Several papers carried the worrying story today suggesting links between social networking sites and sexually transmitted infections (STIs)
Facebook ‘linked to a rise in syphilis’ – Telegraph
Facebook ‘sex encounters’ linked to rise in Syphilis in North East – Metro
Sex diseases soaring due to Facebook romps – The Sun
Web casual sex sparks syphilis rise – Press Association

All of which sounds pretty scary. Are we really facing a syphilis epidemic linked to social networking? Where did the story come from? It seems to have been sparked by claims in the papers made by the Director of Public Health for Teeside, Professor Kelly, that the region has seen a rise of reported syphilis cases from 10 in 2008 to 30 by the end of last year.

According to press reports Professor Peter Kelly, claimed to have found a link between the rise in syphilis cases and young people using social networking sites. The details of how this was researched and measured have not been clearly reported. So it is unclear whether this is a health practitioner describing mapping of STIs to social behaviour; results of an epidemiological study on STIs in the North East; or speculation based on patient information that there could be a possible association between syphilis and using social networking sites. [A separate picture of sexual health in the NorthEast as compared with the rest of the UK that gives you an idea about the accuracy of these claims can be found here and a breakdown of regional data for STIs (including syphilis) is here - with thanks to Ben Goldacre]

Several papers document ‘research’ that indicates widespread social networking site use in the North East that’s higher than the UK average. Although it is not completely clear where this evidence comes from. Is it data the papers have included, or the information Teeside PCT were using.

While syphilis is an STI that’s on the rise, we have to be careful with headlines like this. They may sound dramatic but the first rule of understanding potential links between behaviours and infections is to remember correlation is not the same as causation. Just because some young people do seem to be using social networking sites for meeting others for sex it doesn’t mean that is directly responsible for rising STI rates.

Health professionals are often panicked by media moral crusades and currently anxieties over social networking sites are running high. Young people do report using such sites as well as other mobile technologies. So understandably practitioners may well question about such behaviours during consultations and form the conclusion that social networking sites are the cause of many sexual health problems.

However, just having this opinion doesn’t mean it is true or directly linked and would need closer investigation. Consultant Matthew Greenall is currently trying to find out from Middlesborough PCT what research was undertaken by Professor Paul Kelly to inform his view that social networking sites and STIs are directly linked. NHS Middlesborough’s press release that seemingly started the media coverage states “Unprotected sex, especially with casual partners, is the biggest risk for syphilis. Social networking sites are making it easier for people to meet up for casual sex. It is important that people avoid high risk sexual behaviours and practise safe sex to protect themselves from sexually transmitted infections”. However, additional quotes within newspapers make a more specific link between syphilis and social networking sites – so it is unclear if additional interviews were given, or whether the Professor has been misquoted. Or whether the papers just made up additional quotes (hey, we know that happens). At this time a number of practitioners are investigating exactly what was said and what evidence there may be about risks posed by social networking sites to the youth of Teeside.

As the story spread across Twitter several bloggers questioned the accuracy of the story, beginning with Science Punk who spotted the piece first, through to Enemies of Reason and Dungeekin who both provided a satirical take on the media coverage of the story. Meanwhile My Sex Professor highlighted issues around syphilis using the story as an opportunity to reinforce health messages and Heresy Corner discussed the prevalence of syphilis and the claims made in this story. The excellent Tabloid Watch focus more specifically on the discrepancies between the statements from Prof Kelly (which seem to be more about safer sex) and the media scaremongering. Similar discussions also come from The Media Blog and Roy Greenslade at the Guardian (read the comments for this, NHS Teeside respond to criticise Greenslade but apparently not the Telegraph or Sun’s bad coverage).

Within the online discussions it became obvious the link between social networking sites and syphilis was questionable. In fact the whole story appeared flawed as it seemed to have accepted a practitioner’s concern about rising STIs but no clear measure that they were linked to social network use. [If it turns out this is not the case and there is robust data to support the claims I’ll update this blog accordingly]. Indeed even if young people are using such resources to set up meetings with other people which lead to sex, the problem is presumably about a lack of safer sex when they meet, rather than the hook up itself? This wasn’t clear from media coverage and it would be worrying if health practitioners were being judgemental about sexual behaviour. The issue is about unprotected sex, not who you sleep with (or how you get to meet them).

