“Totally discredited”. That’s how the BBC’s medical correspondent Fergus Walsh, and his colleagues, describe the alleged connection between the MMR (Measles, Mumps and Rubella) vaccine and autism.

Don Benson, a Feedback listener thinks a different term would be appropriate.

He thinks it would be better to say “has been widely rejected within the British medical hierarchy”.

He thinks that “BBC journalists should be cautious about accepting opinions from the medical hierarchy as unquestionably true and free from undeclared interests or bias”.

Who should we believe? Some scepticism is understandable. We were assured for some time that all was well in Mid Staffordshire before the horrors of some of its (non) care were starkly revealed. Then there is the running controversy over the Leeds heart hospital. One leading heart specialist said he would not send his child there for an operation. Others maintain it is perfectly safe and has a fine record.

Also many of the greatest breakthroughs in medicine have come through the rejection of current orthodoxies and in the teeth of opposition from medical establishments.

Many, perhaps most, journalists have an ingrained scepticism about authority, and when there is a debate about a medical controversy there is an understandable tendency for broadcasters, committed to impartiality, to offer all sides equal time.

However as Professor Steve Jones pointed out, in a report commissioned by the BBC Trust, this can be misleading.

“According to the Economic and Social Science Research Council survey, at the height of the panic” (about a MMR/autism link) ”most people felt that because both sides of the argument had been given equal time by the media, then there must have been equal evidence for both (although by then the result had been thoroughly discredited by experts)”.

I remember, how could I forget, in my own family at the time of the original “scare”, a particularly vigorous debate about whether our daughters should have the MMR vaccine. They eventually did so.

There is no easier way for a media outlet to fill space than by running a health scare story together with emotive coverage of the allegedly affected children. Often they are grossly inflated, sometimes entirely false. Yet some of these “scares” can be justified. Remember the long Sunday Times Thalidomide campaign which was triumphantly vindicated?

All of this means that I was particularly interested in talking to Fergus Walsh in person. Here is this week’s Feedback interview.

Next week’s edition of Feedback is the last in the present run, and most of it will be given over to listeners questioning the Controller of Radio 4, Gwyneth Williams.

If you have a question for her please let me know. Otherwise I will have to ask all the questions myself and surely you would not want that!

Roger Bolton

 

•Listen to this week's Feedback

•Get in touch with the programme, find out how to join the listener panel or subscribe to the podcast on the Feedback website

•Read all of Roger's Feedback blog posts

Editor's update: There are some great pictures and a summary of the discussions from the first programme in this series of Leader Conference on the website - PM.

Tonight Andrew Rawnsley chairs the first of four live studio debates called Leader Conference. The programmes will follow the format of the main daily editorial meeting that takes places at many of Britain's leading newspapers, known as the leader conference. It's where the senior journalists get together to argue about the editorials which the paper will publish the next day are going to say - whether it's a Times leader or what The Sun Says.

Leading articles are one of the most important features of any newspaper's pages. Yet how they come to be written remains essentially a mystery to all but the participants.

We aim to cast light on that process over the coming weeks. But this is also debate to a purpose. As with most newspapers, we're going to talk about three subjects in the news which we think are important. Often - but not always - one topic will be domestic, one international and one will look at the news in a lighter vein. At the end of each discussion one of the journalists will be invited by Andrew, in his role as editor of what we might call The Daily Rawnsley - to summarise what the leading article will say―and why.

Over the coming weeks, Andrew will be joined by top figures from across Britain's newspaper industry. These will include writers from the tabloids and the broadsheet papers, from London titles and those based in other parts of the UK, from those with a right-of-centre political perspective and those with a left-of-centre one.

The Daily Rawnsley has no allegiances. Its readership is the Radio 4 audience and what matters in Leader Conference is the persuasiveness of the arguments that are made not the force with which they are put. That is the essence of live discussion - but here there is a premium on resolution of the debate to reach a settled view on the issues.

One thing this series won't be is a dour survey of tired old opinions. Andrew Rawnsley will present an entertaining, often amusing and always lively programme - helped, we hope, by Radio 4 listeners. We'd like your views on what our leaders should be saying. You can e-mail us at: leader@bbc.co.uk or join us on Twitter at #Radio4.

So, let the debate commence...

Hugh Levinson is an editor in BBC Radio Current Affairs

• Leader Conference starts on Wednesday 6th July at 8pm on Radio 4 and runs for four weeks.
• You'll be able to listen to it online on the Radio 4 website shortly after broadcast and for seven days after that.
• To join in on Twitter use the hashtag #Radio4 or you can email the programme at leader@bbc.co.uk
• Find more Radio 4 factual programmes to listen to online

UPDATE: the Taliban debate on Radio 4 has now finished and I've closed the live chat. The chat will be archived here permanently and we've lifted the seven-day limit on the radio debate so you'll be able to listen again whenever you like. If you listened, or took part in the online debate, please leave a blog comment here and tell us what you thought. And for news of forthcoming debates and events, follow @BBCRadio4 on Twitter and 'like' our page on Facebook.

