My Complaint About CBC's Gill Deacon Segment and Their Response

On October 26th, CBC’s flagship program The National aired an interview featuring former CBC host Gill Deacon. During the interview, Deacon discussed her recovery from Long COVID using a brain retraining program and promoted her new book. While neither the host nor Deacon explicitly endorsed the therapy, the segment platformed an unproven, harmful approach known as the Lightning Process.

I wrote about the issues with the coverage, including the insufficient context provided in a later re-edited version. I filed a complaint with the CBC ombud because I did not believe it lived up to CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices (JSP).

I pointed to three specific parts of the JSP that were not upheld:

• “In the case of comments made by a person expressing an honest opinion, we ensure that the opinion is grounded in facts bearing on a matter of public interest.”

• “In matters of human health we will take particular care to avoid arousing unfounded hopes or fears in persons living with or close to those living with serious illnesses.”

• “CBC’s journalists are, first and foremost, expected to be independent and impartial. This means that our primary allegiance is to the public. Any conflict, real or perceived, between that allegiance and our personal or professional interests risks corroding the trust placed in us by Canadians.”

Basem Boshra, Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust, responded on behalf of the CBC. He disagreed with my assessment that the segment violated the JSP.

Boshra defended the segment as it offered a personal perspective on a complex health issue without validating a specific treatment. CBC's mandate includes covering human interest stories, which including featuring varied realities of Long COVID. The re-edited segment provided balance by calling the brain retraining program controversial and that it is not standard medical practice. Boshra disagreed with concerns about the perception that there is a conflict of interest.

I followed up to ask what the value of sharing this recovery story to the public was, given the serious concerns and risk of amplifying pseudoscientific health claims. I noted that this approach still constituted “false balance,” similar to when news outlets provided disproportionate airtime to climate change deniers.

“I acknowledge that we disagree on the approach that we took on this particular story,” Boshra wrote back. “However, I can assure you that your critique has been received, considered and will inform future coverage. That is not just boilerplate language; it is genuine.”

I hope we see better coverage moving forward.

My Complaint and CBC Responses

1. My Complaint

2. CBC’s Response

3. My Response

4. Final CBC Response

My Complaint 

I hope this email finds you well. I am writing about a recent segment on CBC’s The National featuring Gill Deacon’s interview about her recovery from Long COVID. Although the segment was later re-edited, the updated version unfortunately amplified the original shortcomings. 

As a neuroscientist-turned-health journalist and award-winning science communicator, I have covered Long COVID for TVO Today, Being Patient, and The Sick Times. I was disappointed with the lack of rigor and false balance presented in the interview. I also wrote a short piece about the interview as well for my newsletter. My aim here is to outline ways in which this interview falls short of CBC’s Journalistic Standards and Practices and general principles of responsible health communication.

Specific failures to adhere to journalistic practices:

1. “In the case of comments made by a person expressing an honest opinion, we ensure that the opinion is grounded in facts bearing on a matter of public interest.

The interview did not adequately contextualize Ms. Deacon’s claims about her recovery.

The segment omits mentioning the specific training she attended, the Lightning Process — which is mentioned in her blog and likely her forthcoming book. In the re-edited version of the segment, the training is simply called “controversial.” Yet that’s both irresponsible and inaccurate — neuroscientists and physicians say it has no plausible grounding in physiology, going as far as calling it quackery. The specific program has also faced credible accusations of exploiting patients with Long COVID and other complex chronic illnesses. 

In this sense, it presents a false balance where the Lightning Process is provided more credence than it receives in the general medical community.  

2. “In matters of human health we will take particular care to avoid arousing unfounded hopes or fears in persons living with or close to those living with serious illnesses.”

The segment highlights brain retraining and cognitive behavioural therapy as potential cures for Long COVID, despite weak and inconclusive scientific evidence and complaints from many in the patient community who say they have been harmed by these methods. 

In the updated version, Ms. Deacon seems to blame patients for not being open to brain retraining. “I think there can be a tendency to double down on your ‘I am really sick’ and ‘I am really having these symptoms’ and maybe get [sic] develop some kind of reluctance or resistance to having an open mind to what else might work best,” she said. Suggesting people need to keep an open mind to unproven treatment is a tactic often used by alternative health practitioners promoting unproven treatments. 

As research continues to emerge, it is clear that Long COVID is a complex multi-systemic disease. However, I don’t think that The National would provide the same sort of platform to someone that claims that brain retraining or other unevidenced therapies like homeopathy cured their cancer, multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s, or rheumatoid arthritis.

3. “CBC’s journalists are, first and foremost, expected to be independent and impartial. This means that our primary allegiance is to the public. Any conflict, real or perceived, between that allegiance and our personal or professional interests risks corroding the trust placed in us by Canadians.”