No breakdowns were offered in the research about who the 30 people were with syphilis. Were they all straight? Had they all contracted syphilis from social networking sites – and how was that proven? How was ‘using’ social networking sites defined and measured? Were there any other STIs that were also associated with social networking hook-ups? And how were these connections assessed?

We rarely expect the media to deconstruct a moral panic story, particularly if it is about social networks or sex. However on this occasion it seemed that as well as not fully investigating a story before spinning it into an STI crisis, the reportage deliberately misrepresented aspects of social networking sites.

Facebook was named as the cause of the syphilis outbreak, and yet if you read the statements from Professor Kelly Facebook is not mentioned. Social networking is described. So why did Facebook get the blame compared with other networking sites? Could it be the papers who were leading on the story are owned by Rupert Murdoch who in turn owns Myspace social networking site, who are a competitor of Facebook?

The take home message from this case is it seems to be an example of practitioners speculating on the cause of a rising STI rate, the media spinning this into a causally linked epidemic, and then further manipulating the story to have a pop at their rivals.

What’s lost in the case is the issue of syphilis itself. It is an infection that currently predominantly affects gay men (in the UK) but is on the rise in heterosexuals. It needs addressing as although we have worked hard to raise awareness of highly prevalent STIs like Chlamydia, the public may believe Syphilis is an infection of the past. And may have no idea what symptoms to look out for or how to prevent the infection.

Some have argued the attention the story has generated has also raised the profile of syphilis, so that’s a benefit of the poor media coverage. Indeed #syphilis has become a trending topic on twitter as a result. Unfortunately if the focus remains on poor media coverage or the myth that Facebook causes syphilis then the opportunity to raise sexual health awareness will be lost.

Let’s show social networking can do good as well as the often claimed evil. Find online coverage of this story and use the comments to highlight the suggested link is not concrete, the media coverage is scaremongering, but most importantly to share accurate information on syphilis prevention and symptom spotting. Then tell your friends to do the same.

Last week the Independent ran a feature with the exciting headline “I was a hooker who became an agony aunt”. Sounded fascinating. Another tart with a heart story, perhaps?

No, reading the piece indicated the headline was wrong.

The feature described blogger and sex writer Zoe Margolis, better known as the Girl with a One Track Mind. It focused in part on Margolis work as an ambassador for sexual health charity Brook, raising issues about sex and relationships with young people.

Zoe Margolis is not, and has never been, a sex worker.

Pretty soon after the paper was published (in print and online) a discussion began on twitter and spread to blogs and forums highlighting the inaccuracy and discussing the appropriateness of the headline.

The Independent quickly altered the headline online to ‘I was a good time girl who became an agony aunt’ but obviously the print edition remained the same. It took pressure on the paper for them to actually issue a correction.

Although it is just a headline, the Independent gives us an insight into the media and how sex – particularly female sexuality – is understood and represented. Although the media likes to present itself as impartial, fair, broadminded and even adventurous about sex, it is very often judgemental, inaccurate and negative. Writers don’t often value sex as a topic, seeing it as ‘lite’ and not requiring any real fact checking. Sex features are often seen as the female preserve with women constructed as better placed to write emotional pieces, while hiding a more misogynistic view that writing about sex isn’t ‘proper journalism’.

All too often features about sex and relationships represent sex through products or positions or a moral or medical gaze is pretty much standard practice. Sadly sexism is thriving, meaning it is not unusual for journalists (like the public) to believe women who speak openly about sex are sluts, who deserve little sympathy if criticised.

This is problematic on a number of levels. It influences who is selected to talk about sex and what they are allowed to say. It frames the terminologies we can use to name our bodies (vaginas are always more palatable to editors than clitorises). It means many writers view those who talk about sex as hookers, but since the term is used pejoratively it also means they look down on sex workers too. This in turn impacts upon how prostitution is treated in the press.

While we may be used to poor media coverage of sex and general female blaming, there is a more sinister side to this particular story which has a direct impact on agony aunts. The Independent may have forgotten that only recently we were facing major threats to even being allowed to offer sex advice via the media to young people in the UK (2003) and Scotland (2005). Indeed there is pressure for those agony aunts who work with young people to deliver accurate and ethical information, with media scrutiny and often campaigns from the right wing press against such advice giving.

Suggestions that those offering advice to young people may not be qualified, or may have a past that’s presented as sexually dubious is not going to help agony aunts or support to young people via the media – a service that is essential to many children and teens.

