How Often Are Antibiotic-Resistant Bacteria Said to “Evolve” in the News?

Media plays an important role in informing the general public about scientific ideas. We examine whether the word “evolve,” sometimes considered controversial by the general public, is frequently used in the popular press. Specifically, we ask how often articles discussing antibiotic resistance use the word “evolve” (or its lexemes) as opposed to alternative terms such as “emerge” or “develop.” We chose the topic of antibiotic resistance because it is a medically important issue; bacterial evolution is a central player in human morbidity and mortality. We focused on the most widely-distributed newspapers written in English in the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, India, and Australia. We examined all articles that focused primarily on the evolution of antibiotic resistance, were published in 2014 or earlier, and were accessible in online archives, for a total of 1639 articles. The total years examined per newspaper ranged from 5 to 37 years with a median of 27 years, and the overall range was 1978–2014. We quantified how many articles included the term “evolve” and analyzed how this varied with newspaper, country, and time. We found that an overall rate of 18% of articles used the term “evolve” but with significant variation among countries. Newspapers in the United Kingdom had the highest rate (24%), more than double of those in India (9%), the country with the lowest rate. These frequencies were lower than those found in scientific papers from both evolutionary journals and biomedical journals. There were no statistically significant changes in frequency and no trends when “evolve” usage was compared against variables such as newspaper circulation, liberal/conservative bias, time, and state evolution acceptance in U.S. newspapers. This study highlights the globally low usage of the word “evolve” in the popular press. We suggest this low usage may affect public understanding and acceptance of evolutionary concepts.     

Why Most Biomedical Findings Echoed by Newspapers Turn Out to be False: The Case of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder

Context

Because positive biomedical observations are more often published than those reporting no effect, initial observations are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies.

Objective

To determine whether newspapers preferentially report on initial findings and whether they also report on subsequent studies.

Methods

We focused on attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Using Factiva and PubMed databases, we identified 47 scientific publications on ADHD published in the 1990s and soon echoed by 347 newspapers articles. We selected the ten most echoed publications and collected all their relevant subsequent studies until 2011. We checked whether findings reported in each “top 10” publication were consistent with previous and subsequent observations. We also compared the newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications to that of their related scientific studies.

Results

Seven of the “top 10” publications were initial studies and the conclusions in six of them were either refuted or strongly attenuated subsequently. The seventh was not confirmed or refuted, but its main conclusion appears unlikely. Among the three “top 10” that were not initial studies, two were confirmed subsequently and the third was attenuated. The newspaper coverage of the “top 10” publications (223 articles) was much larger than that of the 67 related studies (57 articles). Moreover, only one of the latter newspaper articles reported that the corresponding “top 10” finding had been attenuated. The average impact factor of the scientific journals publishing studies echoed by newspapers (17.1 n = 56) was higher (p<0.0001) than that corresponding to related publications that were not echoed (6.4 n = 56).

Conclusion

Because newspapers preferentially echo initial ADHD findings appearing in prominent journals, they report on uncertain findings that are often refuted or attenuated by subsequent studies. If this media reporting bias generalizes to health sciences, it represents a major cause of distortion in health science communication.     

Climate Change Sentiment on Twitter: An Unsolicited Public Opinion Poll

The consequences of anthropogenic climate change are extensively debated through scientific papers, newspaper articles, and blogs. Newspaper articles may lack accuracy, while the severity of findings in scientific papers may be too opaque for the public to understand. Social media, however, is a forum where individuals of diverse backgrounds can share their thoughts and opinions. As consumption shifts from old media to new, Twitter has become a valuable resource for analyzing current events and headline news. In this research, we analyze tweets containing the word “climate” collected between September 2008 and July 2014. Through use of a previously developed sentiment measurement tool called the Hedonometer, we determine how collective sentiment varies in response to climate change news, events, and natural disasters. We find that natural disasters, climate bills, and oil-drilling can contribute to a decrease in happiness while climate rallies, a book release, and a green ideas contest can contribute to an increase in happiness. Words uncovered by our analysis suggest that responses to climate change news are predominately from climate change activists rather than climate change deniers, indicating that Twitter is a valuable resource for the spread of climate change awareness.     

Portrayal of the Human Resource Crisis and Accountability in Healthcare: A Qualitative Analysis of Ugandan Newspapers

Background

Uganda is one of the 57 countries with a critical shortage of health workers. The aim of this study was to determine how the human resources and health service crisis was covered in Ugandan newspapers and, in particular, how the newspapers attributed accountability for problems in the health services.

Methods

We collected all articles related to health workers and health services for the calendar year 2012 in the two largest national newspapers in Uganda (collection on daily basis) and in one local newspaper (collection on weekly basis). These articles were analysed qualitatively regarding the main themes covered and attribution of accountability.

