New bf study - power of MN to make a fuss ...

bump - did MNHQ comment anywhere about this?

I saw that story too, but tbh I am losing the will with all this. People, including journalists, just do not read things properly. Grrr.

I used the Contact Us link at the very bottom Then selected Website, then Style, Accuracy & Grammar. I used that form and was careful to include the url of the story in question.

I also think you have to be persistent. I sent comments twice and also posted on their message boards about it. HTH.

Gaelicsheep: how did you contact the BBC? (I find their complaints system labyrinthine and it takes me forever to get through to the right screen)

I found this article about "Vitamin D and weaning advice for new Scottish mothers" and I want to complain about Eleanor Bradford's sloppy journalism. She states in the article "The policy was drawn up before evidence that babies should be given solid food before the age of six months was published in last week's British Medical Journal." - which, as we all know, is not the case.

To be fair, I don't think this is the case of the Beeb (or other media) overplaying a cautious study. I think the study itself is overblown and a dodgy analysis, and the authors have given interviews in which they are really quite gungho. When the lead author was asked about the fall in the number of babies being introduced to solids pre-four months since the DH revised its guidance, the lead author made what struck me as a really frickin' supercilious comment about "we can't lie to mothers even if it might encourage better health outcomes, the evidence is what the evidence is". What is the point of doing research whose only likely effect is to cause a net increase in the number of babies being harmed? Why couldn't she have taken the time to create a statement that DH could use that would reflect the truth without, at the least, 1 -discouraging EBF to four months and 2 - encouraging social pressure to not breastfeed at all?

It's nice to see the BBC's learned something - not. Clearly they've not been reading MN. Just heard a report on BBC Scotland news about nre Govt guidance on infant feeding. Apparently last week "experts urged parents to wean onto solids before 6 months". AAARGH.

But Whitethorn, part of the problem is that the original article is so speculative that even your interpretation is unfounded, iyswim - you need to pepper it with "mights" and "mays" and "in certain circumstances" by which point you're better off having never read it at all.

Yeah, I know. It is really easy with my family - they all think I know best .

Different dynamics with in-laws though. I would have to be rude to avoid a conversation they wanted to have. Hmn ...

Oh and newspaper articles have been sent in the past about the delaying of cows milk causing allergies.

Yama, why would you justify your methods, you are the mother and have your childs best interests at heart. My mother thought that my baby should be 'on the spoon' at 8 weeks!!
I just ignored until I thought she was ready.

Whitethorn - I am ebfing my second child to at least six months. Headlines like these will probably encourage comments from my in-laws (my own parents know better). I may have to have discussions and justify my feeding choice. What joy.

I don't think it's being over-sensitive to be pissed off at irresponsible journalism.

A bit broader than the OP, but I don't think complaining about headlines like "Mother's milk may do more harm than good" is being over sensitive.

I interpreted this as children need more iron so wean earlier than 6 months if you are exclusively bfeeding. I didnt see it as dismissing the benefits of breastfeeding and to think that it is, is being a bit over sensitive.

At this stage I think every woman knows that breast is best but some just choose not to breast feed for whatever reasons.

Just to follow up on my personal soapbox issue, the BBC has just emailed to tell me they have now removed the comment about "no iron in breastmilk" from its early weaning piece. Took two days and the damage has been done, but at least they did it in the end.

this is so true, i really think that the media has suffered greatly having sacked its qualified science corrs and replaced them with whoever is nearest on the day... no connections, no context, no real understanding of the issues.

"In this paragraph I will provide balance with a quote from another scientist in the field. Since I picked their name at random from a Google search, and since the research probably hasn't even been published yet for them to see it, their response to my e-mail will be bland and non-committal.

"The research is useful", they will say, "and gives us new information. However, we need more research before we can say if the conclusions are correct, so I would advise caution for now.""

Have you seen this equivalent spoof for print coverage of a science story?

it's shameful, that charlie brooker clip. hilarious, but once you've seen it, you can't go back...

lol Aitch. Too right. And a good excuse to link to the .

It was a truly awful and damaging piece of reporting, wasn't it.

lol yyy re the vox pops. they increasingly remind me of the ones on Fry and Laurie anyway.

hello Mrs Nobody, what do you think about the fact that four boffins at UCL think it might be worth looking at the guidelines for the best weaning age again, on the word of four bits of research that they seem in part to have mis-interpreted and that hardly compare to the rigorous Cochrane report and the WHO guidelines constructed from a reading of some 30,000 pieces of research?

now before you answer, i must stress that this is not a breastfeeding issue, other than they rather cynically mentioned bfing in the title of their paper, and they acknowledge that it only affects 1% of mothers currently in any case, because everyone else is onto formula by then, which they didn't look at because, well, actually, because they are a bit irresponsible...

so anyway, what do you think, Mrs Someone Outside A Supermarket? Are you confused by all of this and think that the world should stop and let you off? You are? I'm not surprised. Now get on with your shopping, you ghastly old hag, you have served your purpose."

vox pops are pathetic, imo. i am of the pop, i don't want to hear people like me say that they are confused, i want people who UNDERSTAND already to explain the issue so i am not confused.

yy, not good enough, headfairy. Because this has been universally misrepresented and misreported, and if the timeslots don't work, then maybe the journalists should consider Not Giving Airtime to a tiny non-story? And why on earth are vox-pops essential? What exactly do they add to the "news" element - people reacting confusedly to a very badly reported story?

headfairy, surely if justice cannot be done to a story within the time allocated to it, then either:

more time should be allocated (can see why this option was not a sure thign for this story), or

it shouldn't be given inadequate screaming headline status.

it happens time and again, and it is irresponsible.

if a story is worth covering ,it is worth covering well.

half-arsed journalism should have no place on lead news items.

I would love to see the UCL press release.

well that's hardly good enough, headfairy. fact is, it isn't much of a story so should have been spiked on those grounds. four boffins saying 'hmm, maybe we should look at the weaning guidelines' while STRESSING that they in no way wish to undermine bfing cannot possibly translate as 'breast not best'. it's pretty much a non-story if accurately reported.

No excuse to leave blatant untruths in an internet news report 2 days after they were reported to them though.

Vagola, remember this is a really complex story and most tv news programmes give a really short slot to these stories, between 1'30" and 2 minutes. In that time you have to include a soundbite from someone backing the report and someone against it (for balance) plus some vox pops from members of the public, plus you have to explain something which is pretty complex.

Try and write a story as complicated as this (and it is complicated - can you fully explain it, including all elements such as the different guidance for those in developing countries and those in developed countries, and how the differences in the iron content in breastmilk and formula effect it's absorption)

Really, go on, try it. Leave yourself at least 15 seconds per interview (that's being quite conservative, quite often a soundbite will be nearer 20") plus say another 15 for some vox pops.... plus you have to include some kind of graphic sequence to explain what the report is saying (this will probably take up about 30") If you can come in under 2 minutes and include all the points you expect it to include then you should send your script off to the nearest tv news broadcaster.

Hmmm. Good point.

So... has everyone seen this petition