Australia's media reporting of health and medical matters: a question of quality

Weyden, Martin B Van Der; Armstrong, Ruth M

doi:10.5694/j.1326-5377.2005.tb06991.x

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a 2004 Statement of Principles, journalists were advised: ‘Be vigilant in selecting sources, asking about, weighing and disclosing relevant financial, advocacy, personal or other interests of those we interview as a routine part of story research and interviews’ (Schwitzer, 2004: W10). Cohn’s (1989: 116) landmark text News and Numbers made explicit reference to conflict of interest in assessing research and urged journalists to be reflexive about their own position (see also Van der Weyden and Armstrong, 2005).…”

Section: Media and Conflict Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

A legacy of the swine flu global pandemic: Journalists, expert sources, and conflicts of interest

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates the extent to which Australian journalists considered the potential conflicts of interest of expert sources during their reporting of the 2009 H1N1 (swine flu) pandemic. The study found that asking about conflicts of interest was not a routine practice for most, though various indirect methods of ascertaining such information were discussed. Journalists’ views and practices in relation to conflicts of interest were shaped by factors related to the story, their sources, audiences, the medium, and personal beliefs. The article elaborates on these findings with reference to key areas of debate relating to conflicts of interest, and considers the extent to which they are products of the context of an emerging infectious disease or characteristic of health reporting more broadly. We conclude that a legacy of the pandemic in Australia appears to be heightened journalistic sensitivity to the conflicts of interest of experts and policy advisors, especially in relation to large-scale public health issues.

show abstract

Section: Media and Conflict Of Interestmentioning

confidence: 99%

A legacy of the swine flu global pandemic: Journalists, expert sources, and conflicts of interest

et al. 2013

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a result, young journalists without even rudimentary knowledge of medicine comment on a various medical issues and ask irrelevant questions. Guidelines for medical reporting in the media exist in Australia and America (3,4). But how should doctors behave with the media?…”

Section: Doctors and The Electronic Mediamentioning

confidence: 99%

Doctors and the electronic media

Varghese¹,

George²

2006

IJME

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although this open exchange is a desirable and important part of the scientific process, much of the work presented is not ready for public consumption 1 . ‐ 3 …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed

Woloshin

Schwartz

2006

Medical Journal of Australia

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: To examine media stories on research presented at scientific meetings to see if they reported basic study facts and cautions, and whether they were clear about the preliminary stage of the research. Design and setting: Three physicians with clinical epidemiology training analysed front‐page newspaper stories (n = 32), other newspaper stories (n = 142), and television/radio stories (n = 13) identified in LexisNexis and ProQuest searches for research reports from five scientific meetings in 2002–2003 (American Heart Association, 14th Annual International AIDS Conference, American Society of Clinical Oncology, Society for Neuroscience, and the Radiological Society of North America). Main outcome measures: Media reporting of basic study facts (size, design, quantification of results); cautions about study designs with intrinsic limitations (animal/laboratory studies, studies with < 30 people, uncontrolled studies, controlled but not randomised studies) or downsides (adverse effects in intervention studies); warnings about the preliminary stage of the research presented at scientific meetings. Results: 34% of the 187 stories did not mention study size, 18% did not mention study design (another 35% were so ambiguous that expert readers had to guess the design), and 40% did not quantify the main result. Only 6% of news stories about animal studies mentioned their limited relevance to human health; 21% of stories about small studies noted problems with the precision of the finding; 10% of stories about uncontrolled studies noted it was not possible to know if the outcome really related to the exposure; and 19% of stories about controlled but not randomised studies raised the possibility of confounding. Only 29% of the 142 news stories on intervention studies noted the possibility of any potential downside. Twelve stories mentioned a corresponding “in press” medical journal article; two of the remaining 175 noted that findings were unpublished, might not have undergone peer review, or might change. Conclusions: News stories about scientific meeting research presentations often omit basic study facts and cautions. Consequently, the public may be misled about the validity and relevance of the science presented.

show abstract

Australia's media reporting of health and medical matters: a question of quality

Cited by 5 publications

References 8 publications

A legacy of the swine flu global pandemic: Journalists, expert sources, and conflicts of interest

A legacy of the swine flu global pandemic: Journalists, expert sources, and conflicts of interest

Doctors and the electronic media

Media reporting on research presented at scientific meetings: more caution needed

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About