Who should write medical news stories?
http://www.blacktriangle.org/blog/?p=2111
An interesting paper in PLOS Medicine on media reporting of medical news. Wilson et al examined medical news stories written by specialist and non-specialist journalists in Australia from 2004–08. They found specialist health reporters produced higher quality articles than general reporters, and broad sheets performed better than tabloids. They suggest:
It does matter who writes news stories that cover the benefits and harms of health care interventions. Stories written by specialist health journalists were superior to those written by other groups. These data illustrate what can be achieved in terms of high-quality health news reporting, but this ideal is seldom reached. The analyses also underscore the importance of which outlets journalists work for. Traditional broadsheet newspapers scored highest and commercial human interest programs consistently returned the poorest scores. We presume that these differences reflect not only the professional skills of journalists, but also editorial policies, which dictate the target audience, the writing style (favouring human interest over evidence), the length of the article, and the extent to which it serves particular sectoral interests (e.g., a patient support group or identifiable victims of a disease). These findings are not surprising, but some of the differences were large and likely to translate into flawed information for consumers, with an adverse effect on health literacy.
They also note the commercial pressures the newspapers are under, and the threat that puts on specialist reporters. News gathering and reporting is an important job, and it is clear that newspapers are still struggling to find new models for revenue generation having already let their product out free on in the market. The Times is trying to reverse that situation with a paywall, but the jury is still out on whether they have the solution or have merely locked themselves out of the internet.
The important point is also made that investigators, funding bodies, research institutions, universities’ PR departments, and journals should bear responsibility for the stories and ensure that “balanced claims about the findings, their importance and implications” are provided to journalists. Currently, the drive for research to have an a public impact may have the unfortunate consequence of converting good science into bad reporting.
An interesting paper in PLOS Medicine on media reporting of medical news. Wilson et al examined medical news stories written by specialist and non-specialist journalists in Australia from 2004–08. They found specialist health reporters produced higher quality articles than general reporters, and broad sheets performed better than tabloids. They suggest:
It does matter who writes news stories that cover the benefits and harms of health care interventions. Stories written by specialist health journalists were superior to those written by other groups. These data illustrate what can be achieved in terms of high-quality health news reporting, but this ideal is seldom reached. The analyses also underscore the importance of which outlets journalists work for. Traditional broadsheet newspapers scored highest and commercial human interest programs consistently returned the poorest scores. We presume that these differences reflect not only the professional skills of journalists, but also editorial policies, which dictate the target audience, the writing style (favouring human interest over evidence), the length of the article, and the extent to which it serves particular sectoral interests (e.g., a patient support group or identifiable victims of a disease). These findings are not surprising, but some of the differences were large and likely to translate into flawed information for consumers, with an adverse effect on health literacy.
They also note the commercial pressures the newspapers are under, and the threat that puts on specialist reporters. News gathering and reporting is an important job, and it is clear that newspapers are still struggling to find new models for revenue generation having already let their product out free on in the market. The Times is trying to reverse that situation with a paywall, but the jury is still out on whether they have the solution or have merely locked themselves out of the internet.
The important point is also made that investigators, funding bodies, research institutions, universities’ PR departments, and journals should bear responsibility for the stories and ensure that “balanced claims about the findings, their importance and implications” are provided to journalists. Currently, the drive for research to have an a public impact may have the unfortunate consequence of converting good science into bad reporting.
Comments