Humanosphere

Maybe this is part of the problem.

I just attended a session at the Pacific Health Summit that explored the difficulties, and dilemmas, of dealing with public misunderstandings around vaccine safety.

As a journalist, I wanted to join in the discussion. Oops. My bad. As I wrote earlier, there are some who think this meeting is a bit restrictive when it comes to public dialogue. I hadn’t been aware I wasn’t supposed to talk in session.

I was told by summit officials that what I did was inappropriate and a violation of their rules. Sigh ….

Now, the media’s role in communicating — or, unfortunately, often mis-communicating — issues of vaccine risk is of course a big topic here at this exclusive “by-invitation-only” meeting.

It’s a legitimate concern and a real problem. But I don’t think the media’s misbehavior is necessarily at the root of this problem.

I think it stems from a set of more fundamental misunderstandings about the nature of evidence in science and medicine, the invisible benefit of vaccines (prevention) and, sorry, the simple fact that vaccines are pretty boring — none of which are really problems of media ignorance or sensationalism.

That’s what I wanted to talk about.

So I stood up, jokingly introduced myself as “the media” and tried to ask the attendees to consider the possibility — based on a particular episode in India involving the HPV vaccine, Seattle-based PATH and the Gates Foundation — that maybe it isn’t just about educating or “guiding” journalists toward the light of truth.

Doesn’t anyone wonder why politicians, or celebrities for that matter, seldom rally much around the cause of vaccination? Why are vaccines a hard sell?

Why do we keep having these expert panel discussions with public health officials or medical researchers wringing their hands and complaining about being misunderstood? Is it really just because journalists are only interested in being sensational?

Those who know me well know how I have struggled for years to do stories on the benefits of immunization, especially about the incredibly life-saving initiative known as GAVI, the Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunization. It’s not always easy and not always a popular story, I think in part for the reasons I list above.

(SIDE NOTE: The World Affairs Council is holding a public forum tonight on vaccines, featuring the current head of GAVI, Helen Evans, and other public health heroes.)

So here I am at the Pacific Health Summit and the role of the media is at issue. I got up and asked my question, also jokingly asking all those on the panel and anyone who spoke if I can quote them — because that’s what their “Chatham House Rules” require. I admit, I’m  not a big fan of the summit’s media policy.

I then attempted to run around the meeting room to seek permission to quote people — this is what is required of us at the Pacific Health Summit — but I was stopped by the media relations person for the summit (I forgot to ask if I could quote her, so I won’t).

Flickr, Icky Pic

I was told I had violated this prohibition against journalists asking questions in session. But I noted that other journalists — like Seth Mnookin — had asked questions. I was told people like Seth were “invited guests” and that I was “media.” Apparently, guest journalists can talk in session but not media.

I was repeatedly asked if I would adhere to this restriction, if I understood it and was handed it in writing with red highlighter inking this particular section … and as a result lost an opportunity to get permission from the panelists who spoke at the session.

Maybe I’ll try again later so I can actually write about what was said.

But perhaps this story is a pretty good illustration of the problem.

Why do these folks think they need so many restrictions on the dialogue?

Why such fierce attempts to control the message and even who can speak?

Seriously.