The debate is under way. Has the Taliban Won in Afghanistan? is on BBC Radio 4 now. Panellists include Peter W. Galbraith, outspoken critic of the 2009 presidential elections in Afghanistan and Lieutenant General Sir Graeme Lamb who was working, until recently, as a senior advisor to US General McChrystal. Join the debate by typing your comments directly into the live chat below or, if you're on Twitter, by tweeting with the hashtag #TalibanDebate.

I'm hosting the debate and Radio 4 Producers Jo Mathys and Hugh Levinson are on hand. We'll publish as many of your comments as we can. We'll close the live chat at 2100, fifteen minutes after the programme ends, and we'll archive the whole debate here. We've also made sure that the programme will be available to listen to on the Radio 4 web site indefinitely.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Listen to Radio 4 on 92-95 FM, on DAB, on your digital TV or, from anywhere in the world, online. More details on the Radio 4 web site.
• The debate was recorded at Chatham House in London last night.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00tmtqc

We'd like you to join tomorrow's Radio 4 debate about the outcome of the war in Afghanistan. Host Eddie Mair is heading over to Chatham House to record the programme after he's finished on PM this evening, for transmission at 2000 tomorrow. We'll be opening the discussion here on the blog half an hour before transmission at 1930 and producers Hugh Levinson and Jo Mathys will be on-hand to host the debate.

There are two ways to join in: either tweet using the hashtag #TalibanDebate or type your comment directly into the live chat here on the blog. We'll publish as many of your messages as we can during the debate and the live chat will be archived permanently after it finishes.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Listen to the debate on Radio 4 FM (92 - 95), DAB, digital TV or on the Radio 4 web site at 2000 on 8 September 2010.
• The picture shows Taliban in Afghanistan. It's from the BBC News web site.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t5l7f

The #GreatestCity debate took place this morning at 0900 and hundreds of you joined in here on the blog, on Twitter and on Facebook. Four World Cities squared up for the big fight. Laurie Taylor chaired, four city lovers made the case for their favourites - London, Mumbai, New York and Istanbul - and an audience in the Radio Theatre (in the heart of London, it goes without saying) decided. And the winner was Mumbai.

You can now 'replay' the chat while listening to the programme on the iPlayer.

And once you've listened, please do us a favour and leave a comment on this blog post (using your BBC login) to tell us what you thought of the chat and the programme.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Listen to the Greatest Cities Debate at 0900 this morning and to the other programmes from the season on the London: Another Country page.
• City Pictures: New York, by Dhilung Kirat (licence); Istanbul, by Tim O'Brien (licence); Mumbai, by Danial Chitnis (licence); London, by Dimitry B (licence) and Cobbles, by Ogoco (licence).

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00t5l7f

Laurie Taylor wants to know which of these four cities is the planet's greatest: Istanbul, Mumbai, New York or London. The big debate is on Radio 4 tomorrow morning (Monday 12 July) at 0900 but we want your opinion now. Leave a comment here on the blog or tweet using the hashtag #GreatestCity, then - here's the important bit - come back to the blog during the programme and join a live chat with other listeners and contributors to the London Season (we're hoping, for instance, that London expert Tony Travers from LSE will be able to join us). See you there!

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Listen to the Greatest Cities Debate at 0900 tomorrow morning and to the other programmes from the season on the London: Another Country page.
• The picture is a press photo of Scutari in Istanbul during the early twentieth century, from the Library of Congress collection via the Wikimedia Commons.

This morning's Woman's Hour balloon debate was a huge hit with the studio audience and I've just closed a very busy parallel live chat on the same theme. Click 'replay' to see all the comments we published. Some were typed directly into the chat and others sent via Twitter using the hashtag #WHballoon.

If you listened to the programme or joined in here, please tell us what you thought of the event and of the live chat. Should we run more chats like this around Radio 4 programmes? If so, what could we do to improve the experience? What would get you involved? Tell us in a comment below. I'll make sure that Woman's Hour editor Jill Burridge and debate producer Anne Peacock get all your feedback.

Read more about the balloon debate, the candidates and their advocates on the Woman's Hour web site. The Radio 4 interactive team filmed the event and you'll be able to watch their video on the same page.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Picture by Dick Rochester. Used under licence.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006slnx

I hope you are not disappointed by this week's blog!

I would have liked to avoid commenting on the election coverage since many Feedback correspondents are threatening to leave the country if Radio 4 keeps on clearing its schedules for the prime ministerial debates which are being transmitted at the same time on television. It is our correspondents who have a big say in the Feedback agenda, however, and that is what many have written to us about this week.

Several listeners to the first of the debates believe that the party leader who won the television debate was not the same person who won on radio. Like the Kennedy Nixon presidential debates 50 years ago they believe that radio enables you to concentrate on content, while television forces you to consider how well the candidates have shaved, how white and regular their teeth are and if there is any dandruff on their shoulders.

