Professor Patrick Holford and the Mainstream Media: A Love Story?

Holford Myths has asked an interesting question: Why Do Mainstream Media Promote Patrick Holford? We, too, are stumped by this. Of course, many journalists who have profiled Professor Holford of Teesside University have all but stated that he has fragrance, charm and charisma. They wax lyrical about the healthy breakfasts he prepares for them, the mood-enhancing pills he chummily shares, and rhapsodise about his knicknacks.

They should write about his research sometime and check his sums, they might experience a very different side to him.

Holford Myths introduced the intriguing notion that Holford has “pundit brand equity“. The mainstream media has spent a long time promoting him as a trusted source of knowledge on nutritionism. Now, in the absence of something egregious, they have little motivation to acknowledge that they didn’t verify his claims of scientific support for his recommendations. They colluded in passing off his beliefs as validated scientific research.

A pundit’s power and influence reflect their brand building by the PR company and the willingness of media to accept comparatively cheap copy. Copy that may, nevertheless, generate some exciting ad sales for particular products or supplements. It takes a lot of long-term schmoozing to attain the status of a “trusted pundit”, someone that a deadline-oppressed journalist can turn to for just the right quote. Which may explain why, even when there are egregious signs of obvious and repeated error, notional reverence for the brand is maintained.

They discuss the scale of Holford’s errors and speculate about why Holford doesn’t correct them. They offer this idea:

Pragmatically, maybe it is appropriate for his continued media career to refuse to acknowledge his errors because doing so would devalue his punditry brand. His academic career is a separate issue. Why is the University of Teesside willing to appoint a professor whose behaviour in this respect is antithetical to the training in rigour and accuracy that they must give their young scientists?

Now, this and Holford Myths other ideas and discussions are useful, but, here at Holford Watch, we feel that they have overlooked a significant deterrent. We are torn between calling it the Maxwell or the Liberace Effect or just plain hassle. Trollope described it thus:

they who are concerned in the manufacture of newspapers are well aware that censure is infinitely more attractive than eulogy – but they are quite as well aware that it is more dangerous. No proprietor or editor was ever brought before the courts at the cost of ever so many hundred pounds – which if things go badly may rise to thousands – because he had attributed all but divinity to some very poor specimen of mortality…
Censure on the other hand is open to very grave perils. Let the editor have been ever so conscientious, ever so beneficent – even ever so true – let it be ever so clear what he has written what has been written on behalf of virtue…and he may still be in danger of ruin.
[pg. 340: The Way We Live Now. Anthony Trollope.]

There is the hassle of people who do not differentiate between fair comment on their written work and public announcements or meaness/abuse/malice/libel. It is not just the mainstream media that runs foul of this but bloggers, as the various contretemps involving The Society of Homeopaths, Dr Ann Walker, Professor Obi and even Professor Holford make clear.

The case of Jerry Springer: The Opera is a good, self-contained example of the hassle that artists experience.

Stewart Lee says he wouldn’t work on anything controversial on the scale of Jerry Springer: The Opera again – because ‘idiots’ could too easily close it down.

The musical…suffered financially when fundamentalist Christians orchestrated a campaign against what they decided was an offensive show.

And even though three High Court judges last week threw out a bid by the ultra-conservative Christian Voice group to bring a private blasphemy prosecution, Lee said the furore would stop people investing time in controversial shows…

Christian Voice’s Stephen Green…is not so cautious about avoiding causing offence himself. He calls Islam ‘dangerous and implacable’, describes the Koran as ‘hate speech’, and has circulated anti-gay material making claims such as: ‘Many homosexual men will have been interfered with at a young age, and be sexually attracted to boys of around that age as a result.’

So, even when the High Court Judges make the right ruling, and the law is applied judiciously, the hassle can make the endeavour seemed hedged around by an unsurmountable and off-putting deterrent. Rachel Donadio penned a thoughtful essay about the absurdity of UK libel laws for the NYT: Libel Without Borders.

[P]ublishers and booksellers are increasingly concerned about “libel tourism”: foreigners suing other foreigners in England or elsewhere, and using those judgments to intimidate authors in other countries, including the United States. Last year, the Association of American Publishers, Amazon.com, the American Society of Newspaper Editors and others filed an amicus brief in New York, arguing that such litigation “constitutes a clear threat to the ability of the U.S. press to vigorously investigate and publish news and information about the most crucial issues before the U.S. public.”

That and other cases may yet be heard and it will be interesting to learn their outcomes.

However, that leaves all UK media in the odd position that Trollope describes so well. And, it leaves UK consumers in the position of reading stories that have been over-stated at source or even ‘sexed-up’ by journalists looking for a space-filler. Celebrity mea culpa or retractions aren’t interesting unless they involve the discovery of a novel addiction or childhood horror, revelation of a “X-addiction hell” and a period of absence from public life in a rehab facility which seems to be the modern equivalent of spiritual retreats. Oddly enough, unless you are Hillary ‘Angel of Bosnia’ Clinton, denying that there is a problem or accepting part of the accusation but denying the rest, is usually a surprisingly effective strategy. It might be great for PR companies or even politicians, but there are times when it interferes with the public understanding of science.

But, what is science – can it really compete with a love story in our attention economy? Does it matter? Are the musings of Gillian McKeith, Professor Patrick Holford and such really that much of a problem? Well, according to Lord Krebs, former head of the Food Standards Agency, it looks like those unsupported musings with no decent science just might be a problem: Organic food ‘no benefit to health’.

‘The organic message can sometimes be a distortion from the more important messages,’ said Krebs. ‘If a parent is asking, “how can I improve the health of my children?” they may think, “Oh, I can give them organic food”. But that is far less important than the decision to feed them more fruit and vegetables, or the decision to give them less salt.’ His concerns about the claims made for organic produce were that ‘they add to the mix of confusion in people’s minds about what it means to eat healthily’

Professor Tom Sanders provides a typically elegant description of this problem in his recent Derek Burke Lecture (pdf):

we are no longer at ease with our food…we are anxious about whether it is healthy or not. The consuming public has developed a distorted perception of the risk to health from food…the Food Standards Agency (FSA) finds that consumers are more worried about the hypothetical risks to health posed by pesticides and food additives than the real risks to health from drinking unpasteurized raw milk…The substantial growth in organic food has also undermined trust in ordinary food…Food activists have even called some produce “fake food”, alleging that it looks good but has no nutritional value. These concerns have provided fertile soil for those making claims for the benefits of dietary supplements and superfoods…
[A]bout 30% of the UK population take dietary supplements (3)…Consumers give a variety of reasons for taking supplements. Some say it is an insurance policy to guard against deficiencies; while parents have been gulled into buying supplements by claims that they will improve their children’s behaviour and school performance… [pp. 2-3]

Holfordwatch has expressed itself at some length over the appropriateness of Holford’s appointment as Visiting Professor at the University of Teesside. Maybe this appointment is also the price of allowing nutritionism rather than science to assume control of the healthy lifestyle message in the mainstream media.

Will things change in the future? Will mainstream media be willing to forego the cheap, easy copy of nutritionism and the advertising revenue it offers? Will other journalists join Dr Ben Goldacre and Damian Thompson in their willingness to make critical appraisals of Holford’s work? Who knows…