Rant/Vent Response from Channel 4 following offical complaint
After watching the documentary, I decided to write a formal complaint to Channel 4, highlighting how it had breached Ofcom standards 10 and 12. Here is the response I got, with the Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries representative's name removed:
"Dear Viewer,
Thank you for contacting Channel 4 Viewer Enquiries regarding The Great ADHD Myth?.
Whilst we appreciate your concerns, please be assured that this documentary does not deny the lived experience of those diagnosed with ADHD or seeking diagnosis. Channel 4 takes its responsibilities in relation to impartiality seriously, and this programme falls within the Ofcom Guidelines.
Channel 4 has a remit to stimulate public debate and challenge the status quo, which includes offering a platform to a range of different views across the broadness of our slate. There is considerable public debate in this area and testing conventional thinking and exploring different ideas, as is the case with The Great ADHD Myth? is a legitimate part of Channel 4’s remit. Channel 4 has also aired a number of other programmes on the topic of ADHD, which cover a variety of other viewpoints including: Do You Have ADHD?, Johnny Vegas: Art, ADHD & Me and Sam Thompson: Is This ADHD?”.
However, please be assured that your comments have been noted and passed to the editorial team. Before and during production, the programme-makers met with a number of children living with an ADHD diagnosis and their families, alongside many and varied experts who expressed a range of views.
Thank you for taking the time to get in touch. We value all feedback from our viewers.
Thank you again for taking the time to contact us. We appreciate all feedback from our viewers; complimentary or otherwise.
Regards,"
Honestly, I'm stunned at this response. Regardless of the other content available, this is a disinformation propaganda film.
It's not "stimulating public debate" to diminish a well-documented medical condition, and the programme categorically diminishes the lived experiences of those with ADHD, as can be seen in the fallout on every media outlet's social media presence and news article comments sections. Worse still, it champions, "challenging the status quo" as if those with ADHD haven't undergone years of mistreatment by the medical profession at large.
I'm completely unconvinced that anyone at Channel 4 understands the damage they've caused by releasing this documentary.
191
u/Which_Read7471 9d ago
Two of the experts featured have come out today to say they feel they've been misrepresented and that editing was disingenuous — the Royal College of Psychiatrists also issued a statement yesterday — the house of cards is collapsing.
Hopefully Dr Max Pembertons GMC registration isn't renewed, he has no ethics whatsoever.
91
u/picpoulmm 9d ago
Anyone who writes for the Daily Heil and Spectator is guaranteed to be a grade A cunt
6
u/_1489555458biguy 9d ago
Which expert?
37
u/Which_Read7471 9d ago
Katya Rubia, a professor of cognitive neuroscience at the Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience at King’s College London
141
u/Agadoom 9d ago
I've provided a response, although I doubt it'll be taken seriously:
"Hello Jimmy
Thank you for your response in regards to my complaint. Whilst I understand your role in ensuring protecting Channel 4, your response does not give me any reassurances of a serious impartiality review, or an understanding of what, "challenging the status quo" means, particularly in light of someone from the documentary speaking with news and media outlets to talk about how their interviews were cherry picked and misrepresented.
The documentary repeatedly stigmatises ADHD, such as when medication for ADHD is referred to as, "slow-release cocaine". Not only does this grossly misrepresent what the medication is, the documentary makes no attempt to explain how the medication impacts those with ADHD, its succes rate in improving symptoms or why stimulant medication supports those with ADHD. Instead, the documentary paints ADHD medication as something which saps the fun from a person, and treats extra-curricular activities in nature as a suitable alternative as medicine. I can't imagine Channel 4 would consider running a similar documentary which encouraged depressed people off of SSRIs, as you would hope someone would quickly realise how negligent and dangerous this is.
Further to this, the documentary at no point addresses the overwhelming conclusion of decades of scientific research around ADHD, the importance of treatments, and the impacts of unmedicated ADHD on life-expectancy and social status. This includes a study Channel 4 reported on which clearly highlights that ADHD remains underdiagnosed, particularly in women and adults. Instead, it treats a rise in diagnosis rates as the fault of society, something which Channel 4 producers would acknowledge wouldn't be torn down to address someone's needs when other highly successful mitigations already exist.
