Why the 'Facebook gives you syphilis' story was so abhorrent

There are many reasons to be disgusted by the Sun's piece today suggesting Facebook is to blame for a rise in syphilis in the North-East. There's the affront to intelligence, the ignorant understanding of the raw data and the failure to properly delve into the claims of their source because they lent themselves so tantalisingly to a sensational headline.

But the biggest shame is the missed opportunity to get a very positive message out there and offer some praise where it is due.

Let me explain. 

Professor Peter Kelly, executive director of public health for NHS Middlesbrough, did apparently say: "Unprotected sex, especially with casual partners, is the biggest risk for syphilis...Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex." He didn't name Facebook but he did link the rise to social networking.

The Sun hacks concerned then just committed the all-too-familiar journalistic crimes of 1) believing somebody saying something is news, and 2) assuming their source is beyond question and his take on the story the only possible explanation.

But what else could be happening here? Consider this Google Trends graph which shows searches and news coverage for three of the major sexually transmitted diseases in England over the past six years (continues): 

What this graph shows is a discernible year-on-year increase in both searches for information on these diseases and online news coverage. That suggests in 2009 there was far greater awareness of sexual health issues than there was in 2008. It is also therefore not a leap to imagine that this increased awareness resulted in increased check-ups and increased detection of diseases which sometimes are left untreated and previously may have gone undetected.

The Department of Health must take some of the credit for increased investment during 2009 in raising awareness of STDs, particularly among teenagers. And like it or not social networks should also be commended - not criticised - for providing the channels and the communities through which much of that awareness-raising messaging was pushed.

Comments

[Jane]

Brilliant post Will. Sadly we've seen this kind of reaction and thinking before, and will again.

I remember 'the internet' being blamed for an increase in child abuse in 2002/2003, because there had been an increase in arrests of child abusers, often caught swapping media via chatrooms. The assumption was the internet had somehow created paedophiles when the truth was it had simply made it easier to catch them and flush them out.

The people catching these diseases were having unprotected sex before Facebook came along. It's laughable to suggest otherwise. But as you say the web has allowed at risk communities to be targeted with increase advertising which has lead to increased detection.

Sadly people blame the internet as a knee-jerk reaction when often it is the solution not the problem.

[Jo]

Great post - hit the nail on the head with the comment that believing that believing somebody saying something is news is a journalism crime!
I look forward to seeing where this story goes in future days!
J x

[Steve Jackson]

Sorry - I'm the last person ever to stand up for the right wing press but...

If someone says:

"Unprotected sex, especially with casual partners, is the biggest risk for syphilis...Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex."

Then that is a story. A good story.

And the people behind that quote either knew that was a story - and they intended it in that way - or they are very very naive.

You can give people stick for turning a non story into a story but if someone in authority comes out and says - increased take up of social media has enabled people to meet up more easily for casual sex and, as a result, STDs are risings - well any tabloid would be daft not to turn that into a story.

And let's face it - if it was a really really crap, uninteresting story neither of us would be discussing it now.

[Will Sturgeon]

Steve, cheers for the comment but I couldn't disagree more with the underlying argument. Where I do agree is with your suggestion that the expert quoted was being, at best, very, very naive. His reason for even mentioning social networking is apocryphal and the stats are shaky.

But onto the bigger issue: you seem to say somebody saying 'something' is news as long as it is newsworthy, just because they have letters after their name or a position of responsibility. And newspapers have no responsibility to sanity check, or dig deeper into those claims? Forgetting the specifics of this story, that is frightening and open to terrible abuses when you think how often apparent 'experts' say things with a dishonest, malicious or dangerously misunderstood agenda or present badly flawed research or interpretation.

The newspapers reporting it as fact - just because 'an expert' said it (not because it's true) amplifies both the claims and the underlying discrepancy.

[Sarah Brown (not THE Sarah Brown)]

Great post Will. I agree there is a huge missed opportunity to talk about the fact that increased detection will be sparing a lot of young people real problems in both the short and long term as a result of a greater awareness.

Instead the professor and The Sun chose to point the finger at social networks and instantly undermine any value or credibility the story COULD have had.

[Joe]

I don't mean to sound cynical but why do you care? The Sun has been making up stories for ever and some of them (ask any Scouser) are a lot more repellent than this.

[Petra Boynton]

Thanks for writing this Will - it is good to see that among all the hype there has been some sensible analysis of this story.

I agree with both Jo and Steve. If someone does say that syphilis is linked to social networking sites, that does sound newsworthy. But it is the duty of a journalist to then check that.

The health professional in question made claims about rising STIs, these can be checked against HPA data. They also made claims they noticed a link with syphilis and social networking. So it would be easy to ask how they measured that - is it their opinion, something they heard from colleagues, or something they have measured. And if they measured it, how? Who were the people affected (were they gay or straight) and were all of them social network 'users'. How was 'social network use' defined. And is it only syphilis linked to social networking or other STIs?