Results

The two more urban national newspapers published 229 articles on human resources and health services in Uganda (on average over two articles per week), whereas the local more rural newspaper published only a single article on this issue in the 12 month period. The majority of articles described problems in the health service without discussing accountability. The question of accountability is raised in only 46% of articles (106 articles). The responsibility of the government was discussed in 50 articles (21%), and negligence, corruption and misbehaviour by individual health workers was reported in 56 articles (25%). In the articles about corruption (n=35), 60% (21 articles) mention corruption by health workers and 40% (14 articles) mention corruption by government officials. Six articles defended the situation of health workers in Uganda.

Conclusions

The coverage of accountability in the Ugandan newspapers surveyed is insufficient to generate informed debate on what political actions need to be taken to improve the crisis in health care and services. There exists not only an “inverse care law” but also an “inverse information law”: those sections of society with the greatest health needs and problems in accessing quality health care receive the least information about health services.     

Escalating coverage of obesity in UK newspapers: the evolution and framing of the "obesity epidemic" from 1996 to 2010

Obesity is one of the fastest growing and most serious public health challenges facing the world in the 21st century. Correspondingly, over the past decade there has been increased interest in how the obesity epidemic has been framed by the media. This study offers the first large-scale examination of the evolution and framing of the obesity epidemic in UK newspapers, identifying shifts in news coverage about the causal drivers of and potential solutions to the obesity epidemic. Seven UK newspapers were selected and 2,414 articles published between 1 January 1996 and 31 December 2010 were retrieved from electronic databases using keyword searches. The thematic content of articles was examined using manifest content analysis. Over the 15-year period there was an increase in media reporting on obesity and in particular on childhood obesity. There was evidence of a trend away from a focus on individuals towards a greater level of reporting on societal solutions such as regulatory change, with the greatest shift in reporting occurring in mid-market and serious newspapers. Given that the media have a huge influence in shaping public opinion, this shift in reporting might be an early indicator to policymakers of a growing public discourse around a need for regulatory change to tackle the obesogenic environment.     

The Unbearable Lightness of Health Science Reporting: A Week Examining Italian Print Media

Background

Although being an important source of science news information to the public, print news media have often been criticized in their credibility. Health-related content of press media articles has been examined by many studies underlining that information about benefits, risks and costs are often incomplete or inadequate and financial conflicts of interest are rarely reported. However, these studies have focused their analysis on very selected science articles. The present research aimed at adopting a wider explorative approach, by analysing all types of health science information appearing on the Italian national press in one-week period. Moreover, we attempted to score the balance of the articles.

Methodology/Principal Findings

We collected 146 health science communication articles defined as articles aiming at improving the reader''s knowledge on health from a scientific perspective. Articles were evaluated by 3 independent physicians with respect to different divulgation parameters: benefits, costs, risks, sources of information, disclosure of financial conflicts of interest and balance. Balance was evaluated with regard to exaggerated or non correct claims. The selected articles appeared on 41 Italian national daily newspapers and 41 weekly magazines, representing 89% of national circulation copies: 97 articles (66%) covered common medical treatments or basic scientific research and 49 (34%) were about new medical treatments, procedures, tests or products. We found that only 6/49 (12%) articles on new treatments, procedures, tests or products mentioned costs or risks to patients. Moreover, benefits were always maximized and in 16/49 cases (33%) they were presented in relative rather than absolute terms. The majority of stories (133/146, 91%) did not report any financial conflict of interest. Among these, 15 were shown to underreport them (15/146, 9.5%), as we demonstrated that conflicts of interest did actually exist. Unbalanced articles were 27/146 (18%). Specifically, the probability of unbalanced reporting was significantly increased in stories about a new treatment, procedure, test or product (22/49, 45%), compared to stories covering common treatments or basic scientific research (5/97, 5%) (risk ratio, 8.72).

Conclusions/Significance

Consistent with prior research on health science communication in other countries, we report undisclosed costs and risks, emphasized benefits, unrevealed financial conflicts of interest and exaggerated claims in Italian print media. In addition, we show that the risk for a story about a new medical approach to be unbalanced is almost 9 times higher with respect to stories about any other kind of health science-related topics. These findings raise again the fundamental issue whether popular media is detrimental rather than useful to public health.     