Even the changing of the Independent’s headline of ‘hooker’ to ‘good time girl’ still carries with it negative labelling that many anti sex education groups could use as a weapon against advice givers.

The Independent headline debate raises the question why shouldn’t someone who has been open about their sexual life or been a sex worker give advice? And the answer is of course there’s no reason why they couldn’t. However, there would need to be some caveats based on their current work, not their sexual past. Sadly there are many advice givers who base their whole career on having been to the ‘University of Life’ and simply describe their opinions and experiences. Even those with professional qualifications in medicine, journalism or psychology often offer advice that is misleading and outdated. So anyone who wants to offer advice needs to demonstrate they could also indicate current good practice; be aware of, appraise and apply evidence; undergo supervision and regular professional development; and indicate critical thinking to sex and relationships issues.

Thankfully in this case twitter and other social media allowed this story to be shared and challenged very quickly. That is not to say damage hasn’t been done – and I would argue it’s more damaging than just the personal distress caused to Ms Margolis. Potentially it has done a lot to harm advice giving in the media too. And it has done little to help sex workers as the subtext to this case is nobody wants to be associated with hookers.

However it has been talked about openly and the Independent have not come out well from this debacle. Most important has been Ms Margolis’ willingness to challenge this in public and discuss her feelings about the defamation. Many people often don’t feel able to do this and certainly in the early part of the last decade when agony aunts were under threat from the media many opted to avoid the media for fear of further personal reprisals.

In a statement she sent me after reading this blog, Ms Margolis explains her position thus: “I’m absolutely distraught by this damage to my reputation both professionally and personally. Unfortunately this situation just shows how much work still needs to be done to challenge the sexism of the media in their conflation of female sexual desire with the sex industry.”

So what can we do about this problem? We can support those who are offering sex advice via the media, and ensure those who do act as columnists, advisors or ambassadors are well trained and assessed. Optimistically I’d love to offer more training to journalists for them to reflect on how they write about sex, understand human sexuality and also source their materials to stack up sex stories. I’m not holding my breath but it’s an avenue I think we ought to explore.

We need to continue speaking out about poor media coverage, whether it’s a judgemental headline or a more sustained critique on a particular sex topic (sex education for example). We need to highlight where the media tries to keep women silent by using their sexuality against them. And we need to expose hypocrisy in the press. After all the same papers who have been complaining about how dreadful sexualisation is are the same papers who also label sexual women negatively and do their best to scupper statutory school based sex education.

Let’s remember that using pejorative terms to describe sex is not good journalism. It’s a means of silencing people. And that’s just another word for censorship.

Update: since posting I’ve had some feedback from people questioning whether the decision not to be called a hooker actually further denigrates sex workers, implying there is something so wrong with being a hooker that you wouldn’t want that label. That is a problem since promoting one set of women’s sexual rights should not be at the expense of another group (not that I’m assuming all sex workers are female).

On a point of accuracy if someone isn’t a sex worker then it should be reasonable for them to make this clear. Indeed one issue that is often upsetting to sex workers is feeling they are spoken for by those who are not really involved in sex work, so you could argue in this case not challenging the term could be problematic for that reason. If, however, it seems the clarification also implies there is something wrong with sex work that is more troubling – and if you look at the Independent’s correction it does seem to imply this. So has some of the discussion of the case online. The issue here is not that being a hooker is bad, but that any women who writes about her sexual life can be subjected to misogynistic name calling and we must be careful to differentiate while we criticise this case and others like it.

Unfortunately this is the case of poor media writing about sex, it ends up marginalising and stigmatising a whole range of people, misrepresents sex work, and devalues female sexuality.

This case is also discussed by Paul Carr over at Tech Crunch (in comments you can also get another depressing insight into how some people view sexual women and whores) and also at Gawker.

*Quote is a play on script from the film Pretty Woman, based on the exchange between the lead characters Edward and Vivian.

What made me start blogging?
Five years ago I sat down on a dark November evening and wrote my very first blog entry. It was a bit ranty. I’d been misquoted by a journalist and was anxious it would get me into hot water (again).

I didn’t have a game plan when I started blogging. My partner (who’s way more tech savvy than I am) thought it might be a good way of sharing ideas I was struggling to convey via the mainstream media (I was writing several advice columns in magazines at the time, as well as hosting a regular radio phone in for BBC Five Live).

