Last year, Ofcom ruled that GB News and their presenter Mark Steyn had breached broadcasting standards with two programmes regarding covid19 vaccines. In the first, in April 2022, Steyn had shown statistics from the UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), comparing mortality rates amongst vaccinated and unvaccinated adults. Mortality rates were substantially higher amongst those who had received the vaccine and this, for Steyn, was proof that the vaccine was not merely ineffective, but actually increased the chance of dying soon after.
In the second programme, in October 2022, Steyn interviewed author Naomi Wolf, who claimed that the vaccine was killing people and that the government knew this perfectly well. Steyn did not challenge this view and the programme offered no counterpoint. Ofcom rightly felt that Steyn’s programmes has misled the public, failed to provide a balanced view, and had consequently endangered public health.
Steyn appealed against the decision on the grounds that he should be free to broadcast his opinion. The appeal was heard in the High Court this summer, with Mrs Justice Judith Farbey ruling on 31 July that there were no grounds to uphold the appeal. The defeat for Steyn and GB News was widely reported, but one important aspect of the case has not received much attention.
The ruling stated that “Statistics may be used to provoke and to challenge the status quo; but Ofcom is entitled to insist – in the public interest – that they should not be misused so as to mislead.” Steyn had indeed misled, and in doing so had caused the public great potential harm.
At the time when the UKHSA statistics had been produced, the vaccine was still being rolled out. Most over-80s and the clinically vulnerable had been vaccinated; very few under the age of 50 had been. It was hardly surprising that the mortality rate amongst a group consisting largely of the elderly and clinically vulnerable was higher than that amongst a group of much younger, healthier, people. Indeed, the UKHSA data release had included an explicit warning that the raw data “should not be used to draw conclusions about the effectiveness of the vaccine”. The GB News programme had ignored this.
Justice Farbey’s ruling is important as it is the first example of UK case law stating that broadcasters should not misuse statistics so as to mislead. This precedent should reduce the likelihood of future transgressions and support appropriate redress against any broadcasters who do transgress.
Then, earlier this year, public inquiries, of which there have been several high-profile ones recently – Grenfell, Covid, Thirlwall, Post Office Horizon, to name but four – came under scrutiny. The average inquiry takes two-and-a-half years to conclude and costs £20M. Given some criticism of the clarity and specificity of inquiry recommendations, the House of Lords Statutory Inquiries Committee was asked to carry out an Inquiry into Inquiries. The Yes Minister-esque “Inquiries Inquiry” reported last month.
It too had something to say about statistics. Noting that some enquiries had relied almost exclusively on subjective evidence, the report recommended that “An inquiry’s terms of reference should include information about how statistical evidence will be investigated and handled” and that “Inquiries should make use of statistical expertise.” If adopted, these recommendations should strengthen inquiries in which matters of risk and probabilities are relevant by ensuring that appropriate data are sought and analysed to inform the inquiry. The report is now being considered by the Government and we await their response to the recommendations, expected in November.
The Farbey High Court ruling and the Lords committee recommendations represent two important victories in the quest for public debate in the UK to be better informed by appropriate, and truthful, quantitative evidence. Statistical champions in some other countries are already looking at these developments with envy. There will of course be many more battles to be won, but with these new tools the UK is now better equipped to win the war against disinformation.