at all.

“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?” Paul Barry asked.

“And why did Maryanne Demasi fly all the way to America to interview them?”

Today ABC Managing Director Mark Scott indicated the findings of the ABC’s independent Audience and Consumer Affairs Unit agreed with them.

“While acknowledging the importance of public health issues relating to the efficacy of heart disease treatment and the contrasting opinions of highly-qualified scientists, the A&CA has concluded that the second episode breaches ABC standards on impartiality,” Scott said in a statement.

“The Catalyst programs were very engaging, attracted large audiences and clearly touched on an issue of importance to many Australians. The link between statins and heart disease is a matter warranting investigation and coverage on our programs. The issue has been extensively covered overseas and continues to be the subject of debate within medical circles. I would like to see our science programs on radio and TV work together to revisit it, whilst taking absolute care to comply with our rigorous editorial policies.”

Both episodes will be removed from the ABC website. Information will be added to the program website and the ABC Corrections page http://www.abc.net.au/corrections/ to advise of the steps that have been taken.

“Additionally, the PM program has added an Editor’s Note to the transcript of its story ‘Backlash against ABC’s Catalyst program questioning heart disease-cholesterol links’, and an appropriate entry has been made on the ABC Corrections page. The note on the Catalyst website will also reinforce the advice made in the original programs, that viewers should not make any changes to their prescribed regimen of medications without seeking appropriate medical advice.

“As the A&CA report shows, this has been a thorough investigation involving complex issues and a wide range of material.”

The report of the investigation is at http://about.abc.net.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/Catalyst-Heart-of-the-Matter-ACA-Investigation-Report.pdf.

2 Responses

  1. @Pertinax – you don’t need to be a doctor or a scientist to be able to determine what is true and what is false. You just need a rational mind and access to relevant data.

    Presenting a balanced perspective does not mean that equal time should be give to each and every viewpoint regardless of how few people support that view or how left-field that opinion might be.

    Catalyst also erred by implying that the three people making this claim were independent medical authorities, when in fact they were closely associated with each other and their *hypothesis* has not been published in mainstream peer-reviewed literature. Oh yeah, and one of them got his medical qualifications from a diploma mill.

  2. So a panel of people with no medical or scientific training has decided what is true and what is false. And they have decided that half of a show is biased because the other side of the argument is given in the other half of the show!

    Nothing more than an excuse for granting victory to Swann and Williams and their attempts to set up a committee to vet all ABC science content, and reporting of science by the News & Current Affairs Dept., to ensure that it follows the party line.

    An argument for “consensus” is science is lazy and nothing more than a call to authority because you don’t have the facts to back it up.

    A consensus in science will be wrong whenever a new theory disproves and old one, and right when it is disproved. And the matter will be determined by replicable experiments, not by which side is bigger, or a committee or votes or internal ABC faction…

Leave a Reply