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 repeated long-standing, unfounded myths about LGBT+ people. Both attracted thousands of Ofcom complaints.

PIF TICK organisations are unlikely to create coverage like this. But people who use their services may encounter it elsewhere, affecting trust and use. So, should trusted health information creators respond when media coverage could harm their users and what could that response look like?

This article should take six or seven minutes to read.

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.

With rising diagnoses, it makes sense to examine social and environmental factors. However, 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.

The evidence cited in the documentary relied heavily on personal experience to support its conclusion: the presenter’s ADHD diagnosis and the experience of one child.

The presenter questioned the ADHD diagnosis he received during filming and reported feeling emotionally blunted after taking his ADHD medication once. He later said he took it for three weeks.

This does not reflect the usual process for ADHD medication. If medication is chosen, titration may take several weeks or months. During this process, a specialist monitors its benefits and side effects. They may adjust the dose or try a different medication.

The presenter’s short experience therefore provides limited evidence on ADHD medication and its side effects, limitations or benefits.

The programme also relied on the experience of one child. The child stopped taking medication for six weeks and appeared happier, although did less well at school. 

Several lifestyle changes were introduced at the same time. Screens, processed food and sugary foods were removed. Supplements, yoga, outdoor activities and more parental attention were added.

Because everything changed at once, it is impossible to identify a single cause for the changes in the child. Despite these mixed results, the documentary claimed that the behavioural changes proved the school environment rather than the brain was to blame. The documentary did not mention that the child went back to their medication after filming.

Lived experience is invaluable to trusted information creators. It can support the creation of inclusive and accessible information and reveal benefits, harms and gaps in care. However, they have limitations and need the support of quantitative data, which this documentary appeared to lack.

Freedom of the press is vital but if the evidence presented does not fully support the conclusion, viewers may be misled.

 The conclusions drawn in a national television broadcast could also give it greater and possibly undeserved weight. Its presence on Ch4 could suggest reliability to some viewers. 

 In this documentary, the presenter was also a psychiatrist. This too could lead viewers to assume his conclusion is based on established clinical evidence. However, much of the programme’s argument relied on personal experience and contested opinions. 

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 BMJ also pointed out that not only viewers, but also health care professionals could be influenced by the documentary.  

The BMJ commented that:

“ The documentary has contributed misinformation and confusion to the already fraught discourse around ADHD,” 

President of PIF TICK member The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych), Professor Subodh Dave,  maintains that 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”. 

Questioning the legitimacy of ADHD could also affect the wellbeing of people with ADHD or seeking a diagnosis. Professor Rubia, who featured in the documentary, warned that it could make people change their treatment without professional advice, increasing the risk of poor educational, social and health outcomes. Rubia later publicly dissociated herself from the documentary saying that her contribution was “ misrepresented” and made to “fit into the programme's narrative.” RCPsych advised anyone considering stopping ADHD medication to speak to their doctor first. 

Showing that trusted organisations can acknowledge uncertainty and problems within services without undermining a recognised condition, RCPsych accepted there were real concerns around including poor-quality assessments and possible misdiagnosis. But 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 GB News broadcasts raise different but equally important concerns from those explored in The Great ADHD Myth?.

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. They also point to history and argue that systemic persecution has left LGBT+ people facing poorer life outcomes. In February 2026, PIF wrote about a recent investigation by The Guardian, based on Office for National Statistics data on sexual orientation which supports this.

Most PIF TICK organisations don’t specialise in just one community, but marginalised groups are likely to be among their users and staff.  This raises questions about where the responsibility of trusted information creators begins and ends in such cases. If prejudice affects people’s wellbeing, trust, disclosure or willingness to access care, does it become relevant to organisations responsible for meeting their health information needs?

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.” 

Simply trying to keep abreast of prominent coverage affecting people within their community could be a useful starting point. Organisations could consider the reach and seriousness of the coverage, its potential to cause harm and whether users or staff have raised concerns.  

Silence is not always neutral. It could leave affected users unsure whether an organisation welcomes and supports them. However, responding could give damaging claims more attention. Organisations need to judge when a response would be useful and proportionate. 

A response does not always need to be a major public statement. It could involve briefing staff, reviewing relevant information or reassuring affected users that they will be treated with respect. Staff from targeted communities may also need reassurance and support, particularly if they receive questions or discriminatory comments.

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. It is to consider how your organisations stays connected to broadcasts such as these. It can also be helpful 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].