Let Us Spray: The Aftermath

9:38 Aug 18, 2009 41

Depending on where you're standing, TV3's 2006 documentary special, Let Us Spray, is either a textbook journalistic investigation that richly deserved its Qantas Award -- or a classic example of not letting the facts get in the way of a good story.

It was certainly an exceptionally important story, one that covered New Zealand's reckless history of agri-chemical use, through to the contemporary belief of former residents of the New Plymouth suburb of Paritutu (built on the doorstep of the Ivon Watkins Dow plant during the years when it produced the herbicides 2,4,5 T and 2,4 D) that they and their families have suffered awful, generational health effects as a result of exposure to a contaminant in commercial herbicides -- dioxin.

TV3 gave the producer and reporter on Let Us Spray -- Keith Slater and Melanie Reid respectively -- fully 18 months to carry out their work, and 90 minutes of prime-time to tell their story. The words "cover-up" are used throughout the documentary. It lmakes an alarming case.

But earlier this month, a long-running investigation by the Broadcasting Standards Authority found that the programme had breached standards relating to fairness and balance in the way it dealt with both the Ministry of Health and ESR, which conducted the 2005 study of blood serum dioxin levels of past Paritutu residents.

That decision, according to Steven Price (who, let us be quite clear, acted for the Ministry of Health in the course of the BSA complaints) indicates that:

… the Qantas media awards are seriously flawed. They do no quality checking at all, even when concerns are raised about nominees. If they’re supposed to be honouring excellence in journalism, that’s a big problem. They should be deeply embarrassed by this.

Price notes that ESR wrote a letter to the Qantas Awards judges in 2007 flagging its concerns about the programme. This was, said Paul Norris, who chaired the awards news and current affairs judging panel that year, "extraordinary" and "out of order": an example of a government agency unacceptably attempting to influence the judging process.

It would be fair to say that the ministry and ESR were equally as angry for their part -- especially over the implication that the 2005 ESR report was botched. The documentary made that claim on the basis of an examination of the study data by a forensic accountant, John Leonard, who recommends in the programme that "somebody totally independent looks at it."

But someone did -- the study was independently peer-reviewed by four experts, including two PhD biostatisticians. TV3's analysis was not reviewed.

(Additional note: The study was reviewed again, by a different set of experts, in light of Leonard's review. These reviewers did get all the raw data, including Appendix 0 [it's not customary for peer reviewers to be given such data], and they also found that the study was robust and the errors picked up by Leonard were not material.)

A furious rebuttal published on the Ministry of Health website maintains the errors picked up by Ferguson were "typographical" and played no part in the study's conclusions. The BSA found that TV3 should have given the ministry and ESR a fairer chance to respond to its claims.

So did TV3 do the right thing, and resist a crown entity's bullying over a peripheral issue? Or do the BSA's decisions indicate there was something badly wrong with the story? The same questions might equally be applied to the Qantas judges. That's what we're asking in this week's programme. I can't tell you exactly who will be appearing -- that's being finalised today -- but it should be a fascinating show.

For reference: The Ministry of Health's dioxins resource.

And the programme itself, which is still available online, as a series of 300k .wmv files:

If you'd like to join us for the recording from 5pm tomorrow at TVNZ, hit "Reply" and let me know asap. Me, I'm back to reading reports …

41 responses to this post

First ←Older Page 1 2 Newer→ Last

Craig Ranapia, 09:48 Aug 18, 2009

This was, said Paul Norris, who chaired the awards news and current affairs judging panel that year, "extraordinary" and "out of order": an example of a government agency unacceptably attempting to influence the judging process.
Um... what?

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Eddie Clark, 10:07 Aug 18, 2009

Bob brockie had a good column on this (if worded somewhat provocatively).

Wellington • Since Nov 2006 • 273 posts Report
Bridget Dale, 10:12 Aug 18, 2009

This is on a bit of a tangent - but I wonder if such poisoning and subsequent cover up has anything to do with the poison in Aucklands harbour at present?

