Trusted Voices: When televised debate risks harm
Channel 4’s The Great ADHD Myth? questioned the medical existence of ADHD. Meanwhile, a series of GB News broadcasts myths about LGBT+ people. Both attracted thousands of Ofcom complaints.
How should trusted health information creators respond when media coverage could harm their users and what could that response look like?
Case study one: The Great ADHD Myth?
Channel 4’s The Great ADHD Myth? explored rising diagnoses, assessment quality and concerns about medication. It also considered whether aspects of modern life could make ADHD symptoms worse.
The presenter reached a broader conclusion, denying that ADHD is a real medical condition. He also argued that ADHD medication should not be used for children or adults, saying that medication is used to control children and is a medicalised excuse for adults struggling with modern life.
When a national programme presents a contested opinion with clinical authority, viewers may mistake it for scientific fact. This is where healthy debate risks becoming misinformation. The viewers and healthcare professionals could be influenced by the documentary.
PIF TICK member The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) decided to respond. President Professor Subodh Dave said ADHD is a well-established neurodevelopmental disorder. He said that invalidating ADHD “does a disservice to people with ADHD and professionals involved in their care”.
RCPsych advised anyone considering stopping ADHD medication to speak to their doctor first. It acknowledged uncertainty and problems within services, and accepted there were real concerns about poor-quality assessments and possible misdiagnosis. But the organisation suggested that instead of “questioning the legitimacy of a well-established neurodevelopmental disorder,” the documentary should have focused on important areas like improving assessments, reducing waiting lists and helping people access appropriate support.
Case study two: GB News and LGBT+ myths
In June and July 2026, three GB News broadcasts repeated damaging myths about LGBT+ people. The broadcasts did not make claims about LGBT+ people’s health. They are included because they spread prejudiced misinformation, and risk harming the physical and mental health of the LGBT+ community. They attracted thousands of Ofcom complaints.
Presenter Alex Armstrong challenged the comments during one programme. This clear rejection was important but the claims had already been given a national platform.
PIF partner and PIF TICK member the LGBT Foundation has warned that hostility can leave LGBT+ people feeling unsafe and increase mistrust in institutions. The LGBT Foundation says:
“Health information providers should not ignore narratives that may make people less safe or less likely to seek support. The aim is not to respond to every headline, but to recognise when misinformation could fuel discrimination, or create barriers to care.”
The LGBT Foundation offered the following tips for the PIF TICK community:
- Track harmful media narratives before they take root
- Publish evidence-based information that directly challenges misconceptions and prejudice before they can undermine public trust or deter vulnerable groups from seeking healthcare.
- Equip your staff with specialist LGBTQ+ training
- Test your content with people who have relevant lived experience
- Show what has changed in health care and health information, so trust is built through action as well as reassurance. Although this case study focuses on LGBT+ people, the discussion applies to all marginalised communities targeted or vilified in the media.
The responsibility is not to respond perfectly to every media controversy but to ask whether outside coverage is changing community needs, and whether the organisation can or should respond.
Share your experience
Has your organisation responded to misleading or harmful media coverage? We would be interested to hear about any good practice, challenges or lessons you could share with other trusted information creators. Please email [javascript protected email address].