I am not going to be so foolish as to equate either Gordon Brown, Nick Clegg or David Cameron with Richard Nixon, but you get the point.

Other listeners thought that the gladiatorial contests should not be called debates since there was not much interaction going on, with each leader downloading soundbites rather actually debating. Others of a more nationalist disposition think that three leaders aren't sufficient. They want to know why their man wasn't up there on stage.

On the morning after the second debate I put some of those concerns to the deputy Head of BBC News Steve Mitchell:

Roger Bolton presents Feedback on BBC Radio 4

• If you have any questions for the outgoing Controller of Radio 4 or for the editor of the Archers please let us know. Both will be coming on Feedback in the next couple of weeks.
• Listen again, get in touch with the programme, find out how to join Feedback's listener panel or subscribe to the podcast on the Feedback web page.
• Listen again to the first and second leaders' debates (as part of The World Tonight's coverage) here. Watch the first debate at ITV.com and the second at Sky.com
• The picture shows the famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy TV debate. It's from the Wikimedia Commons.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00nkcfk

This evening starting at 2000, the disputatious crew of the good ship Moral Maze will be debating 'Twitter and mob rule'. Guests are regulars Melanie Philips and Clifford Longley plus Kenan Malik and James Panton. The programme's billing says:

This week the Moral Maze asks "when does a popular and spontaneous protest become mob rule?" Fans of Twitter, the micro blogging site, have chalked up a couple of notable victories of late. Followers helped to expose a legal injunction against the Guardian and Twitter led protests generated tens of thousands of complaints against Jan Moir when she wrote a column using the death of Stephen Gately to criticise gay marriage. Is this net based protest a valuable tool to demonstrate popular opinion or are we sacrificing traditional political engagement for the instant gratification direct action?

Since I expect the Twittersphere will be humming loudly during the programme (it's already started), let's keep track of the conversation using a hashtag.

If you're listening this evening and you feel like Tweeting about the programme or its theme, use the hash tag #moralmaze. That way everyone who's listening will be able to see each other's contributions. Use a search tool like Ice Rocket or Twitter's own. Or use a real-time display gadget like Twitterfall. There's a comprehensive list of Twitter clients and services on Wikipedia. Just follow the hashtag #moralmaze.

I'll be there, listening and tweeting on the @Radio4blog account as will other Radio 4 people. Guests Kenan Malik (a regular presenter of Analysis) and James Panton (an Oxford academic) are on Twitter and they've both mentioned their appearances on tonight's programme already.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• The Moral Maze is live from Broadcasting House tonight at 2000.
• There's likely to be plenty of discussion of the programme on the BBC Religion and Ethics messageboard.
• The picture, PDX Pillow Fight #8, is by Sam Grover and is used under licence.

Eric Joyce MP.

Brigadier Buster Howes, Head of overseas operations, MOD.

Francesc Vendrell, former EU Special Representative to Afghanistan and Lindsey German, Stop the War Coalition.

Eddie Mair, presenter

Eddie Mair, presenter

To warm you up for tonight's debate about the war in Afghanistan, chaired by Eddie Mair, here are some pictures taken at the recording. They were taken by photographer Tully Chaudry.

Steve Bowbrick is editor of the Radio 4 blog

• Afghanistan: Is It Mission Impossible? At 2000 on BBC Radio 4 tonight.

Steve Bowbrick is Editor of the Radio 4 blog

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00mrd9g

Going against the grain in front of your peers takes some doing in any sphere and one of the reasons Iconoclasts has provoked such interest is because our well-known, heavyweight speakers come on and present genuinely iconoclastic views which attract robust challenge - not least from other experts in their own field. So at least we know it's working.

When we were shaping the series we wanted to find people who could talk passionately from a position of experience and knowledge so that even the most provocative views could be the start of serious debate from a less predictable place. And, of course, as important has been including the views and comments of the Radio 4 audience while the show is live on air. And they've certainly been letting us know what they think during the last couple of shows.

When we were considering this subject area, we'd talked to Clive Murray, Assistant Chief Constable of Tayside, who had made comments about the age of consent earlier this year and received a strong reaction from the media, but it was while researching through the areas that we discovered the legal academic John Spencer from Selwyn College, Cambridge who is on record taking a similar line.

He plans to use his opening 5 minutes at the top of tomorrow night's programme to set out his argument - which will include looking at other European countries where for example the age of consent is lower than here.

He'll then have to brace himself for the challenge from studio panellists and comments from the listeners as the debate gets underway. The programme goes live from just after the 8 O'Clock news and Edward Stourton will be in the chair to direct what we expect to be a lively discussion - including those e-mails and texts. So if you've got something to say make sure you get your views to us and you can do that by sending them to iconoclasts@bbc.co.uk.

Christine Morgan is Head of Religion, Radio at the BBC

• Iconoclasts will be transmitted live on BBC Radio 4 tomorrow evening at 2000.
• The Daily Mail covered the Iconoclasts debate this morning.
• Picture of law books by John Thurm. Used under licence.