Press: Media hype? It's not as bad as it seems
Authors: David Spurgeon
Journal: BMJ (2004)

Researchers are often quick to blame the media for inaccuracies and distortions in reporting on health matters (BMJ 2003;327: 688). But what if it turns out that newspapers are being unfairly criticised? A Canadian study of media coverage of genetic research shows that the charges are not well founded and that in most cases the media gets it right (CMAJ 2004;170: 1399-407 [PubMed]).

“Our data suggest that the majority of newspaper articles accurately convey the results and reflect the claims made in scientific journal articles,” say the report's authors, Tania M Bubela and Timothy A Caulfield of the University of Alberta's Health Law Institute.

So how does the perception of media distortion arise? Although Bubela and Caulfield's study finds that only 11% of articles could be categorised as having moderately to highly exaggerated claims, they note that the media overemphasise particular topics, such as behavioural genetics. “The high profile of these types of stories may be one reason for the perception that newspaper stories are often hyped,” they say. “In other words, although we found that only 11% of the newspaper articles had moderately or highly exaggerated claims, these few stories might have a significant impact on public perceptions.”

Bubela and Caulfield's study examined 627 newspaper articles in major daily newspapers in Canada, the United States, Great Britain, and Australia reporting on 111 papers published in 24 scientific and medical journals. It categorised 63% of the articles as having no claims and 26% of them as having slightly exaggerated claims. People with a scientific background judged most of the articles (82%) to contain no significant technical or scientific errors; 18% had one to three such errors, while only two contained more than three.

Reporting of risks was ranked as the most important variable in determining the categorisation of newspaper articles. The study found that both scientific and newspaper articles overemphasised benefits and underestimated risks in their reporting of single-gene discoveries and associated technologies.

Only 15% of newspaper articles—and 5% of scientific journal articles—discussed costs or risks, while 97% of the newspaper articles and 98% of the scientific journal articles discussed the likelihood of benefits of the research.

The study used neutral search terms to identify articles about gene discoveries and associated technologies hosted on the Dow Jones Interactive and Canadian NewsDisk databases from January 1995 to June 2001. It compared the contents, claims, and conclusions of the scientific journal article with those of the newspaper articles. Coders subjectively assigned the newspaper articles to one of three categories: moderately to highly exaggerated claims, slightly exaggerated claims, or no exaggerated claims. Classification tree software was used to identify the variables that contributed to this assignment, including such factors as where the article was positioned in the newspaper, the tone of the article (positive or negative), technical accuracy, and the use of metaphors.

Surprisingly few systematic studies have examined the accuracy of media reporting of genetics, the report's authors say. Most focus on coverage of a single issue, such as sexual orientation, or the discovery of susceptibility to breast and prostate cancer.