Thank you for publishing my letter (Irresponsible journalism, 9 January). I regret that I do not agree with the editorial comments about the letter published on the same page.
That your newspaper “felt the need to bring this view to readers” would be acceptable in situations where, for instance, the results of health surveys or scientific studies are reported but this is not acceptable in cases as this where strong and potentially harmful opinions of un-named individuals are quoted.
One can reasonably argue that The Malta Independent is “duty bound to inform readers about the various trains of thought that exist among doctors” but this cannot be applied to the opinion of an anonymous doctor who does not necessarily have the authority to make sweeping statements on an issue which has been rendered sensitive by false rumours and who was not asked by the reporters to substantiate an opinion which is liable to mislead people.
As to the reference (only) to “one doctor” in the letter, this was deliberate. The article and the prominent front page headline was biased against the vaccine on the basis of this doctor’s sweeping and negative statements. The overall perception transmitted by the report was that the vaccine was to be avoided.
The prominent front page headline and almost half of the report was a reflection of what this ‘veteran’ doctor thought about the vaccine. This individual’s negative personal opinion (note the frequent use of the first person singular) was quoted verbatim. The comments were totally negative and unsubstantiated.
These statements included: “I am not sure the H1N1 vaccine components are 100 per cent safe,” “I will definitely not administer the vaccine or advise anyone to be inoculated”, “the H1N1 hype is a whole swindle... people are duped into believing its dangers are more severe than those of any other flu virus”, “I am not sure the H1N1 vaccine components are 100 per cent safe,” and “it is a mortal sin” to vaccinate pregnant women and that “some 50 per cent of local doctors did not advise their patients to be vaccinated”.
By contrast the more moderate and reasonable opinions of two unidentified doctors (one “young doctor” and “another doctor”) received little space. Worse still, the more informed opinions of two named doctors, Dr Busuttil and Dr Balzan were given even less space on page 2 at the very end of the report.
I stand accused of “toeing the line”. This is a false accusation. Though I am absolutely in favour of it, I did not express an opinion on the vaccine. The sole point of my letter, which was published over my name (not anonymously), was to object strongly to the serious bias of your report against the vaccine. I gave clear reasons for my objections and explained in my covering letter that this had been the cause of distress to people who had just received the vaccine.
If a member of the medical profession wants to express a personal (and not factual) opinion on a controversial or sensitive issue, the least he can do is to avoid generalisation and state his name and the source of data upon which the opinion is based.
It must be re-emphasised that, as a result of the bias in the report, the implied message in the report was strongly against taking the vaccine. In particular, the negative front page headline was exposed for all to see at newspaper stands and cause anxiety.
I can only repeat that such irresponsible journalism can only do harm and cause confusion.
Dr G. G. Debono
Sliema
Editorial note: While our arguments in favour of publishing last week’s report are highlighted in the leader above, Dr Debono’s comments in the letter being published today warrant further explanation from our part.
The doctors we quoted preferred to remain anonymous, as is their right to do, and the reasons are understandable. Yet we assure our readers that they are all doctors with many years of experience and who have a right to express their opinion, very much in the same way that Dr Debono has.
If Dr Debono wants to keep his patients in the dark about the potential risks of taking the vaccine, as these doctors and many others are suggesting, then it is up to him and it is his responsibility. We repeat that, as a newspaper, we are duty bound to inform our readers about all sides of the story, and not just one part of it.
With regard to the fact that the positions taken by the government and MAM on the issue were published on page 2, a reply has already been given in the editorial note published with Dr Debono’s letter last Monday.
Prior to the report that irked Dr Debono, The Malta Independent had carried several stories on the front page expressing the government’s stand on the issue.