I approached the blog as a form of therapy. I wanted to work with the media but was getting a lot of stick for it professionally (I’m an academic as well as a sex educator). Having a place to blog would allow me to correct any errors in reporting and disclose bad journalism. I even hoped it it might even let me bring evidence into sex/relationships reporting – and show it was possible to do so without things becoming worthy or dull.

One thing I felt sure of early on was this blog was something I enjoyed writing, but I wanted to be useful, and most importantly to deliver things about sex, relationships, science and journalism that readers wanted to know about. Which is why the blog has always been shaped by things you’ve asked for.

Readers make this blog (or “why don’t you have comments?”)
Last summer I asked regular readers to give me feedback on this blog and got some very helpful responses. It’s taken me a while to implement some of these, but I have now upgraded the blog to include the things you asked for – photos and images to liven things up, a better blogroll, summaries at the start of most entries so you can decide if you wish to read on. And categories. Something I didn’ think about five years ago and really wish I had. I’m now in the process of going back through all the 800+ posts and adding categories to them, which I hope will make this blog a lot more useful to you.

The one thing this blog doesn’t have is comments. I did start off having them, but encountered several problems. As I was offering advice within columns and websites elsewhere I hadn’t planned to also answer problems on this blog. However, not all readers understood this so I frequently found requests for advice on anything from infidelity to penis size included in discussions about blogs relating to research design or journalism ethics. This sometimes led to some readers mocking those asking for advice, which of course is completely unacceptable for me as an educator.

Moreover, I’ve always blogged openly – never behind a pseudonym. I work within the community on sex/relationships projects and educational activities (in the UK and internationally). This meant I was very accessible, and felt vulnerable when those whose comments were deleted or not posted, made very personal threats.

I found moderating the comments was time consuming and took me away from other educational activities which I felt were more worthwhile. So I decided to remove the comments option. When I’ve asked readers if they want them back the general response is ‘no’. That’s mostly from people who feel the blog’s a safe space to get information which they can use as they wish elsewhere.

Of course I strongly welcome respectful email feedback and am always happy to add information or correct errors within the blog. You’re always welcome to start discussions on other forums or your own blog about issues raised here. For now I’ve no plans to reinstate comments, but since I’m occasionally asked why I don’t have them I thought this was a good a time as any to clarify the issue.

Achievements so far
Having read back to 2004 I’m pretty pleased with this little blog. It’s nice to see it’s grown into a resource that people trust and enjoy reading.

The things I’m most proud to have written are activist blogs that highlight medicalisation, exploitation and abuse. These include the debates around female sexual dysfunction, questioning high street stores stocking ‘herbal’ erectile dysfunction drugs (not approved by the FDA), exposing the Advanced Medical Institute’s aggressive sales technique for men affected by premature ejaculation, or highlighting misleading media coverage of the availability of Viagra on the high street.

I initially planned to use the blog to set right bad sex coverage in the media (or occasions where I’d been misquoted). This has been a theme within the blog although I think it’s become more focused over time (although not necessarily less ranty than my very first post). I can’t say whether it’s made much difference to journalists, and I hope it’s not put people off working with the media. I’ve found it helpful to describe poor practice – not least because the general trend for ‘experts’ working with the media is to act grateful for any exposure, not publicly discuss poor experiences or document bad practice. Gems for me include an expose of GMTV sending a cab to my home at 6am on the off chance I might wake up and come to their studio. Or how a TV show wanted to discuss female sexual confidence without mentioning genitals or masturbation. Or some rather nasty experiences with snotty TV producers just after I’d had a baby. Not to mention the hilarious case of the science journalist who really took a dislike to me (and colleagues). Oh, and let’s not forget the journalist who wanted me to recommend them an ‘unethical psychologist’ .

Of course, the past five years have not been spent simply slagging off journalists. No. Sometimes I’ve also turned my gaze to bad science too. Where it’s been depressing to report on a carnival of studies which seem to set us back sexually. Studies complaining women orgasm too easily, or there’s a ‘clitorocentric conspiracy’ against the vagina, how sex with a partner is 400% better than any other kind of sex you might have, and you can tell whether a woman has vaginal orgasms by her walk.

Let’s not forget my other bugbears. The fake formula and shonky surveys and my goodness this blog’s a treasure chest for those. And if I’m not being irritated by that, then there’s always the problem of psychologists talking about celebrities, or the general ethical issues raised by Big Brother for me to moan about.