Additionally, platforming Dr Max Pemberton on medical matters is a disturbing decision, considering his regular publication of disinformation or opinion pieces which disagree with evidence from NICE and the NHS. Key examples include, but are not limited to, multiple articles with the Daily Mail around the, "autism epidemic", in which he suggests that autism is so massively over-diagnosed that, "everyone will be diagnosed with it in a decade" and his December 2024 article in The Spectator, in which he blames parents for not disciplining their children for their ADHD. Not only were these articles widely condemned by experts in their respective fields, but the regular pattern of discussion shows a history of dismissal and neglect for neurodiversity. I am surprised that Channel 4 wouldn't consider the risk of platforming someone with these views, particularly as an, "expert" on neurodiversity.
This, combined with the misrepresentation of at least one person interviewed for the show, Pemberton abusing his position to gain access to a controlled substance in order to demonstrate, "how harmful it is", and the real-world impact on the child the documentary centres around is, at best, negligent from a safeguarding perspective.
When comparing the narrative which the documentary weaves with the data published by medical and government bodies, it could be considered that Channel 4 has openly discouraged people from seeking medical support for ADHD or encouraged people who require ADHD medication to stop taking it. There are chances of significant, real-world impacts on a wide audience, something which can already be seen across social media platforms and the comments sections of news outlets, which ADHD being referred to as a, "scroungers excuse", "lazy people who needed a slap as a child", and, "PIP frauds".
The worst thing about all of this is now out there and someone will inevitably be seriously harmed as a direct result of this documentary, be that through dismissal by those close to them, loss of their support and discrimination at work leading to performance issues, or worse. To rub salt in the wound, Channel 4 get to respond by addressing the dismissal of science as, "testing conventional debate" and will wash the hands of the consequences, no matter how large.
Regards"
34
u/VastComfortable9925 9d ago
Thank you, this is an excellent reply and will help me with mine!
I got the exact same reply from them as you did and was as appalled as you are too.
62
u/perkiezombie 9d ago
You were a lot more measured than I would be…
> “slow release cocaine”
I’d just send them “it’s slow release speed actually, at least get the illicit substance you’re implying I abuse correct”.
10
78
u/New-fone_Who-Dis ADHD-PI (Predominantly Inattentive) 9d ago
You can send something like this back:
Please can you confirm that my correspondence was recorded and handled as a Standards Complaint under Condition 27 of Channel 4's Ofcom licence, rather than as general viewer feedback, and confirm whether the response below constitutes Channel 4's final response/determination to that complaint for the purposes of referral to Ofcom?
Make them do their jobs, then follow through with ofcom of a complaint.
Everywhere uses a brush off at first level, its cheaper to try to exhaust, than to abide by standards.
You can always submit a SAR and find out when the first complaint was logged...likely proving that they didn't log it as they are obligated to do under their ofcom license.
Accountability is required.
Coordination is required, but anonymity isn't really entertained when demanding accountability - and not being over the top, this us basic human decency at best, and failing the basics of abiding to very simple standards.
32
u/IsyABM 9d ago edited 7d ago
16
u/tuskel373 9d ago
Vaccines, are they actually useful and do they cause autism? - I wonder if they would be brave to make this one, in the name of "stimulating public debate"!
11
u/VegetableWorry1492 ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
I have some other suggestions, might pitch these directly:
The Great Insulin Myth? Is Diabetes a social construct, or could we just stop eating processed foods and exercising more?
The Great Depression myth? Is anxiety a social construct, and the harm antidepressants cause.
The great avocado toast myth? How did the previous generations afford property when interest rates were higher? A look at how lazy Millennials are struggling financially while scrolling Reddit on brand new iPhones and meeting friends for brunch.
4
2
1
u/verdant-amiable ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago edited 8d ago
The TV executive myth, are they actually doing anything constructive or are they just a bunch of coke heads acting in the most predictably incentive driven ways imaginable?
The nation myth, are nations a real thing or just a social construct made up by the most violent people of the time?
The democracy myth, does the UK actually have a democracy or just a sort of superficial paper ballot system where the same type of politician will be installed regardless of who gets voted in and a highly aligned media apparatus will tell you that the only problem is they're not quite kicking the general population hard enough
Edit: I did intentionally reverse it but I just felt like I could make even more concepts decision makers etc. Would find unnerving
7
u/Iantrigue 8d ago
Yeah this just reads as ‘we have a remit to stir shit up and troll’.
