BSA Herceptin decision underlines need for balance

Media release 1 October, 2007

BSA’s Herceptin decision underlines need for balance

PHARMAC is welcoming the outcome of a complaint it made to the Broadcasting Standards Authority about an unbalanced and inaccurate TV3 60 Minutes programme.

The BSA has found the 60 Minutes item, about the breast cancer drug Herceptin, breached the BSA code of practice on three counts – overall balance (Standard 4) and two counts of inaccuracy (Standard 5). In releasing its decision, the Authority has ordered TV3 to broadcast a statement about the ruling, and to pay costs of $3000.

The item, broadcast in October 2006, compared the treatment of women with breast cancer in Australia and New Zealand, and included interviews with women with breast cancer and campaigners for Herceptin. However, rather than seek to balance these supporting comments with an alternative viewpoint, 60 Minutes relied solely on a letter from Health Minister Pete Hodgson to the sister of one of the women interviewed.

PHARMAC was not satisfied with this approach, and complained that the item was unbalanced. PHARMAC also pointed out a number of inaccuracies and contentious statements that went unchallenged.

“We are very pleased that the BSA has upheld our complaint. The ruling on the issue of balance is particularly significant,” says PHARMAC’s acting CEO Matthew Brougham.

“It is important for people to have a balanced presentation of the facts so they can fully understand issues like Herceptin.”

“TV3 failed to seek comment from any of the decision-makers around Herceptin (PHARMAC or District Health Boards), nor any other groups or individuals with balancing viewpoints. As well, TV3 chose to use figures that over-stated the effectiveness of Herceptin and give viewers a misleading picture of its effectiveness, when PHARMAC could have provided more accurate figures.”

“The Authority’s order for TV3 to pay costs of $3000 is an indication that it regards this as a serious breach of the Broadcasting codes of practice.”

PHARMAC’s complaint centred on the issue of balance, and that the 60 Minutes item portrayed a one-sided and highly emotive side to the Herceptin story. It also highlighted a number of statements that it said were not factual, or were contentious, but were left unchallenged by the programme makers. The BSA has upheld two of these points as being inaccurate.

“Balance has been an issue that has dogged the debates around Herceptin”, says Matthew Brougham. “And TV3 might not have made these mistakes if they had taken the time to contact us.”

Balancing viewpoints are important in debate around complex issues. An example is the recent Roche-funded Karolinska Institute report, which used flawed methods to draw conclusions about different countries’ access to cancer drugs. The report’s findings are being reported as factual, even though international commentaries have discredited the report.

Writing in the Annals of Oncology, Professor Michael Coleman, a UK expert in public health and clinical evidence, said he was concerned that “a drug industry-funded report based on incorrect science can still achieve wide and uncritical publicity, with the serious attendant risk of misleading oncologists, policy-makers, and the public.”

This underlined the need to take care when analysing and reporting such publications.

ENDS

© Scoop Media