for more information:
Wilson, A., Robertson, J., McElduff, P., Jones, A., & Henry, D. (2010). Does It Matter Who Writes Medical News Stories? PLoS Medicine, 7 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000323
Since the lay public obtains its medical and science news from the lay news media, it's critical for the media to accurately represent the topics it reports. Some traditional news outlets are very good at this, but quality performance is the exception rather than the rule.
I agree with this opinion, but it's an opinion backed up by scientific evidence. For example, health and medical reporting in newspapers is often based on unreliable sources, e.g. those which are not peer-reviewed, such as press releases.
If the science media is not scientifically literate, how can we expect the general public to learn about the research funded under its name, and ultimately to value and appreciate science? I and many others understand that the traditional media is under financial pressure, but medical and science reporting is such an essential public service that it should be placed in the hands of the most capable individuals.
David Henry (Institute for Clinical Evaluative Sciences, Canada) and coworkers add weight to this idea. They have shown the positive effect of specialization on health news reporting, and offer suggestions on how to improve the quality of medical news reporting.
Evaluation methods.
The reporting analyzed by the scientists (over 1300 medical news stories published between 2004 and 2009) was obtained from the Media Doctor Australia website. Contributors to this website write evaluations of health news appearing in public and private news outlets in Australia (from radio, television, newspapers, and the Internet).
The focus is on beneficial health claims of procedures and treatments. News stories include local as well as international reporting.
Media Doctor Australia uses two volunteer reviewers to rank news stories according to ten criteria (e.g. whether it quantified intervention benefits, excessively relied on press releases, and provided commentary on intervention availability). A third reviewer was used when there was disagreement among the two reviewers.
The scientists named specific media outlets, but avoided naming specific reporters. Based on the byline, the reporters were placed into one of six categories, e.g. specialist health journalist or news organization (Associated Press, etc).
Evaluation results.
Rated according to news outlet type, human interest current affairs programs on average received the lowest evaluations ("A Current Affair," channel 9 Australia, ranked at 34.7), and broadsheet newspapers received the highest ("Sydney Morning Herald" ranked at 58.8). Rated according to the type of journalist (not including situations in which no byline was given), general journalists on average received the lowest score (44.8), and specialist health journalists received the highest (59.6).
As a general rule, there was no significant difference between the large news organizations. However, the Associated Press received the highest evaluation.
The scientists note that even exceptional reporting can be ruined by inappropriate editing. Nevertheless, it's clear that specialist journalists more accurately convey the science underlying their reporting than nonspecialists.
Implications.
How can these findings be used to improve medical and science reporting? First of all, the scientists recommend that specialized medical reporters should be retained by news organizations rather than relying on those covering a general beat.
If a nonspecialist reporter's commentary is not scientifically sound, the general public may be misinformed. In my mind, this is an ethical issue on a par with allowing pharmaceutical companies to advertise their products on television.
The scientists also suggest that medical journalists should receive more training, and that scientists themselves should take a more active role in reporting by their public affairs offices. I especially agree with this latter suggestion.
It may be unfortunate that many university science writers are not scientists, let alone highly-trained scientists, but it's the case nevertheless. Regarding university news reporting, certainly the student(s) or postdoc(s) who performed the research can sit down with the writer and work together to ensure that the press release is scientifically sound and free of sensationalism.
NOTE: The scientists' research was indirectly funded by Hunter Medical Research Institute and the University of Newcastle. The scientists have served as reviewers for Media Doctor, the health news evaluation website used to evaluate news reporting for the scientists' research paper.
for more information:
Wilson, A., Robertson, J., McElduff, P., Jones, A., & Henry, D. (2010). Does It Matter Who Writes Medical News Stories? PLoS Medicine, 7 (9) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000323