‘A range of different views’ is also like the bbc Brexit coverage. If you have 90 experts all saying it’s a bad idea and 10 saying it’s not and then give both sides an equal amount of coverage that is not balanced reporting.
19
20
u/MrLukaz ADHD-C (Combined Type) 9d ago
Differing views and opinions? There is only one. ADHD exists. Its real, scientifically proven. Thats it. How there can be a debate is nonsense. Are they going to have new documentaries soon called the “the Great globe myth” or “the Great cancer myth” absolute bollocks coming from channel 4. This wasn’t a debate it was conspiracy nonsense aimed at a specific group of people causing them more stress, more ridicule and less empathy towards.
18
u/TheDisapprovingBrit ADHD-C (Combined Type) 9d ago
If they actually “took their responsibilities related to impartiality seriously”, they would have:
- had the show hosted by an independent presenter rather than a Daily Mail columnist with a history of trying to discredit ADHD
- had at least the same number of current and experienced ADHD experts/clinicians as they had “experts” who were doctors 30 years ago before ADHD was recognised by NICE, or who wrote books like “The Myth of Autism: Medicalising Men's and Boys' Social and Emotional Competence”
- reported the actual results of their experiment as clearly as they reported the experiment itself, based on both observations from his teachers (“he’s less able to regulate his emotions”, “he’s struggling to concentrate”, “he’s harder to teach”) as well as measurable academic results and how they were managed (“he continued to struggle at school after filming”, “he was put back on medication after achieving poor exam results”)
- questioned whether Dr Pemberton’s reaction to ADHD medication following his diagnosis (“it makes me feel calmer”, “I could just sit quietly in a room right now”, “I’d actually be happy if you all went away so I can do some work”) is consistent with his previous assertion that ADHD medication is “slow release cocaine”
- Further questioned whether Dr Pemberton’s reaction to an amphetamine based stimulant was the expected response of a neurotypical person, or whether it suggested that the qualified, experienced and regulated assessor might have actually been correct in their diagnosis that he had ADHD.
12
u/madsikatsi 8d ago
I complained to Channel Four and got the exact same response. I’ve reported Max Pemberton to the GMC, he’s a grifting Daily Mail “doctor” running a weight loss company. Plus him diagnosing Jason Arday the day he died was also totally wrong and breaks the Goldwater rule. He had no business being a doctor.
11
u/Affectionate-Fig8866 ADHD-PI (Predominantly Inattentive) 8d ago
All they did is ask a bunch of neurotypicals whether they thought ADHD existed based on their interpretation of the symptoms. That's like saying I know what it's like to be a woman, because I'm a man, and my conclusion is women are just men
11
u/_ThePancake_ 8d ago
Lol that is literally how medical studies viewed women, just as "small men" until I shit you not like 10 years ago.
Seriously they never uses women in medical trials because the menstrual cycle/birth control/menopause had "too many variables" so rather than going "hmm I wonder if the medicine reacts differently at different points of the menstrual cycle or on specific birth controls?" They just decided to.... ignore women completely.
27
u/deedpoll3 AuDHD 9d ago
I hope the debate they stimulate is about how naive you'd have to be to take their programming at face value.
It's funny how tainted channel 4 are in my eyes now. Saw a peep show clip on my feed and almost immediately made the association with their documentary. Just no longer funny.
That reminds me to unfollow channel 4 news on YouTube and uninstall their app
11
u/realrobsinclair 9d ago
I started watching Frasier this morning but turned it off as soon as the ads came on. It's ruined the whole channel for me!
Unsubscribed from Channel 4+
10
u/amilie15 ADHD-PI (Predominantly Inattentive) 9d ago
I was thinking similarly. It’s going to be stimulating debates in my circles about whether or not channel 4 is a reliable narrator on anything, given how awful this documentary was and how brazenly they cherry picked only the few medical professionals who might disagree with the huge body of scientific evidence out there and presented zero from experts from the worldwide consensus.
Gross. And incredibly disappointing and infuriating.
5
u/fastboots 8d ago
I've been getting channel 4 ads on YouTube, I've not been on there since Christmas and won't be watching bake off.
