Healthy Skepticism Library item: 17900

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: Journal Article

Jackson T
Press: Both sides now
BMJ 2002 Sep 14; 325:(7364):603
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/325/7364/603/a

Abstract:

In the quest for balanced reporting on issues such as MMR, journalists may be misleading the public

There has long been a tendency to blame the mass media, particularly tabloid newspapers, for public attitudes to and understanding of matters of scientific controversy, such as the MMR (measles, mumps, and rubella) vaccine. But how far do newspapers, and television and radio news, affect what people believe and know?

Researchers at the Cardiff School of Journalism, Media and Cultural Studies have been asking more than a thousand people what they think and know about MMR, human and animal biotechnology, and climate change, and combining the results of this survey with a detailed media analysis of television, newspaper, radio, and magazine content.

Last week, they revealed some preliminary results. Out of 12 scientific questions, the public answered an average of 4.42 correctly. Those who read broadsheet newspapers scored only slightly higher (5.78 correct answers) than tabloid readers (4.13). Readers of the Sun answered an average of 3.73 correctly, the figure for Daily Mail readers was 4.54, for Financial Times, Times, and Daily Telegraph readers it was 5.72, and for Guardian and Independent readers it was 5.85. While 15% of those surveyed cited the internet as one of their main sources of news about science, television (81%) and newspapers (57%) remain dominant.

Most people (67%) knew that some scientists had linked the MMR vaccine with autism. However, they also thought that the evidence in favour of such a link was evenly balanced, or that the evidence even favoured a link, whereas most of the published science and official advice denies the existence of any link. Tammy Speers from Cardiff University said that this was because there was a tendency in journalism to give both sides of a story, even if that meant giving equal weight to what was only a minority, maverick viewpoint.

Her colleague Professor Justin Lewis explained that public opinion was not formed by detailed coverage of individual reports or viewpoints or by the particular spin put on a story, but by repeated associations and by the weight of coverage. For example, in the case of MMR, long term media coverage of controversy over the vaccine had led the public to associate MMR and autism. He said: “With MMR, while the news media generally try to balance the claims about the risks involved, it’s hard for people to assess the volume of evidence on either side.”

The survey also found that half of those surveyed thought the take-up of the MMR vaccine had fallen by more than 25% since 1998, when, at the time of the survey, it was down by only 6%. This was because the public was inclined to think the worst on scientific matters where the evidence was contested, suggested the researchers.

A final report with full results of this project will be available in 2003.