Journalists could speak to other health professionals, epidemiologists and health researchers and find out if the evidence stacks up. It doesn't as far as we can tell but we could tell you how to spot this or what questions to ask to find out how robust the claims are.

It's worth noting that while health professionals are supposed to work from evidence based practice, many work from opinion and judgement. They may be well meaning and might want to get more help for their patients, and they might be speculating on an issue. But if they present something as fact they need to be able to back that up. Otherwise problems like the current moral panic we're seeing can arise.

Already I've noticed regional papers jumping on the bandwagon http://bit.ly/9w5MYQ so again rather than investigating whether the original claims make sense they take them as accurate and re spin the story.

There's been a huge focus on this story globally but very little of this has actually talked about what syphilis is, how you get it, how to prevent, what symptoms to look out for, where to get tested/treatment. Which is an enormous wasted opportunity.

Depressingly major health charities/organisations appear to have ignored the story - when they could have got in and talked about STIs.

Fortunately some sex educators were able to get involved via twitter and through their blogs/websites, but it really has felt like swimming against a huge tide of bad journalism and poor health advice.

In sum I'd say there are several contributors to this problem, some areas of the media and some health care professionals.

The story isn't about to go away so I would invite any of you who are able to write on this to focus on why the story was so inaccurate, why healthcare professionals can act well meaningly (but what can happen when they get things wrong), and most importantly answer the question people are now asking - which is what is syphilis and am I likely to get it?

[To put my role in context I'm an academic, sex researcher and sex educator. I work closely with the media and the public on sexual health messaging. And this story has driven me up the wall]

[Will]

Joe,
You're right of course about The Sun and if the MediaBlog had existed in 1989 then of course we would have rounded on the paper's coverage of Hillsborough. However, we weren't and that doesn't mean we now shouldn't flag things just because they're not THAT bad.

This particular story hit a sweetspot because it combines several major failings of the mainstream media: fear of the new (the internet is killing us); the habit of reporting something that has been said (whether true or not); serving personal thinly-veiled agendas (seizing the opportunity to put the boot in to Facebook, because Murdoch owns MySpace); and trumping up medical scare stories which is getting out of hand now in the tabloids as they break everything in the world, animal, vegetable, mineral, down into a list of things which either cause cancer/obesity or cure cancer/obesity.

[Joe]

Well you know what, I think you're right... I'd characterise it as impotent thrashing rather than putting the boot in though.

[Jon Silk]

The attempts to make 'the internet' cause cancer / STDs / more immigrants flooding our shores are just classic moral panic tactics. That's how the popular press works.

The difference is that the 'net can fight back, as this blog post shows.

I'll bet far more people learn new things (aka 'news') via Facebook than The Sun, which is now far less powerful. No wonder it's pissed off.

[CK]

Good article Will, and I agree with the main thrust of your argument, but surely your point that social networks deserve praise is as baseless as the newspaper's contrary suggestion. It might even be more stretched, seeing as theirs is supported by the opinion of someone in authority (of sorts) and yours has no data or evidence to support it at all?

[Will]

Fair points CK and very valid, though let's not lose sight of the fact that this authority figure has offered nothing other than the apocryphal detail that 'some colleagues' of his said that 'some patients claimed' to have met 'some sexual partners online'. There is no substance at all to those claims while you absolutely can still see Department of Health messaging and awareness raising collateral, such as videos on social networks such as Facebook and YouTube.

[Nadia Saint]

Part of the problem is the discrepancy between the tabloids' representation of the web (evil / dangerous / hunting ground for paedos) and their unashamed use of it for profit AND for easy content for their articles.

Here's an piece in The Sun about online dating http://bit.ly/agSoPe. Wonder how many women got syphillis simply by looking at this article?

[JerryM]

The way I read the graph is the number of searches is steady, while there is an increase in media stories. Am I missing something?

Or are you looking at the trend only from 08-09?

Several statements by the good prof are speculative, though seem reasonable. Social Networks do make it easier to hook up, for whatever purpose. The conclusion that therefore more sex, and thus, more unprotected sex, takes place, is debatable, and would need data.

Public Health officials, from looking at their statements in the media, seem pretty naive about the media. They are passionate about helping the public by telling the world about discoveries they made, and regularly overplay their hand, only for the media to take their hand and run with it even further.

Especially in the UK, with various tabloids like The Sun to choose from, it would be advisable for scientists to go through a short media studies program while doing their studies. Such program would be helpful in lower schools as well of course, and I think that's already going on or in the works. Can't get there fast enough.

[Chris]

Jerry, sorry but you're just reading the graph wrong. It's pretty clear.

[Michelle]

We are moving so fast and other people approach readers in many ways now. Even social site are no excuse from being getting the dirt and being as a tool of influencing young people. Casual sex should be done with extra precautions.