Of course, it’s not all been bad news. Anyone would think this blog is only about gripes and grumbles. I’ve always wanted to showcase a variety of sexual experiences within this blog and not just think about sex just for a Western audience. I’ll continue to discuss issues relating to sex and seniors; teenagers; disability; transsexuality; lesbian, gay and bi issues; open relationships; BDSM; sexual health; contraception; prostitution; pornography; reproductive health; pleasure; desire; asexuality; dating; psychosexual problems; showcasing great sex pioneers; talking about safer sex; and as many other topics as I can find for you to read about.

Where to next?
Unlike five years ago, I’m now thinking strategically about this blog – who it’s for, what it does, and seeking to find ways to assess any impact it may have. I’ve noticed over the years it sometimes deviates into areas that interest me, but may not appeal to all readers. So my aim is to ensure the focus of the blog remains around the core things you’re most interested in when you visit – sex, science, and media.

I’m currently involved in overhauling the site so in the new year I hope to have far more open access materials available for you – relationships and sex guides, information about sexual and reproductive health, more advice and links to sources of help, along with practical information for journalists, healthcare professionals, parents, teens and teachers.

I’ve been asked by many readers for more information about how to become an agony aunt/media sex educator, so I’ll be blogging about this – as well as how to write a sex blog – in the not too distant future.

I’ll also be making use of twitter soon, as sometimes I blog about issues people need to hear about fast (particularly developments in science/health), so hopefully that will make messages more accessible. I’ll let you know once I’ve sorted it.

Obviously I’d like to hear what you’d like to see. How would you like this blog to develop over the next year (or five!). Are there any particular things you’d like to see more/less of? Topics you want covered? People you’d like me to interview for the ‘quickies’ section of the blog? Campaigns you want covered? Let me know what your vision is for this blog.

So, happy fifth birthday blog. Big birthday kisses to those of you who’ve been with me from the beginning. For those of you who’ve only recently found this blog I hope you like it enough to stick around for the next half decade. I notice one of my favourite other blogs Mind Hacks has also celebrated it’s fifth birthday too, so congratulations to them.

Time to blow out the candles and make a wish. Of course, I can’t tell you what it is. You’ll have to come back in five years to find out if it’s come true.

Every so often I hear about a quote I supposedly gave to a journalist which I didn’t actually provide. Sometimes that’s been because a journalist (or sub editor) has muddled my name with another expert quoted in a story or feature. Sometimes it’s because a journalist’s taken something from my blog and rewritten it. And sometimes it’s because a journalist has written what they thought I might say and put my name to it.

When I’ve questioned this misreporting editors are usually willing to rectify mistakes, but journalists and editors have often questioned why it would bother me. After all, in an era where many ‘experts’ are thrilled to get a mention in the press (as a form of self promotion) it presumably shouldn’t matter what you’re quoted as saying, so long as someone is quoting you. Right?

Well maybe for some, but not for me. Here’s why.

Firstly, it’s just bad journalism to decide to misquote, rewrite or make up something you claim an expert has said. It dishonest reporting and is unfair to readers and journalist colleagues who are investigating their stories and reporting accurately.

Secondly, it’s unfair on the person being misquoted. It can misrepresent their expertise or area of study (if they’re a genuine expert) and make them the target of unjust criticism from colleagues. [If they’re a quack it just gives credence to their unsubstantiated ideas and allows them further publicity]. It can also create more work for the expert concerned as if you’re misquoted about a story and more journalists catch on to this you have to explain the error to them – which can actually lead to them treating you with suspicion. And you feeling like you’re going crazy and can’t remember what interviews you’ve given.

I’ve had a few experiences like this over the past couple of years and it’s always annoying and again reduces my faith in the media. It’s particularly annoying because I actually want to work with journalists and am happy for them to quote my blog (accurately and with acknowledgement), or to get in touch with me so I can either help them or refer them to someone who can be of assistance.

What’s a real pain is when you’re misquoted but then other people pick up on the story and you discover you’re an expert in something that you perhaps aren’t qualified in. Flattering, possibly, but irritating too.

And that’s how today I discovered I am a ‘renowned English sexologist’. Which is a nice compliment but nowhere near as exciting as also finding out I also invented “Twilight success”. Yes. All that fuss in the media you’re seeing about the Twilight books, Team Cullen vs Team Black, and the New Moon film? That was down to me.

I sincerely hope you’re impressed. I certainly was.

