Caleb Day against Radio New Zealand

The article

Radio New Zealand published an online article on November 20, 2024, headlined: ‘A risk of over-diagnosing ADHD’, leading NZ psychiatrist warns.

This was based on a lengthy radio interview in which addiction psychiatrist Sam McBride raised his concerns around the potential over-diagnosis of attention deficit hyper-activity disorder (ADHD).

The article included commentary from the interview with additional reporting, sourcing of relevant data and links to other articles.

It reported that New Zealand had seen a tenfold increase in ADHD medications since 2006 and that Pharmac had reported a 140 percent increase in demand for the medications in the past two years. Dr McBride said he believed there was an over prescribing of medications and a risk of over-medication and went on to explain why he thought this was the case.

The article also mentioned an earlier report that some researchers believed there was a treatment gap and that many New Zealanders were still going without.  

The complaint

Caleb Day complained the article breached Media Council Principle (1) Accuracy, Fairness and Balance as it misled readers by omitting New Zealand statistics on the percentage of people who had been diagnosed with ADHD. The article instead cited international and US statistics to suggest similar figures may apply in New Zealand.

He said the article did not provide an alternative voice, there was no critical scrutiny and Dr McBride’s opinion was sometimes presented without clearly distinguishing facts from comment and opinion.

He also cited Principles (3) Children and Young People (4) Comment and Fact and (5) Columns Blogs, Opinion and Letters.

Mr Day said many readers of articles like this were likely to conclude that many ADHD diagnoses needed to be treated with a grain of salt and this could contribute to the difficulties of many children and young people. The public interest did not override the interests of those who would be harmed by this article’s lack of accuracy, fairness and balance.

The response

In response RNZ said the headline, introduction and overall approach of the item made it clear that the topic was approached from a specific point of view: that ADHD was over-diagnosed and over-prescribed in affluent countries, including New Zealand.

“The audience can be reasonably expected to be aware of opposing viewpoints. These are specifically mentioned in the interview, and in fact the prevailing view is well described (that the explosion of diagnoses and prescriptions illustrates the popular view that there is an ADHD epidemic in wealthy countries, including New Zealand).”

Dr McBride was a professional in his field and RNZ could rely on his expertise. He was entitled to express an educated view on the topic and entitled to freedom of expression as was RNZ. The fact that the complainant took issue with what Dr McBride said did not mean that he was inaccurate in his statements.

It said links to other articles containing a range of views on ADHD were listed with this story.

RNZ said Principle (3) Children and Young people, did not apply as the interview did not focus on a particular child or children and no particular vulnerabilities were addressed in the interview which would require consideration under this principle.

Referring to Principle (4) Comment and Fact, RNZ believed the audience would recognise Dr McBride’s statements for what they were - his professional opinion.

It also believed Principle (6) Columns, Blogs, Opinion and Letters was irrelevant as the article fell outside the categorisations listed in this principle.

RNZ asked the Media Council to clarify a question of jurisdiction given the article was based on broadcast interview which complied with Broadcasting Standards.

Decision

The Media Council did not believe there was a jurisdiction issue. It viewed this as an original published article and the complaint was laid with the Council in relation to its Principles, not with the Broadcasting Standards Authority.

The Council noted the article was plainly designed to present Dr McBride’s views.  The matters complained about were his opinions.  There was nothing to indicate he was not a reputable expert.  It was not established that his opinions were wrong, and the statistics of rapidly increasing levels of diagnosis lent some support.   It was not up to the publisher to prove that expressions of opinion were right.

The article was not an academic paper or presentation in which all statements and supporting research had to be detailed and backed up with detailed attribution. This was an article written for a general audience and designed to convey issues in clear easy to understand terms. It cited evidence of a dramatic increase in New Zealand prescriptions for ADHD medications and that was a sound basis for Dr McBride’s opinion that the condition may be over-diagnosed.

The article did not target any child expressly or by implication. Children were only referred to generically and this was legitimate in the context. To limit comment, as suggested in this complaint, would inhibit free debate on matters of public interest relating to clinical diagnoses.  There was no infringement of Principle (3) Children and Young People.

There was a mixture of opinion and fact but that was clearly discerned from the words used. While it was essentially an article reporting Dr McBride’s view on the subject, there was reference to other researchers who believed there was treatment gap and that many New Zealanders were still going without.

The Council has stated before that every article on a long running issue, does not have to cover all angles and views. That would be impractical. The requirement is for balance to be provided over time. In this case there was evidence of this in the article as well as the list of ADHD stories that readers could link to which refer to under-diagnosis of ADHD, gaps and improvements in treatment, and references to views that differ from Dr McBride’s.

Decision:  No grounds to proceed.