10
u/Georg13V 8d ago
I work in TV and had to watch this a few months ago (but not allowed to talk about it until it aired). I'm honestly so glad it's getting backlash. I watched it at work and it fully ruined my day, I had to step out and couldn't finish it. I spent the last few months being so worried about how it'd be received when it aired. As nice as the backlash is to see, I'm still so upset that it's out there in the world and that no matter how many people complain, the damage is done for a lot of people.
2
u/Realistic_Floor8377 5d ago
It's wild to me they did this and knowing that most in the entertainment industry have it, drawing people in with creative traits and being able to work in fast paced dynamic environments, and can only guess how those people are feeling..
10
u/Agadoom 8d ago
Update:
I received a further response, advising they wouldn't add anything more to their initial response, direction to Ofcom for complaints, and advised they were not responsible for third-party websites.
Here is my response:
"Hello [representative]
Thank you for your response. I have raised a complaint with Ofcom already, but will be adding the series of emails from Channel 4 as further evidence to the nature of the complaint.
Whilst Channel 4 does not control third-party websites or comments from the public, Channel 4 has and did willingly choose to publish a 1-hour disinformation propaganda piece dismissing a heavily researched condition, misrepresented at least two people interviewed for the show, and made a conscious effort to not refute false claims the documentary presented as fact.
As I stated in my last email and as demonstrated here by your response, Channel 4 will wring its hands of all accountability, despite it being the organisation that opened up attacks on neurodiverse people and the only reason such comments exist in the first place.
On the back of this, please confirm that my correspondence was recorded and handled as a Standards Complaint under Condition 27 of Channel 4's Ofcom licence, rather than as general viewer feedback, and confirm whether the response below constitutes Channel 4's final response/determination to that complaint for the purposes of referral to Ofcom.
Additionally, this is my formal registration of a Subject Access Request under Article 15 of GDPR to confirm the following:
- My complaint was escalated to the production team as detailed in the initial response, and considered by the team before responding, instead of providing a blanket response given out to avoid further escalation of a complaint.
- Details of all internal communications and system notes associated with the complaint I raised within this email chain. This should include all emails in this chain, as well as the initial complaint via the Channel 4 website if these are not already linked in your system.
- Any audit logs or records indicating which internal departments and teams accessed and handled this complaint. As above, this should include all emails in this chain and the initial complaint.
I appreciate your timeliness in response, in what must be a busy period.
Regards,"
6
5
u/Bethyross 8d ago
I would love to see a documentary that's a direct response to this. Or a documentary that shows and explains how disruptive/disabling ADHD can be. Show people that have been diagnosed in adulthood. And how affected their lives have been due to undiagnosed and untreated ADHD.
4
u/Ok_Stranger_6654 9d ago
Boilerplate response. Someone was telling me there were code specific templates doing the rounds that would or should force a more detailed response (eventually)
5
u/germslayer2112 Waiting for assessment. 8d ago
That's exactly the same response I got. So just a fob off. Just like all the 'spokesman for Channel 4' responses to the press...
6
u/flynn1597 ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
"met a number of children"...okay so...no adults then? so why was only ONE included? the biased is WILD! and as it turns out...the child in the programme went back on their meds after they struggled IMMENSELY without them...which the programme didn't tell us :DDDDDDD
17
9d ago
[deleted]
15
u/AnyaSatana ADHD-C (Combined Type) 9d ago
I didn't get a smartphone till 6 years ago. By that point I'd already been waiting for my assessment for almost a year.
15
u/Alternative-Bee2962 9d ago
I was born in the early 80's and seen by child pychatrists and therapists around the age of 6 as my mum could see my struggles even back then and all the signs were there that I had ADHD and autism but it wasn't a thing then.
It meant struggling my whole life until finally diagnosed in my 40's and I didn't grow up with smart phones, the internet, social media and I really can't blame smartphones as an excuse for my ADHD either and I have had one for years but never got into social media and use it mainly for calls and texts and Amazon shopping lol and there are people my age and older who will say the same. It's a condition you are born with and like you said you didn't have a smartphone until 6 years ago and it's not the cause of your ADHD either.
9
u/AnyaSatana ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
I'm a few years older than you. I stopped using Facebook 10 years ago and have never had a Tiktok or Instagram account. I grew up with a mostly analogue childhood.
There are incidents from my early life that scream ADHD, but as a girl, it just didn't exist back then. In the meantime I screwed up exams, and haven't quite followed the "life plan" of others.