Although, of course, it’s not true. I have not researched nor published any academic papers about Twlight. I have read the series (and enjoyed it). But I’m not an expert on the topic of the book or the interest it’s generated among teens (particularly young women). There are people who have researched the Twilight phenomenon and it’s a growing interest area within literature, philosophy, media and cultural studies (for some examples see here, here and here. Not to mention being a hot topic within the Slash Fiction genre.

Unfortunately all this escaped the journalist from Dutch newspaper De Pers, who recently quoted me in a feature about Twilight ‘Alleen dat haar, al o my god’. Translated (with thanks to my friends over at Bad Science forums) my contribution reads something like this: “The renowned English sexologist Dr Petra Boynton calls it Twilight Success, that, according to her, is all about the almost tangible gigantic sexual longing of Bella for Edward, the longing of woman for man, as a signal on the cultural level that female sexual feelings are not all romance and roses, nor indeed the acrylic nails and fake tan of most porn films. But they exist in another place that women have perhaps not looked into before. Are you ready to look into it yourself?”

Now perhaps I’m being a bit facetious about my interpretation of ‘Twilight Success’, but this quote does represent problems for me. Particularly because another journalist saw this story and contacted me for their story on desire and the Twilight phenomena. It’s how I discovered I’d been quoted in the first place. Luckily I was able to refer that journalist to some people who are more expert in this area than I am. But it would have been nice to do that for the De Pers piece – and also nice not to seem particularly stupid when I was called by the second journalist and had absolutely no idea what they were talking about.

Nobody from De Pers contacted me about this story. This is not an area I’ve researched. The only possible link to this story I have is that I wrote in my pre-Halloween blog a few weeks ago “Actually I’ve done little else but fantasise about Edward Cullen of late, so this guide (how to date a real-life vampire is useful in case he tires of Bella and comes for me. Join me, and check out the Twilight series, or tuck into Susie Bright’s Bitten – a great new gothic erotic anthology”.

Which doesn’t mention anything about desire between Edward and Bella, new genres or comparing romance with porn. (I have researched the latter issue and published on it, but not in relation to Twilight. So I’m still confused).

I contacted the paper pointing out this error and questioning whether it was a case of either muddling me with someone else, or completely misquoting an unrelated blog entry, or simply putting my name to something to help a story stack up.

I’ve heard nothing back.

It’s tempting to ignore events like this when they happen. After all there are many more serious issues going on in the world that we could be focusing on.

My reason for flagging this up is how can we trust journalists to report on the serious issues if, even if it’s only occasionally, we find there are those who attribute experts to content without gaining their consent or checking for accuracy? If they fabricate the simple stories, what other lies might they be telling us?

The word ‘therapist’ means something. It’s a job title like ‘cardiologist’, ‘architect’, ‘choreographer’, or ‘solicitor’. You’d expect newspapers to get basic facts like this correct.

I opened my Sunday paper this morning to see myself described as ‘Dr Petra Boynton, Relationship Therapist’. Which is all very nice, except I’m not a therapist. I’m a psychologist who researches sex and relationships.

Perhaps you see no difference between the two. But if you called a solicitor a police officer, or perhaps lawyer, there would be problems.

Recently a number of complaints have been made in the press about people described as ‘sex therapists’ who have no qualifications, skills, or training in this field. Myself and other colleagues have let the media know it’s wrong for people give themselves titles they don’t deserve. It’s misleading and confuses the public at a time when trust in science, medicine, and research is at an all time low.

I told the newspaper three times that I wasn’t a therapist. Didn’t make any difference though, they still couldn’t get it right.

So maybe we’ve been wrong to criticise our colleagues for setting themselves up as ‘therapists’ and abusing their position. Perhaps they never described themselves like this at all. Perhaps the writer or sub editor assumed titles are simply interchangeable. After all, ‘it’s just a word’ as one journalist once told me.

Want to know what happens if you get it wrong? You face sneers from your colleagues, complaints from other practitioners, and possibly disciplinary action from your employer or any professional body to which you belong. Nobody believes you if you say you were misquoted. The public continues to mistrust what’s written, won’t accept advice from genuine professionals, and may put their emotional or physical health at risk as a result.

And if you think that academics or practitioners are going to want to talk to you a second time, after you’ve insulted they by getting their title wrong and probably got them into a whole heap of trouble, you can think again. They won’t trust you, and maybe they’d have a point. If papers can’t even get a simple thing like a job title right, can we trust anything else they say?