As mass media evolves into “masses of media”, what are the implications for our health?

In reply: Lambert has previously raised similar concerns in comments published by Crikey and its health blog Croakey.1-3 Leading public health and medical experts contribute to Crikey and Croakey’s coverage of pandemic influenza.

As has been noted in this Journal, there are many questions and controversies surrounding the pandemic and the policy response.4 It is a misrepresentation to describe Crikey and Croakey coverage as being stridently anti-H1N1 vaccination or a “campaign”. Indeed, I recently received a note of thanks from the Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing Media Unit for a “very fair report” in Crikey regarding an influenza vaccination safety issue (Department of Health and Ageing Media Unit, personal communication, 8 Dec 2009).

Michael Wooldridge and CSL’s Director of Public Affairs, Rachel David, are scheduled to speak at a conference in Sydney on 24 March 2010 about their use of online media to promote pandemic vaccination.5 It cannot be controversial, in these times of heightened concern about conflicts of interest and their consequences, to suggest that if Wooldridge is publishing related comment, as in his Crikey article, any association with CSL should be declared.6

Additionally, I am regularly copied on emails or correspondence by a variety of individuals and organisations. This does not mean I am involved with these groups or necessarily support their work.

Lambert is entitled to his views about the forces driving the media; my own is that an open, transparent debate about public policy, whether it relates to vaccines or other interventions, is important for the health of populations and of societies more broadly.