Since Aug 2009 • 1 posts Report
Jose Barbosa, 10:15 Aug 18, 2009

On a related note, I remember interviewing a resident from Paritutu just after the documentary aired. He was mainly just fed up, as was the rest of the community he claimed, with journalists who kept on descending on the area every few years sparking yet another ultimately fruitless round of media attention.
As to the doco itself, I remember thinking at the time it was a good crack at presenting difficult scientific and mathematical methodologies to the public. But it does seem a few errors in the ESR study were made much of.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 64 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 10:19 Aug 18, 2009

This week's Media Watch is on-line and worth a listen. Am I the only person who thought Keith Slater would have done himself a favour by not being quite so blithely dismissive of the issues raised by the BSA? I came away the uncomfortable impression (perhaps unfair) that the science (and rigorous reporting of same) was a strap-on to a 'little people vs. the evil corporate and callously indifferent bureaucracy' narrative, rather than an integral part of the story.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 10:23 Aug 18, 2009

Bridget, it was a biotoxin. Not rat poison, dropped by DOC, as people were so quick to assume.

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Russell Brown, 10:23 Aug 18, 2009

This is on a bit of a tangent - but I wonder if such poisoning and subsequent cover up has anything to do with the poison in Aucklands harbour at present?
In a word, no.
The toxin identified, tetrodotoxin, comes from bacteria in several species of fish and marine animals. It's a mystery as to exactly what's going on right now, but this a natural poison.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 10:26 Aug 18, 2009

And to be fair, Let Us Spray was great television, and I'm sure nobody at Three was complaining about the media attention the story attracted. I've certainly got experience of how damn frustrating it can be when you've invested a lot of effort and time (though not 18 months in my case) in a story that doesn't quite pan out the way you'd expect -- or even completely fall over.
But I'm not entirely confident that, in this case, good televison makes good journalism.

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 10:27 Aug 18, 2009

So did TV3 do the right thing, and resist a crown entity's bullying over a peripheral issue? Or do the BSA's decisions indicate there was something badly wrong with the story?
The latter, I think, based on how badly science is covered, by and large, in the media. Looking forward to your show.

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Tom Semmens, 10:55 Aug 18, 2009

In a word, no.
The toxin identified, tetrodotoxin, comes from bacteria in several species of fish and marine animals. It's a mystery as to exactly what's going on right now, but this a natural poison.
Lies! There is a conspiracy of silence between big government (DOC) and the chemical companies supplying them. It is a national scandal that now includes a sensational cover-up by government scientists. Dogs dying at Brown's Bay are just the collies in the coal mine on this one. We cannot forget the pooches poisoned whilst romping around our beaches. TV3 are going to make an expose on this, called:
Let us Bay

Sevilla, Espana • Since Nov 2006 • 2217 posts Report
Russell Brown, 10:56 Aug 18, 2009

I've just clarified one point: The 2005 study was reviewed again, by a different set of experts, in light of Leonard's review.
These reviewers did get all the raw data, including Appendix 0 (it's not actually customary for peer reviewers to be given such data), and they also found that the study was robust and the errors picked up by Leonard were not material. I'll certainly be asking whoever fronts from TV3 about this.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
James Green, 11:02 Aug 18, 2009

I remember watching it and finding it quite gripping, but I was also like WTF when they presented a forensic accountant. It's not like there is an international shortage of epidemiologists.

Limerick, Ireland • Since Nov 2006 • 703 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 11:04 Aug 18, 2009

The 2005 study was reviewed again, by a different set of experts, in light of Leonard's review.
Just remind us, who was Leonard? You mentioned a forensic accountant who did a review but this seems to be someone else.

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Craig Ranapia, 11:06 Aug 18, 2009

I remember watching it and finding it quite gripping
Of course it was -- you'd have to be either a sociopath or dead not to be moved by a woman talking about the death of a child. Pushing emotional buttons is easy; constructing a reasoned and fact-based argument. Not so much...

North Shore, Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 12370 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 11:09 Aug 18, 2009

Just remind us, who was Leonard?
Don't worry, I read Steven Price's summary and he covered this.

