Fortifying the Gates
As Rothman's findings have shown, we are closer than ever to knowing what messages best promote public health. But messages can be crafted and framed in ways that produce desirable results only by those who know what works and what doesn't, and only if those with the knowledge and resources exercise due diligence and make health information and health news as accurate and effective as possible.
In a dramatically changing media landscape, how likely are people to get the messages they need—and in the forms that are most likely to promote individual and collective health?
It's a question that Gary Schwitzer has been studying for years. The former editor of the Mayo Clinic's health information Web site (MayoClinic.com) and an associate professor of journalism and mass communications, Schwitzer says that the most traditionally reliable sources—print publications and news broadcasts—are now the most vulnerable to poor reporting. Economic downsizing, often the result of increased competition from the Internet, has led media organizations to cut the amount of original health reporting they do.
“With the corporatization of media, decision makers are finding it easy to make cuts in this vital area,� Schwitzer says. “They may be cutting back on specially trained beats. And yet they might want to show a presence, to make it look like they're covering health news.�
As a result, Schwitzer says, editors are more receptive to news releases from the public relations departments of pharmaceutical companies, health maintenance organizations, or special interest lobbies. “Those with marketing interests are finding it easier to get their message across in an unfiltered manner,� Schwitzer says.
In August of 2006, WebMD.com posted an article announcing that “an apple (or two) a day may help keep Alzheimer's away—and fight the effects of aging on the brain.� It wasn't until seven paragraphs into the story, Schwitzer noted on his blog, that the reporter disclosed that this conclusion was based on the findings of experiments conducted solely with mice.
That kind of reporting is all too common, Schwitzer says. “Caveats, comparisons with existing alternatives, cost information—the real quality of the evidence appears too late� in stories, he explains. “You're asking for an editor to cut it, or you're asking the reader to ignore it.�
To counter this trend, Schwitzer launched a popular health news site on the Internet—healthnewsreview.org. On it, he and his colleagues point out some of the more problematic health reporting he comes across, and they discuss potential remedies to the problems plaguing the news industry in general and health reporters in particular.
The site has grown into a significant resource for journalists and news consumers alike. Schwitzer doesn't believe that poor quality health news coverage is driven by a public with an appetite for sound bites rather than depth. He notes that publishers sometimes twist market research to support their claim that the public doesn't want depth or nuance in their coverage. But, he counters, “There's anecdote on top of anecdote about folks who are thirsty for in-depth analytical news.� Quenching that thirst is an important goal of his site.
