RTBF: hide this conflict that I cannot bear to see

31/01/2025 · Marcan

RTBF treated us this week to a series of podcasts and articles on the COVID crisis. Those who feared the worst will not be disappointed. While many errors are not acknowledged in them, RTBF nevertheless tries to justify them… Today we are going to look at the article “5 ans de Covid‑19: les médias ont‑ils été suffisamment critiques durant la crise sanitaire?”^[1].

In this article, journalist Arnaud Ruyssen explains the methodology used by the RTBF newsroom to select the experts who appear on its programmes: “What we looked at with the experts was whether they were within their field of specialisation, whether their peers confirmed what they said, whether there was a consensus among peers to defend the same point of view.”

One crucial point, however, seems to have escaped RTBF’s journalists: conflicts of interest. One even gets the impression that the experts selected were precisely those who had conflicts of interest. Since RTBF is neither capable of doing real journalistic work nor capable of acknowledging the most glaring of its errors, we are going to do it for them.

Van Ranst and Van Laethem already singled out in 2010

In an article “Choix du vaccin: cinq experts liés à GSK” published in November 2010 in the review Politique^[2], Marc Van Ranst and Yves Van Laethem are clearly cited as having conflicts of interest. At the time, they had recommended GSK’s H1N1 vaccine to the government… while being paid by GSK.

rtbf-cachez-ce-conflit-que-je-ne-saurais-voir

It would be easy to claim that the review Politique is little known, which would make the information less accessible (even though we found it with a simple Google search) or less “credible”. Yet the investigation won the 2010 Dexia Press Prize – written press category, and the information was indeed relayed by the Belga agency and picked up by La Libre^[3].

rtbf-cachez-ce-conflit-que-je-ne-saurais-voir

Note, however, that while Van Ranst is indeed cited in the La Libre article, Van Laethem no longer appears in it.

The Superior Health Council refuses to disclose the experts’ declarations of interests

Surprises followed one after another: we learn, again from the investigation by the review Politique^[4], that the Superior Health Council had, at the time, refused to disclose the experts’ declarations of interests.

rtbf-cachez-ce-conflit-que-je-ne-saurais-voir

A surprising approach for a body that advocates independence, impartiality and transparency....
The information from the review Politique would be relayed by Le Soir on 23 November^[5].

Michel Goldmann, “expert”... president of the AstraZeneca Foundation

rtbf-cachez-ce-conflit-que-je-ne-saurais-voir

In April 2021, BAM published an article entitled “Conflits d’intérêts: les médias pris la main dans le sac”^[6]. The article reveals that on the programme “CQFD” on La Première (RTBF radio), devoted to the AstraZeneca vaccine, the main guest was Prof. Michel Goldman, presented as emeritus professor of immunology at the ULB. However, RTBF fails to mention one detail: Prof. Goldman is also president of the AstraZeneca Foundation^[7]…

rtbf-cachez-ce-conflit-que-je-ne-saurais-voir

RTBF Academy

In October 2021, RTBF took stock of the epidemiological situation on the programme “Le Parti Pris” on Matin Première. To do so, the national broadcaster quite naturally called on what it calls epidemiologists: Emmanuel André and Sophie Lucas. Except that a quick check shows that neither of them is an epidemiologist. Sophie Lucas is an immunologist specialising in cancers and Emmanuel André specialises in clinical microbiology…

BAM! News - La RTBF distribue les diplômes (in French)

The Munich Charter?

Here are a few examples, among others, which show that RTBF does not respect the principle of transparency enshrined in the Munich Charter. This implies that journalists ensure that the experts they consult are not influenced by outside interests likely to compromise the impartiality of their analyses or recommendations.

Those who make mistakes are pushed aside… or not

The argument is well known: Belgium is supposedly too small to have quality experts without conflicts of interest... But this argument seems fallacious to say the least when certain scientists, such as Prof. Bernard Rentier or Dr Martin Zizi, are pushed aside on the pretext of supposed errors during their appearances. Yet one thing is certain: all the experts agree that they have all made mistakes… Prof. Michel Goldman would admit it himself after discovering a probable link between the vaccine and the worsening of his cancer^[8].

Conflicts of interest: a free pass for the media?

Clearly, the many conflicts of interest, though easily accessible to an amateur journalist, did not prevent the experts riddled with them from being very present in the media, scientific committees, task forces or the FAMHP. While RTBF did not set aside experts with conflicts of interest, it did not even deign to specify when such a conflict existed…
It is obvious that RTBF will never make its mea culpa regarding its lack of independence and impartiality. And it is precisely for this reason that BAM came into being.

Marcan for BAM!