Ben Goldacre of Bad Science Threatened by Lawyers for LBC and Jeni Barnett

Hey ho, here we go again. In this case we have lawyers sending letters to prevent public debate.

Jeni Barnett is a presenter for LBC who did a three hour programme where she had an extended segment about the MMR vaccine, why she had not given it to her children and asking for reasons from members of the public why they had done the same.

Ben Goldacre of Bad Science took exception in strong terms, and posted a 44 minute segment from the broadcast on his blog:

It is my view that in this extended broadcast Jeni exemplifies every single canard ever uttered by the antivaccination movement.

I invite you to document the rest below (the bit about empirical experience is particularly enjoyable) and maybe we can get the full list of canards together for the definitive numbers set of Bad Science Bingo. In fact, if there is an anti-vaxxer canard in existence which is not in this broadcast, I want to know about it, signed copy of some book for the best one.

Jeni Barnett did not like the vigour:

I am interested in the debate not a witch hunt.

Should anybody from BAD SCIENCE read this I urge you to continue the debate, and if it gets too heated there is always the option of turning me off.

But within a day Ben Goldacre received contact from lawyers alleging copyright violation. That doesn’t sound to me to be “interest in the debate”.

Criticism, review and news reporting

The Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988 states:

30 Criticism, review and news reporting

(1) Fair dealing with a work for the purpose of criticism or review, of that or another work or of a performance of a work, does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

It seems to me that:

a) The material is now thoroughly available to the public, firstly because it was broadcast by LBC to the whole of London, and because it is now posted on Wikileaks (among other places).

b) The programme was posted by Ben Goldacre for “Criticism or Review” – which he did extensively.

c) The segment he posted was less 25% of a three-hour programme.

And that the segment presented by Ben Goldacre should therefore fall under Fair Dealing.

My Comment

It seems to me highly irresponsible to attempt to suppress material that is needed to inform a public debate, especially when you have stated that such a debate is what you would like to see. This is the segment:

Audio clip: Adobe Flash Player (version 9 or above) is required to play this audio clip. Download the latest version here. You also need to have JavaScript enabled in your browser.

Anybody wishing to do so can get in touch via the Contact Form.

About the Author

Matt Wardman

Matt is an internet consultant, commentator, freelance writer and Project Manager based in the UK. He is available for hire. Matt edits the Wardman Wire, and writes at Poligeeks, Total Politics, and occasionally in several other places.

8 Responses to “Ben Goldacre of Bad Science Threatened by Lawyers for LBC and Jeni Barnett”

  1. [...] Matt Wardman of The Wardman Wire: Ben Goldacre of Bad Science Threatened by Lawyers for LBC and Jeni Barnett [...]

  2. [...] problems either although health and social care professionals then have to wade against a tide of ill-informed debate and hippyism (my own term I admit) to fight for evidence based medicine and evidence based public [...]

  3. [...] of Ben Goldacre of Badscience.net, over the threat of legal action Jeni Barnett and LBC , after Ben posted an excerpt from Jeni’s phone-in show about the MMR [...]

  4. [...] illustrate my grave concerns, I posted therelevant segment about MMR from her show, 44 minutes, which a reader kindly excerpted for me from the rest of the [...]

  5. [...] Jeni Barnett and MMRJeni Barnett, Ben Goldacre, LBC and M’Learned Friends: Spartacus is BackBen Goldacre of Bad Science Threatened by Lawyers for LBC and Jeni BarnettBen Goldacre / Jeni Barnett case made Start the Week on Radio 4: LatestThe Ben Goldacre / Jeni [...]

  6. [...] You can read more about all of this, including some interesting insights on the legal position, over at the Wardman Wire. [...]

  7. [...] probably important to point out that, as the Wardman Wire points out, the clip was less than 25% of the total show length, and thus did not infringe on any [...]

Leave a Reply