h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/may/06/bbc-smoking-row-doctors?commentpage=last#end-of-comments

Come on folks - get piled in

>> Nick Reynolds, a social media executive at BBC Online, said the article would not be taken down. It is located on a part of the BBC website called H2G2, which is intended "to encourage the community to write about all aspects of human existence for a collaborative guide to life, the universe and everything" and the piece had been written by a member of the public, not a BBC journalist.


Good for Nick. I'm impressed.

Unfortunately Z's not in yet, but I know he'll want to comment about being a doctor and QAing medical entries.

Yes, my first thought (after thinking the journalist was an idiot), was well done to nick for standing up for sanity...
If, the journalist were correct, which clearly they are not, then I'd be a mass murdering drug addict terrorist by now, as having been exposed to information on all such things clearly these people think you automatically then do them really some people oughta learn what logic is before they start misusing it actually, strange they'd not also highlighted the entry on 'retred =- the desperate cigarette' from Roymondo

I think my first thought was I'm a doctor and my real name is all over this. Anyone can link it with my real life existence. I really don't want my professional persona associated with a site that promotes smoking.

Of course I don't think that we should have a article saying smoking's great - but I do agree about freedom of speech.

if its such a big deal why didn't they comment on it 10 years ago when it was published

get it in context people???!!!

It's not a big deal. It's just a annoying time for this to happen.

write a strongly worded reply a'la "annoyed of tunbridge wells" pointing out that what they have a beef with is a historic document, potraying peoples attitudes to smoking in a previous decade, and 'where were you 10 years ago' when it was published???

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2003/aug/07/shopping.health?INTCMP=SRCH

And this from the Guardian in 2000 ...

"So how bad is it, smoking while pregnant? The answer is that if you smoke very little, there will probably be no detectable effect on your unborn child. That doesn't mean there won't be an impact on your child's health or development: it means any impact will probably be undetectable."

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2000/sep/19/healthandwellbeing.smoking?INTCMP=SRCH

Well said Taff, Z.
Good one Trout. Same paper, same time (more or less) different viewpoint.
Oh, how the times change

This is from The Guardian, 2003 (link above) in an article entitled "Smoking is good for you"

"... Smokers are at least doing their bit to slow down the runaway obesity epidemic that is sweeping through the western world. "In many studies, you often find smokers are slimmer. We've certainly seen it in our studies," says Jodi Flaws at the University of Maryland school of medicine. "Some people think it's due to certain chemicals in cigarettes somehow making them burn more calories, but others believe it suppresses appetite. It may well be both."

Drastically upping your chances of cancer and heart disease might not be the best way to avoid obesity, but it's certainly easier than running round the block.

Scientists have also found evidence that smoking might, in some circumstances, help prevent the onset of various dementias..."

And here's Terence Conran (writing under the Guardian logo in 2000) telling us about "The Perfect Cigar".

He (and therefore we must infer The Guardian) advises that "The perfect cigar is about ritual as well as smoking".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2000/oct/22/cuba.life1?INTCMP=SRCH

I wonder what the good doctor would have said had he found this guide entry: A6671973

Good of Nick to stand up for h2g2.

Leaving aside the idiocy of the original complaint to the BBC about the entry, I'm more concerned about our attitudes here. The entry is neither a medical entry, not an entry promoting smoking. I seriously hope we're not going to see changes in editorial policy around this post-sale, and it's something we should talk about at some point.

Z, I can understand your concerns about being a doctor and being associated with something that promotes smoking. But that entry doesn't promote smoking, in fact it has statements at the beginning and end about that. I'm a bit alarmed at the idea of an h2g2 Health Editor that would see that entry as being promotional, and as being a medical entry that needed changing

If the entry were about smoking tobacco in general, I'd agree that there would need to be some medical input into the entry. I can't see the relevance of medical input into an instructional on rollies, unless it were something about RSI or arthritic fingers

Forgot who said it, but after pointing out that the guy didn't do the research but that "He (the doctor) did go to the media, though."

We're trying to keep H2G2 alive. WE should be going to the media if we can -- if there's some non-sense or some good-sense article, and you know H2G2 has covered it, go to the "comments" section on the article that caught your eye, and put a link to OUR article. It will get more eyes on THIS prize, might get us more join-up-s and make us more visible, certainly.

Don't wait for someone to mention us negatively, we should be spreading the word what a good resource and a good time WE are!

There's only one thing worse than being talked about, and that's not being talked about. That article in The Guardian has given h2g2 more publicity than the BBC have in the past ten years, unfortunately.

Kea: if I was health editor all I would want to do is ensure that no edited articles were downright dangerous. So nothing saying 'if you have crushing central chest pain don't call 999, take a glass of milk instead'.

I would have just commented in peer review asking the author to consider changing the health warning to something more human, and add a paragraph on the dangers of roll ups. If they hadn't wanted to then fine

But people care if the BBC publish this stuff, no one would care if we did!!

Good points, KB and others. There's no such thing as bad publicity.

A couple of years ago I wrote in the Post about h2g2 and the media - here's a more balanced view of the type of coverage we get:

A48561122

But we could always use some more

Ha, all I can say is thank Bob the original entry was modified! Imagine if they'd see it in its original glory...