Active discussions

Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

Original poster

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

35 replies

cleanairplease · 14/01/2011 14:45

...about the BBC has completely misrepresented this study (which actually has v little to say other than that bf is good).

Having interevened in a FICTIONAL story surely this REAL story, that will make life harder for mothers who want to bf and don't have support / make people give up, has much greater public health implications.

OP posts:
marzipananimal · 15/01/2011 21:30

hear hear. the media coverage of this story has been atrocious

NetworkGuy · 16/01/2011 12:20

I'm sure some links to the study and a concise summary would help galvanize staff at MNHQ.

I heard the story (on BBC radio) and one assumes they have put forward a researched news item, after checking facts and getting views from both sides of a story. Seems not to be the case from your comments, cleanairplease.

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 21:02

The BBC is also still featuring, in the main feature about this "opinion", an email from somebody who should know better claiming that breastmilk contains no iron. Two days later the email is still featured with no correction forthcoming. I cannot be the only person who has contacted the BBC about this. This is not among user comments, this is featured as part of the article. Very very bad.

Have people seen this petition about press and media coverage of breastfeeding in general? I think it would be an excellent thing for Mumsnet to take up this course against the whole British media, not just the BBC.

Newspaper headlines like "Breast isn't best" and "Mother's milk may do more harm than good" are totally indefensible. They can only get away with them because there is no massive breastmilk manufacturer to sue them. Now if all the individual breastmilk manufacturers got together with Mumsnet behind them...

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 21:07

Unicef response here

I can't link to the original article as I don't have BMJ access, but here is the abstract.

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 21:08

take up this cause

AitchTwoOh · 16/01/2011 21:33

this is a brilliant response to the paper itself. seems that their interpretation of the research is distinctly iffy.

vagolaJahooli · 16/01/2011 21:38

Bless you networkguy assuming that BBC researches their stories thoroughly. I'm from outside the UK and the quality of the UK news channel compared to others including during the recent flooding in many countries was just terrible. This iron in breastmilk issue was just another example of not looking at all research and not getting a balanced view. They are supposed to by law but they so often brush this off by saying they tried to contact the other parties, or only quoting part of the press releases sent to them.

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 23:14

So is this a case of if enough MN say Aye, then MN Towers will consider it as a campaign? If so, we're not doing too well. But you only need to look at the threads to see people's feelings on the subject.

AitchTwoOh · 16/01/2011 23:22

thing is, who is it campaigning against? the media. and whose co-operation does a campaign require? sooooooo.

headfairy · 16/01/2011 23:26

op, I've pm'd you, I've got a vested interest in what you think of the media coverage of this story and I'd be really interested in hearing from you.

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 23:34

Hmmm. Good point.

So... has everyone seen this petition

headfairy · 16/01/2011 23:36

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.

gaelicsheep · 16/01/2011 23:39

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

AitchTwoOh · 17/01/2011 00:07

well that's hardly good enough, headfairy. Hmm 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.

gaelicsheep · 17/01/2011 00:13

I would love to see the UCL press release.

silverfrog · 17/01/2011 00:14

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.

Habbibu · 17/01/2011 07:46

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?

AitchTwoOh · 17/01/2011 10:24

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.

Eleison · 17/01/2011 10:34

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.

AitchTwoOh · 17/01/2011 10:48

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

AitchTwoOh · 17/01/2011 10:58

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.""

gaelicsheep · 17/01/2011 11:18

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.

Whitethorn · 17/01/2011 11:25

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.

gaelicsheep · 17/01/2011 11:29

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.