Press conferences and responsible journalism

Well I went to my press briefing.  It turned out there really wasn't very much to it and I probably didn't need someone to show me what to do after all.  I"m not sure why there needed to be a press conference - it could have gone in a press release.  But if I hadn't gone, I wouldn't have got a pre-publication copy of the paper and the press pack.

The story was not quite as I had anticipated.  The new findings were not to do with cocaine, but to do with teachers rather than professional counsellors delivering an alcohol/drugs programme to school age children.  When I got back to the office I had to pitch the story to the health correspondent and get the go ahead to write it.

The research is about a form of screening and brief intervention for drug and alcohol use in children.  Year 9 kids are screened for personality traits associated with substance use.  Those who score more than one standard deviation above the mean on any of the four personality traits of interest are given two 90 minute sessions of counselling based on cognitive-behavioural therapy, motivational interviewing and positive psychology.  At two years follow up, the intervention is associated with a 40% decrease in binge drinking, and similarly large decreases in use of other substances.  The new work has shown that teachers can be trained to deliver the counselling as effectively as psychologists.

This is what I thought the lead was: "Teachers can reduce the likelihood that 13 year olds will become binge drinkers by 40% with just two sessions of counselling, new research has revealed." 

This is what the health correspondent told me the real lead was: "A simple class-room test can identify those teenagers likely to become binge drinkers, said psychologists today." 

The news editor was interested, but only if we could print the screening test.  So I wrote the story, found the test and added it in.  But then just as I was sending it through, I thought: "we can't do this; this is not a diagnostic test; this counselling will not be available to all and sundry; this is totally irresponsible."  When I voiced my concerns I was told that that's what we're paid to do.  In retrospect, I probably should just have said I couldn't find the test.  But I didn't think of that soon enough.

I worried about it overnight.  I hoped that no one whose opinion I respected would see my name on the story.  I shouldn't have worried.  Of course Sam Cam's baby bumped all other health news....  Once again my story didn't make it.

So just as I was coming to terms with "irresponsible" journalism, a curious thing happened.  The science editor asked me to do a story on BPA and testosterone.  BPA is a chemical used in food packaging and baby's bottles.  There has been some concern about the health and neuro-developmental effects of BPA, but existing non-animal evidence is limited.  "This is a story that will need some care" I was told.  "You need to make it interesting, but be careful not to sensationalise it.  Even if this doesn't get in the paper, it will be a really good learning experience for you to give this a go."

I gave it a go.  I tried to be measured, but highlight the new findings.  I got in all the good quotes about increases in testosterone don't necessarily mean detrimental to health.  I was pretty pleased and it was filed with minimal rearrangement.

So is the Times responsible or irresponsible?  Sober or sensationalist?  I had thought the former, but my experience with the screening test made me start to worry about the latter.  My conclusion is that different journalists really are different.  The science editor has enough clout that he can be a bit more measured.  The health correspondent is still trying to establish his own career.  Me?  Turns out I just do what I'm told and then worry about it later.