Sandra Paterson: Pity more media don't follow Wishart's lead

I remember my media colleagues sniggering about Ian Wishart. "Did you know he gets his office checked for bugging devices?" they laughed.

This was more than a decade ago, before he started Investigate magazine, when he was being written off as a conspiracy theorist at the start of the Winebox investigation.

Turned out he was right - about being bugged as well as about the Winebox. But the label stuck.

He launched the magazine in January 2000 and a few months later ran the first of several stories about dioxin poisoning in New Plymouth, to a mixture of bemusement and scorn from other media outlets.

Turned out he was right about that one, too. Then there was the goon squad story, about a military-style response unit operating in Canterbury prisons; and the "why is the Government buying these LAVIII armoured vehicles?" report - instances in which Investigate was either first with the story or came up with critical new information.

If I had broken as many good stories as Wishart in my career, I'd be pretty happy. But somehow the conspiracy theorist label is still used to ignore or discredit most of his work.

Of course his cause is not helped by the fact he is a Christian, which makes him, apparently, not just a paranoid nutter but one clearly lacking in intelligence. And no doubt it will be said that the only reason I am putting in a good word for him is because I, too, figure the "we descended from monkeys" theory doesn't stack up.

Not that he gets it right every time. I remember one story in which he made some spectacular allegations about a senior politician, with no hard evidence to back it up.

In reply to the inevitable criticism, he said, "We uncovered far more than we printed", which is all very well but not exactly what we learned at journalism school.

More recently, I made a few cursory inquiries after Investigate alleged police mismanagement in a particular child abuse case. There was enough smoke to presume a fire, but there were also some pertinent facts left out of the story - facts which would have weakened it had they been included.

Nope, Ian Wishart is not infallible. But with 23 years in the business and more scoops than most under his byline, he deserves more respect than he gets.

So I am rather pleased that he happened to nail the most explosive political interview of the past few years, a story so big it was impossible to ignore - and that the resulting hoo-ha has thrust the magazine into the spotlight.

Not that the John Tamihere story took any particular investigative skill. As Wishart himself says: "I just happened to be walking past [Tamihere], so to speak, as he exploded."

I haven't heard any mutterings about conspiracy theories this time, but no doubt the cry will go up again. And no doubt the mainstream media will go back to ignoring Investigate stories for as long as possible.

Stories, or potential stories, get ignored for all sorts of reasons. Usually it is because what starts as a promising-looking yarn turns out to be a load of codswallop once you make a few inquiries.

Other times, investigating a particular issue thoroughly would require too much time or money. But sometimes the subject matter is just too much of a hot potato - controversial, unpopular or contrary to published editorial opinion.

A good example of a hot-potato story, and one which should be getting a lot more attention, is the debate over the meningococcal B vaccine. Rather, what we need is more debate, instead of a one-sided PR campaign.

Most parents will not have heard of a report called The Meningococcal Gold Rush, which was released several weeks ago, because the mainstream media has, in the main, chosen to ignore it.

It was written by Ron Law and Barbara Sumner-Burstyn. Law is a risk and policy analyst, a former medical laboratory scientist and biochemistry lecturer; Sumner-Burstyn is a journalist and a former Herald columnist.

The report, which claims the vaccine is neither necessary nor effective, points out the number of cases of meningitis is dropping rapidly and there is no longer any epidemic. Last year there were eight deaths, down from 26 in 2001, and only four of the eight were caused by the meningococcal B strain.

It claims a condition of the licence for the vaccine was that parents be told about concerns at the lack of efficacy data, that the Ministry of Health was instructed to do this but refused and that the vaccine does not not convey "herd immunity", contrary to what parents are told.

There is a lot more. But aside from Investigate and, this week, TV3's 60 Minutes, no mainstream media outlet has given the report's authors any decent space. As a parent I say let there be debate. Run what the report says and run the Ministry of Health's rebuttal and let informed consent be truly informed.

And may a few more journalists in this country take to sticking their necks out.

* Sandra Paterson is a Mt Maunganui freelance writer.