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 11:18 Aug 18, 2009

Sorry to be picky here, but the John Ferguson you mention in the post is actually John Leonard, who was the forensic accountant. Steven Price's assessment of him is qutie withering:
The independent reviews of the Leonard report, including one by a WHO expert from the United States, are here. They acknowledge that Mr Leonard picked up a couple of minor glitches, but find that they are inconsequential. One reviewer suggests that Mr Leonard plainly didn’t have the expertise to review the study

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Russell Brown, 11:28 Aug 18, 2009

Don't worry, I read Steven Price's summary and he covered this.
And I briefly had him as "Ferguson", not "Leonard" in the original post, which will have added to the confusion. Corrected now.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Russell Brown, 11:35 Aug 18, 2009

Sorry to be picky here, but the John Ferguson you mention in the post is actually John Leonard, who was the forensic accountant. Steven Price's assessment of him is qutie withering:
Yep, as above. I had the name correct in everything but the post, which I've corrected now.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 22850 posts Report
Roger Lacey, 11:36 Aug 18, 2009

In a word, no.
The toxin identified, tetrodotoxin, comes from bacteria in several species of fish and marine animals. It's a mystery as to exactly what's going on right now, but this a natural poison.
I was initially a skeptic on the poisoning theory but I'm starting to think there is a lot more to the story on this than we are being told.
From what I have heard reported, there is only one dog that has the biotoxin in it's stomach and I think the sea slugs are being made the scapegoat (scapeslug?) for the deaths. I've never seen or heard heard of dogs eating sea slugs before and why did several dogs eat them on the same day?
It may be coincidence that the dog and sea life deaths occurred shortly after the poison drop on Rangitoto and that the affected area is not further up or down the coast but it's something that requires more thorough and transparent investigation.
Some of the poison dropped on Rangitoto ended up in the water. I've even heard of a block landing on a kayak that was paddling past. The poison used is brodifacoum which unlike 1080 does not break down in water but it will bind to organic matter and disperse over time.
I'm not calling this one way or the other, I just think there needs to be a more independent investigation than the current testing by interested parties.

Whatakataka Bay Surf Club… • Since Apr 2008 • 148 posts Report
Carol Stewart, 11:52 Aug 18, 2009

Russell - sweet, thanks.
Roger Lacey - the toxicological investigations on the dead dogs were inconsistent with brodifacoum poisoning. It's fair to say that, as Russell noted, the transport pathways for the biotoxin tetrodotoxin are still not well understood, but at this stage the evidence points much more firmly towards the biotoxin than brodifacoum. This is what Dr Susie Wood, of the Cawthron Institute, has to say:
Cawthron has already confirmed dog deaths from anatoxin, a neurotoxin from ‘freshwater’ algae, with a record number of river system fatalities around the country last summer in Nelson, Takaka, Wellington and Canterbury in particular.
While there has never been a report of a dog dying from marine algae before, Dr Wood says evidence to date strongly suggests this is the most likely scenario with the freshwater cases displaying similar symptoms to the recent dog deaths “including frothing at the mouth and paralysis.”
She says, “dogs are particularly susceptible because, along with neurotoxins, algae emit an odour which, while putrid to humans, is particularly appealing to dogs, and given they like to eat rotten smelly things, they are most likely to ingest it, which we know is often fatal.”

Wellington • Since Jul 2008 • 830 posts Report
Steve Curtis, 11:56 Aug 18, 2009

Isnt the Qantas Media awards just another contrived Reality show.
There was the Columbia Journalism School who previously had a connection, who really were from Columbia Missouri.
Im looking forward to the new Jetstar Media Awards... as something to avoid.

Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 314 posts Report
Jo S, 12:19 Aug 18, 2009

And journalists wonder why scientists are often so reluctant to deal with the media, and careful with their words when they do.
When a passion for the facts is a central tenet of your life it can be very hard when people play fast and loose with them in a public arena, while touting them as "the truth".

is it autumn yet? • Since May 2007 • 80 posts Report
ChrisW, 12:55 Aug 18, 2009

Peter Gluckman on Nine to Noon this morning commented on the folate in bread debacle - "the science became unstable because of its misuse in the media".

Gisborne • Since Apr 2009 • 851 posts Report
Rich Lock, 13:15 Aug 18, 2009

In relation to the Armageddon Death Beaches (tm), it could be worse....

back in the mother countr… • Since Feb 2007 • 2728 posts Report
Brickley Paiste, 14:42 Aug 18, 2009

but it should be a fascinating show.
Do you mean that without any irony deficiency?
Im looking forward to the new Jetstar Media Awards... as something to avoid.
That would be a fantastic way to add more categories to the already bulging Qantas stable. Jetstar Media Award for Best Albino Jouranlist who writes about Spores and Fungi? The number of awards they have makes it seem as if Qantas has a vested interest in having its logo plastered on every publication in the country. A hackneyed comment, I grant you, but one worth repeating.

Since Mar 2009 • 164 posts Report