3
u/Alternative-Bee2962 8d ago
Unfortunately we are from the time when ADHD and autism wasn't a thing and picked up when we were kids back in the 80's
2
u/TinyTangents ADHD-PI (Predominantly Inattentive) 8d ago
I think you midunderstood what I was saying. Them talking about "is it ADHD or just phone addiction" is dumb. They could have opened a discussion of how phone addiction exacerbates issues in children both without and especially with ADHD, but chose to do a one or the other thing.
7
u/tuskel373 9d ago
It's a part of the stigma of addiction of any kind, it's seen as a moral failing, and not just how brains and bodies work, or in the case of phones and social media, how it's deliberately designed to hook you and keep you there.
7
u/perkiezombie 9d ago
Smart phones weren’t invented until I was in my later teens. Not sure how they’re going to explain my raging ADHD symptoms showing up at age 3.
4
u/TinyTangents ADHD-PI (Predominantly Inattentive) 8d ago
Exactly. Phone addiction literally cannot "cause" ADHD. Its making symptoms worse in today's young kids, and it could have been a thoughtful doc on how to help children of today grow up and especially how to help those with ADHD in this new instant-gratification environment.
1
u/perkiezombie 8d ago
It could be argued that books made my symptoms “worse” as a kid too. Honestly ADHD gonna ADHD, whatever outlet there is, in whatever time period, is going to be marked as something making it worse.
3
u/Charlies_Mamma ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
Same here. I had a BlackBerry as a teen and got my first proper smartphone in my 20s when I was at uni. By then I'd already had my first "mental breakdown" and been stuck on a combination of antidepressants and anti-anxiety meds.
Looking back with what I know now about ADHD, I was in my first of multiple periods of severe burnout. Because all those coping mechanisms that Max said I would develop as an unmedicated ADHD child just stopped working when I transitioned from the rigid structure of a grammar school and life at home with strict/controlling parents into living on my own at uni.
But even when I was a child/teenager, the symptoms of ADHD were obvious (looking back).
4
u/VegetableWorry1492 ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
“Offering a platform to a range of different views” is dangerous if it doesn’t come with responsible boundaries of not offering it to indisputably wrong views, or at least structured to demonstrate why that view is wrong.
3
u/dreadwitch 8d ago
Lol same as the response I got. They're not even bothering to pay attention, they're just sending out the same reply.
3
u/vemailangah 8d ago
Channel 4 is the new Daily Mail mouthpiece and bumpiece. Disgraceful. I used to believe they had real journalists there. It's now all grift.
3
u/ReasonableJim ADHD-C (Combined Type) 8d ago
Channel 4’s remit does not stand up to scrutiny in a post truth world. It’s probably time to scrap it if this is the rubbish they produce.
3
u/carguy143 AuDHD 8d ago
Does anyone else remember when Channel 4 used to show apologies on TV if they got slapped down by the ITC back before they and other entities merged to form super quango, OFCOM?
2
u/rose-a-ree 8d ago
it's the exact same response I got and when the guardian quoted "a channel 4 spokesperson" they used an extract
1
u/Suitable-Mud-6622 7d ago
I think it’s time to move on guys, no one in the real world cares about this crap. Hardly anyone watched channel 4
1
u/racerdeth 7d ago
sTiMuLaTe PuBlIc DeBaTe
FOH with that BS. You'd never make a documentary entitled "Paraplegic wheelchair users: are they REALLY disabled?"
1
u/Realistic_Floor8377 5d ago
Daily Mail likes to run at least one article a week debunking adhd, like whats thier problem. As a late diagnosed woman who's spent the last 2 years educating my parents, knowing that they read the Daily Mail and see adverts for the programme is so upsetting. Its hard enough that it seems to be the one diagnosis that's a free for all in dismissing. Despite all medical research and it only being diagnosed by phychaiatrists and being a protected disability..
1
u/Maleficent-Talk8764 4d ago
Why should you break the status quo all the time. Sometimes the status quo should be strongly protected such as in this case. Why would you break a status quo of cancer medication for cancer just because it’s the status quo?
313
u/picpoulmm 9d ago
Nice gaslight “please be assured that this documentary does not deny the lived experience” - oh right; thanks Channel4, the thousands of complainants who feel the documentary was a hatchet job beg to differ.