"Guardian fabricates attack on Panorama", and James Randerson's response
Response 1 from the Panorama Extra story from May 2007
Posted by walter on May 27, 2007, 5:01 pm
An excellent Panorama programme on Monday that, for once, featured the
EVIDENCE of health effects from mobile technology, seems to have been sabotaged
by the Guardian.
The main question the programme was asking was this: IF there is a potential
health issue in placing phone masts near schools (a conclusion of Stewart
report, accepted by government), AND the Wifi microwave exposure is greater at
the typical distances, then WHY should Wifi be placed in classrooms?
The Guardian piece that appeared on Monday thundered that the Panorama
programme to be aired that evening, concerning health risks from Wi-fi, was
"grossly unscientific", a "scare story", did not take into account a "basic"
scientific concept, it presented a "bogus" comparison.
Panorama's claims on Wi-Fi radiation risks, http://education.guardian.co.uk/schools/story/0,,2084525,00.html]
In addition, several further accusatory comments about the programme from the
author, Mr Randerson, appeared on the internet piece Commentisfree, also before
the programme was transmitted, comments such as:
- "The claim is based on a spectacularly disingenuous presentation of the
- "Only after quizzing the press officer did it become clear that the team
measured radiation strength 100 metres away from the base station and one
metre away from the laptop"
- "my suspicion is that it was deliberately presented in that way to
- "..writing the story on a Sunday with little chance to get through to
someone who could set them straight"
- "Certainly most of them fell for it without mentioning the 100 metre
versus one metre detail."
- "bogus TV experiments".
The accusation that Panorama was deliberately misleading is a very serious
one. However it was clear from the programme there was nothing 'bogus' about
It is interesting to note that Mr Randerson had not seen the programme before
making these criticisms. They are all in fact based on one 'criticism' - Mr
Randerson's claim that Panorama were misleading the public by suggesting a Wi-fi
source in the classroom was the same as (or 3 times worse than) a phone mast in
the classroom. That would indeed be a serious health hazard!
The Guardian piece says clarification was sought from the BBC. "A spokesman
for the programme told the Guardian that the "three times higher" comparison was
based on measurements taken one metre away from the laptop and 100 metres away
from the phone mast, although material sent to journalists promoting the
programme did not make this clear" (It was however clear enough for the Mail and
This straightforward BBC answer (they must have been puzzled by the question)
ought to have cleared up the 'misunderstanding'; it was the typical exposures
from masts and Wifi that were being compared, not the two sources. With the
clarification, how is it possible to get this wrong?
For such serious accusations, surely the right thing to do would be to watch
the programme and confirm the comparison being made really was 'bogus'.
Rather, time seemed of the essence, and Mr Randerson chose to go to town on
his straw man. An expert, Dr Paddy Regan, was quoted criticising the methodology
for not taking measurements from the two devices at equal distances. But clearly
there would be no point in measuring the Wifi 100 yards away in order to assess
exposure in the classroom. Assuming Dr Regan has not taken leave of his senses,
one would have to wonder what question he was actually asked. But Mr Randerson
would not say what it was he asked Dr Regan.
The piece also suffers from one-sidedness. Despite the onslaught on the
programme's integrity, no comment was provided from anyone concerned with the
health risks of Wifi.
Regarding the attack on the programme, in response to my email Mr Randerson
"The story was really an attack on the way the documentary was sold to
the press rather than the case for or against wifi itself."
Judge for yourself whether the above statements constitute an attack on the
programme. Bear in mind the Mail and the Telegraph had no difficulty
interpreting the comparison, without needing any BBC clarification, even on a
Interestingly, Mr Randerson now concedes that "The programme was itself
clearer about what it did".
So after all that, the fierce attack was unjustified after all - perhaps an
apology is appropriate, then? I also asked why the piece was so one-sided in the
viewpoints sought. Mr Randerson replied:
"Lastly, there was some counter comment in the story from people who do
believe that wifi poses a problem but this was cut out during the editing
process because the story was compressed."
'Reasons of space' is an old chestnut - there was not enough space to be
balanced! But there was space for the unwarranted attack which takes up most of
Was this attack the purpose of the article? This question needs to be
answered by the space-deprived editors:
Why was such a strong article, already defaming the quality and integrity of
an investigative programme reporting on an important health issue, and just
prior to being broadcast, further unbalanced by 'editing' out of counter
And what was the unseemly rush to denigrate the Panorama programme in the
first place? I am still waiting Mr Randerson's response to these questions.