How the media works
Friday, November 9, 2007 
Earlier this week the Daily Express reported that health officials are considering plans to stop people smoking in their own home. (The idea was apparently suggested at a conference in Manchester, hosted by Smoke Free North-West.) I was quoted as follows:
"Calling for smoking to be banned from British family homes is ludicrous. This is a prime example of Labour’s nanny state. The vast majority of parents who smoke are fully aware of the dangers inherent in passive smoking and take precautions to protect their children. What are we going to have, the smoking police going round in smoke-detector vans?"
I was surprised to see my name in the report (by Chris Riches, HERE) because I hadn't spoken to the Express (or anyone else) about the conference. Nor had my colleague Neil Rafferty. But that was nothing compared to my astonishment at what I am reported to have said about passive smoking.
So yesterday I sent Chris an email. No reply. This morning I rang the Express news desk and was told that the story probably came from an agency. An hour later, following a further phone call, the news desk told me that the story - and my quote - came from Mercury, an independent news agency in the north west.
I rang Mercury and was told that the story had been written by a junior reporter who had tried and failed to contact me. Instead, he was told to make up write "something generic from the cuts" (ie come up with a quote based on previous things I have said). Hence, while parts of the quote may sound like me, I have NEVER said (nor would I EVER say), "The vast majority of parents who smoke are fully aware of the dangers inherent in passive smoking." (What I HAVE said is that parents with very young children should err on the side of caution when smoking in enclosed spaces at home, but that is rather different.)
Mercury have verbally apologised for their error, suggesting we put it down to the "exhuberance of youth" (!). They have advised me to blame "those swines in the press", which is all well and good, but the quote is already doing the rounds and has now appeared in the Liverpool Daily Post (HERE) and the Morning Advertiser (where I am taking lots of stick on the forum!!).
Other than writing a letter for publication (that clarifies our position), I am reluctant to take the matter further for two reasons: (1) the Express is probably the most anti-smoking ban paper in the country and it's unwise to fall out with friends; (2) Mercury were at least trying to balance their report with quotes from both sides of the debate, so let's credit them for that. Unfortunately they made a mistake. It happens.
Simon Clark
Mercury have just sent the following email:
"Further to our telephone conversation earlier today, I am writing to confirm that the quotes attributed to you in Tuesday's D.Express were the result of an overzealous new recruit at our agency. They had tried to adapt some of your quotes from a previous news story to the new version after being unable to reach you - however they were unaware of Forest's stance on the dangers of passive smoking."
Reader Comments (6)
The problem, of course, is that the misquote will probably travel further than a bona fide quote.
During the Russian Polonium-210 debacle, a senior health lobbyist in the USA stated on live TV that "Second hand smoke contains Plutonium!"
And, during a live TV debate here in Scotland, Andy Kerr (ex Health Minister) proclaimed loudly and confidently "Second hand smoke contains over 4000 carcinogens".
Neither mistake was corrected and I still come across people using these "facts" as gospel. Both comments were made over a year ago.
One of my correspondents to the F2C site suggested that we try to get a TV show made using a (real) judge, and a jury made up of 6 smokers and six non-smokers and the real facts are presented as they would be in a genuine trial. Put SHS in the dock, as it were.
I am beginning to think it would be a great way of showing the science for what it is.
Getting any TV programme made to expose the ludicrous Cult of ASH especially would be wonderful. To see them try to defend their claims as the fraudulant 'studies' were discussed in public, would be an eye-opener for most people, and that includes politicians, and would deal the Cult of ASH a serious blow, but don't hold your breath.They know this, of course, and that is why they refuse all discussion. 'The debate is over' you see.
As more of the devious mis-information is reported, as it will be, they will soon have to face up to their criminal deeds. Can't wait.
I am all for putting criminals in the dock and ASH and the like should definitely be there.
If we, in this country, can prosecute and imprison elderly people for standing up against extortionate council tax when what they are paying for is not being done, then we should most definitely have our day in court to prove what liars the anti smoking lobby are. It was said last week that perverting the course of justice was one of the worst crimes and carried a long sentence - isn't that exactly what the anti smoking lobby have done?
F2C should really go for this along with all the other pro choice, pro smoking groups.
Thank goodness for that Simon, someone on the Morning advertiser tried to quote what you had supposedly said, I have to say RFM made a mention that you had probably been misquoted, or words to that effect.
That was disgracefull, will they be putting that on the front page, that is was them who made the mistake, I doubt it very much. Many of us were wondering what the hell!
I have put the link to this page in to the MA comments thread.
Thanks, Mandy.