Published in
Twin
Cities TV health news
Aging baby boomers, health-conscious twenty-somethings, and cost-conscious seniors are all searching for more health and medical news and information. A Harris Poll found that 74 percent of all those who use the Internet have looked for health information at some time. That’s 51 percent of all adults, or about 111 million people. But a recent Gallup Poll still found the Internet near the bottom of the list of sources the public goes uses for health and medical news.
Where do most people go for health and medical news and information? The Gallup Poll found that television is still by far the most popular source. However—and strikingly—
the same poll found that television is the least trusted source of such information.
My teaching and research interests reside in the intersection of television news and health care journalism. This past year, I watched 840 health news stories on four Minneapolis-St. Paul television stations (KARE, KMSP, KSTP, WCCO) for four months (February 2003 through May 2003). What viewers got in those four months was often, in my estimation, a violation of the Radio-Television News Directors Association code of ethics. The code calls on electronic journalists to “present the news accurately, in context, and as completely as possible” and to place “primary value on significance and relevance.” Many stories, while perhaps technically accurate, lacked context and completeness. Some stories seemed to value the insignificant and irrelevant, with an almost complete lack of evidence given to support many of the sensational claims made, and with an almost complete disregard for cost or health policy implications.
“Breakthroughs”
KMSP reported “a medical breakthrough” that “central sleep apnea may be a risk factor for heart failure.” The reporter concluded with a promotional suggestion: “You may want to get a sleep test to see if you’re a candidate for a heart attack.” He did not report that there is no evidence to support such a screening test in the general population.
Some unspecified results in some of only 12 study participants were good enough for WCCO to proclaim: “News of a medical breakthrough could lead to a lifesaving cure for people with cystic fibrosis.” The story did not explain what improvement was seen or how it was measured. No other sources were interviewed.
WCCO reported that “the vasectomy breakthrough of a Twin Cities company is faster, less painful, and is now at a doctor’s office near you.” Ten months later, the Saint
Paul Pioneer Press reported that the company making the device “has found stronger-than-expected resistance to trying the device.” WCCO has not reported that follow-up experience.
“One of the biggest breakthroughs ever in cancer
treatment
could be underway right now right here in
Botox, a drug that has drawn much news coverage for its wrinkle-removing uses, received enthusiastic coverage by KARE for its use in pain control. The station called it a “new wonder drug for pain … nothing short of miraculous … what some consider a miracle drug.” The single physician source who was interviewed “says his patients are proof Botox is a miracle drug.” The station should have told viewers that science doesn’t work that way. It demands independent confirmation. So should journalists.
Like carnival barkers or snake oil salesman of
days gone by,
stations bellowed a barrage of “first” and “only” claims. KARE reported
on two
high-tech acne treatments, promoting one clinic as “the only
bacteria-busting treatment” and proclaiming that
one
hospital had “
WCCO discussed “the only clinic in the state to offer this type of face lift.” No data on safety or efficacy were provided. No independent source was interviewed.
KSTP said a local hospital was “one of the first
medical
centers in the
and said its reporter
had “just
returned from one of the first procedures done in
In all of these stories, what was missing was context, discussion of competing alternatives, cost information and risk/benefit evidence.
What else was missing? Bigger-picture stories
about the many
genuine crises that our health care system is facing. There were no
stories
regarding concerns about “the medical arms race”—that is, the
proliferation of
expensive specialty clinics, or new technologies without evidence for
the need
for such expansion. In fact, there was little news coverage of any
important
health policy issues, at a time when Minnesotans were facing annual
double-digit premium increases, when they were going to
The Project for Excellence in Journalism conducts annual studies of the state of local television news. The prologue to the 2002 report was entitled “On the Road to Irrelevance.” The report cited several aspects of quality newscasts, including enterprise level (how much legwork the station or reporter had to do to cover the story), number of sources and viewpoints represented, and story focus (“Was it a larger issue or trend … or was it an everyday incident, human interest or popular culture?”).
Of the 840 health-related stories reported by the four stations during the four months of analysis, only 77, or 9 percent, were “enterprise” stories that the stations originated themselves. All the others simply followed scheduled events of the day,
news releases, journal studies, local hospital announcements or handouts.
Most of the 840 stories were single-source stories—never a good journalistic practice, but lethal in the health-care world with its jungle of competing vested interests. Sometimes the only viewpoint presented was that of someone who had something to gain from making the new idea look good. This trend toward commercialism in health news was one of the most disturbing findings. Many stories lacked enough focus to tell viewers the context, the larger issue or trend at stake in the story. When cost information and evidence of risks and benefits are left out, stories lack quality.
Television stations—even those without full-time health care journalists—can do a good job covering health policy news, with a little extra effort. I have a demonstration project underway with KMSP to increase and improve station coverage of health policy news. As of this writing, the station has produced two half-hour special reports on health policy issues during its important ratings months of February and May. That’s almost unprecedented in local TV news.
There are also promising academic and professional
programs
to improve health journalism. The University of Minnesota School of
Journalism
and Mass Communication is now offering a
health
journalism Master of Arts graduate program. And the
Viewers of local TV news deserve a more accurate picture of the community’s health care needs and of proposed solutions than what they’ve been given. But they also need to exercise a healthy skepticism when it comes to viewing health care news stories. The sidebar lists some suggestions for evaluating the coverage you’re watching.
The problems identified in my study are not seen only in Minneapolis-St. Paul. In fact, health care news may be better here than in most cities—despite the fact there is not one full-time TV health journalist in this, the 14th-largest TV market in the country. These problems can be solved. Stations need to assign full-time health reporters, provide for training, and allow time to tell a complete story.
In this election year, health care may be the
leading
domestic issue. Stay tuned.
###
Gary
Schwitzer is a professor at the University of
Minnesota School of Journalism and Mass Communication and
a board member of the
Figure
1. Coverage of health policy
news
vs. cosmetic health news
|
Measurement |
Health policy |
Cosmetic health |
|
Number of stories |
26 |
19 |
|
Cumulative time |
29 minutes |
27.5 minutes |
|
Average length |
54 seconds |
87 seconds |
• If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Medical science moves slowly. Miracles, breakthroughs, and cures do not happen nightly, as the news may imply.
• If only one source is interviewed, be skeptical. There’s almost always another side to a health news story.
• If a story about a new drug or a new therapy doesn’t include statistics about both benefits and risks, be skeptical.
• A well-done health news story should include information about uncertainties and unknowns, instead of making everything sound certain for all people.
• Mouse studies may not mean anything in people. Drugs that looked promising in trials may cause problems later on. The newest isn’t always the best.
• How much does this procedure cost? Will insurance cover it? How does it compare with what’s already available?
• If you see sensational stories filled with hyperbole and little evidence, you should call or write the TV news director.