For several years, patient groups, patient-researchers, and scientists have warned against the harms of the Lightning Process, brain retraining and CBT. The National’s lack of scrutiny raises concerns about the depth of background research conducted. The decision to platform a former CBC colleague and promote her book, despite the lack of credibility and potential harm that might arise from their recovery claims, creates a perception of impartiality. 

Requested action

I ask that The National should re-assess the segment and consider providing:

• Factual context about the Lightning Process, brain retraining, and CBT that goes beyond calling it “controversial”

• Expert commentary from clinicians and patient advocates to correct the false balance presented in the segment

• A clear plan moving forward to ensure that future coverage of Long COVID is factual and does not promote unproven treatments

• The CBC should work with patient partners to implement these changes

Rectifying these issues is important at a time many Canadians with Long COVID are struggling to access reliable care. Promoting unproven cures, when none exist, promotes the false narrative that Long COVID is something that is psychosomatic and easily treatable.

Thank you for your time and consideration. 

CBC’s Response

Dear Simon Spichak:

Thank you for your recent email to CBC Ombud Maxime Bertrand.

I am the Senior Director of Journalistic Standards and Public Trust, and I am responding on behalf of CBC News General Manager and Editor-in-Chief Brodie Fenlon.

First, I want to thank you for taking the time to provide your feedback on our work and say that I’m sorry you are disappointed with The National's recent interview with Gill Deacon about her long COVID recovery.

While I welcome the opportunity to address your concerns, I respectfully disagree with your assessment, and I firmly believe that the re-edited version of the segment adheres to the core principles of our Journalistic Standards and Practices (JSP) by offering a personal perspective on a complex public health issue, without endorsing or validating a specific treatment protocol.

A central point of contention is the segment's treatment of Ms. Deacon’s recovery method, specifically the "Lightning Process" and the broader topic of "brain retraining," which you characterize as falling short of the JSP requirement to ground opinion in facts. 

I must state here that experience of illness and recovery is, by its nature, subjective and personal. Our mandate allows for the exploration of human interest stories, which illuminate the varied realities of Canadians dealing with conditions like long COVID. 

The segment’s purpose was not to provide a medical endorsement or a scientific review of a specific therapy but to share a narrative of one individual's journey out of debilitating illness.

To address the concern about "false balance," the re-edited segment specifically labelled the recovery method as "controversial.” While I acknowledge that you find this approach insufficient, this term does serve as a warning sign, implicitly communicating that the method lacks universal medical acceptance and is subject to debate within the scientific and patient communities. 

Finally, regarding the perception of a conflict of interest due to Ms. Deacon being a former colleague and promoting a forthcoming book: featuring a compelling personal story does not automatically constitute an endorsement of or an alliance with the subject. Such stories are chosen on their merits and public interest value, not on any connections, past or present, to the CBC.

Thank you again for your feedback and suggestions for strengthening future coverage of long Covid and its treatment. That has been shared with key editorial leaders at CBC News.

Sincerely,

Basem Boshra

Senior Director

Journalistic Standards and Public Trust

CBC News

My Response

Hi Basem,

Thank you for taking the time to address my concerns - I do have some follow up questions based on your responses.

I recognize that the segment did not intend to offer a medical endorsement or scientific review of a specific therapy. While illness and recovery stories are highly personal, journalists have a duty to ensure that the stories they present do not provide false hope or unintentional harm, in line with the Journalistic Standards and Practices. Providing an influential individual with a platform to discuss such a therapy, without appropriate context, lends it a sense of legitimacy, even when no explicit endorsement is made. Would similar opportunities be provided to other high-profile individuals who recovered, regardless of their method of recovery? What public value does this segment serve when the approach featured is widely regarded by researchers and patient advocates as lacking scientific validity? Again, would someone with a different illness using a pseudoscientific approach to achieve recovery receive the same air time or does this only apply to Long COVID?

Regarding the question of balance, describing the therapy as “controversial” and lacks acceptance by the modern medical establishment briefly during the segment is insufficient and easy to miss. Newsrooms have encountered similar ethical challenges in the past, when they platformed climate change deniers, simply stating their views were controversial, conflating fringe pseudoscientific views with consensus.

Finally, even if unintended, presenting this recovery story without more detailed context—omitting the name of the therapy under scrutiny and the lack of supporting evidence—creates an appearance of impropriety.

Thank you again for taking my feedback into consideration and for sharing it with the editorial team.

Final CBC Response

Hello Simon,

Thank you for your thoughtful follow up. I acknowledge that we disagree on the approach that we took on this particular story. However, I can assure you that your critique has been received, considered and will inform future coverage. That is not just boilerplate language; it is genuine.

Best,

Basem