Article Text

Download PDFPDF
Editors should not be propagandists
  1. Harvey Marcovitch
  1. Correspondence to Dr H Marcovitch, Clinical Risk, RSM Press Ltd, 1 Wimpole Street, London W1G 0AE, UK; h.marcovitch{at}

Statistics from

Request Permissions

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

Perspective on the paper by Hilton et al (see page 831)

Nobody doubts that the flawed paper on non-specific colitis and pervasive developmental disorder in children1 provoked a public health crisis and increased the risk for children in the UK of contracting measles. In this month’s journal, a group of social and public health scientists examine the response to the paper by several journals likely to be read by those responsible for providing advice to individual families regarding immunisation.2 They conclude that the journals “missed opportunities to accurately inform practitioners about the evidence” and seemingly preferred to “stand back and wait for consensus to develop”.

Should the editors of the magazines Health Visitor, Community Practitioner, Practice Nurse, Nursing Standard and Pulse as well as the combined peer-reviewed medical journal and magazine BMJ accept that they failed their readers? I’m not sure what scientific pretensions the first group of these profess. If, as I suspect, they commission mostly freelance journalists to write their opinion pieces then there is little reason to expect any deeper analysis of a scientific disagreement that that of those writing feature items for any magazine or newspaper designed for an intelligent lay audience. Unless individual journalists have a bee in their bonnet about a topic or a competing interest, such as a deeply held personal belief or alarming personal experience, they are unlikely to come down on one side or the other on what they see as disputes between equally “respectable” scientists or clinicians. To do otherwise might lead to an accusation of publishing propaganda rather than news or unprejudiced opinion.

The issue may be different for a journal such as BMJ, edited and largely written by medically qualified individuals. In the 1970s, Robert Merton of Columbia University used the …

View Full Text


  • Competing interests Declared. For part of the period during which the authors analysed papers from BMJ, the author was syndications editor for BMJ Publishing Group and then associate editor of BMJ.

  • Provenance and Peer review Commissioned; not externally peer reviewed.

Linked Articles