Women Are Seen More than Heard in Online Newspapers

Feminist news media researchers have long contended that masculine news values shape journalists’ quotidian decisions about what is newsworthy. As a result, it is argued, topics and issues traditionally regarded as primarily of interest and relevance to women are routinely marginalised in the news, while men’s views and voices are given privileged space. When women do show up in the news, it is often as “eye candy,” thus reinforcing women’s value as sources of visual pleasure rather than residing in the content of their views. To date, evidence to support such claims has tended to be based on small-scale, manual analyses of news content. In this article, we report on findings from our large-scale, data-driven study of gender representation in online English language news media. We analysed both words and images so as to give a broader picture of how gender is represented in online news. The corpus of news content examined consists of 2,353,652 articles collected over a period of six months from more than 950 different news outlets. From this initial dataset, we extracted 2,171,239 references to named persons and 1,376,824 images resolving the gender of names and faces using automated computational methods. We found that males were represented more often than females in both images and text, but in proportions that changed across topics, news outlets and mode. Moreover, the proportion of females was consistently higher in images than in text, for virtually all topics and news outlets; women were more likely to be represented visually than they were mentioned as a news actor or source. Our large-scale, data-driven analysis offers important empirical evidence of macroscopic patterns in news content concerning the way men and women are represented.     

Critical review of articles regarding pregnancy exposures in popular magazines

To determine the scope of teratogen information available to the public through the media, a survey of 15 popular magazines was conducted. All 1985 issues of the selected magazines were reviewed for articles addressing pregnancy exposure concerns, yielding 56 articles from 10 magazines. The remaining 5 publications provided no pertinent articles. Two health professionals, both experienced teratology counselors, independently rated each article for accuracy of content and quality of presentation based on standardized evaluation criteria. The findings were compared and agreement for all criteria in each article was reached by the 2 reviewers. Regarding the quality of the information in the 56 articles, 31 (55.4%) were scored as misleading or inaccurate. On examination of overall presentation, 26 (46.4%) were rated as alarming and 8 (14.3%) presented a false sense of security; 22 (39.3%) provided a balanced presentation. A review of the types of articles rated revealed 19 (33.9%) general overviews of pregnancy issues, 18 (32.1%) news stories, 17 (30.4%) question-and-answer columns, and 2 (3.6%) feature stories. Of the reviewed papers, 7 (12.5%) included a citation from which the primary data could be obtained and only 14 of the articles (25%) suggested that the reader contact her/his healthcare provider regarding the issues. We conclude that the information available in popular magazines regarding exposures in pregnancy is frequently misleading, alarming, and unsupported by the scientific literature.     

Primary literature as a basis for a high-school biology curriculum

Textbooks, research news from the media, and review articles from popular journals are the most common sources of texts used for high-school biology education. We attempted to adopt primary literature as a means of developing scientific literacy among high-school biology majors. For that purpose, we developed and implemented a primary literature-based curriculum in developmental biology. The process of adapting original research articles to the high-school level, as well as a conversational model developed for learning through research articles, are discussed.     

Professional and popular views of chronic fatigue syndrome.

OBJECTIVE--To study the coverage of the chronic fatigue syndrome in the popular and professional press. DESIGN--Search of all original research papers on the chronic fatigue syndrome published in British journals from 1980 onwards and of professional trade papers, national newspapers, and women''s magazines. Interviews with six medical journalists. SETTING--British scientific, medical, and popular press. RESULTS--37 (49%) articles in research journals did not favour organic causes and 23 (31%) favoured organic causes. By contrast 31 (55%) articles in the medical trade press and 118 (69%) in national newspapers and women''s magazines favoured organic causes. CONCLUSIONS--Press coverage of chronic fatigue syndrome has amplified and distorted divisions in the research community concerning the chronic fatigue syndrome. Articles in the press concentrate on a simple medical model of illness reinforcing the stigma of psychological illness and dissatisfaction with traditional medical authority.     

Examining Perceptions about Mandatory Influenza Vaccination of Healthcare Workers through Online Comments on News Stories

Background

The aim of this study was to understand online public perceptions of the debate surrounding the choice of annual influenza vaccinations or wearing masks as a condition of employment for healthcare workers, such as the one enacted in British Columbia in August 2012.

Methods

Four national and 82 local (British Columbia) Canadian online news sites were searched for articles posted between August 2012 and May 2013 containing the words “healthcare workers” and “mandatory influenza vaccinations/immunizations” or “mandatory flu shots and healthcare workers.” We included articles from sources that predominantly concerned our topic of interest and that generated reader comments. Two researchers coded the unedited comments using thematic analysis, categorizing codes to allow themes to emerge. In addition to themes, the comments were categorized by: 1) sentiment towards influenza vaccines; 2) support for mandatory vaccination policies; 3) citing of reference materials or statistics; 4) self-identified health-care worker status; and 5) sharing of a personal story.

Results

1163 comments made by 648 commenters responding to 36 articles were analyzed. Popular themes included concerns about freedom of choice, vaccine effectiveness, patient safety, and distrust in government, public health, and the pharmaceutical industry. Almost half (48%) of commenters expressed a negative sentiment toward the influenza vaccine, 28% were positive, 20% were neutral, and 4% expressed mixed sentiment. Of those who commented on the policy, 75% did not support the condition to work policy, while 25% were in favour. Of the commenters, 11% self-identified as healthcare workers, 13% shared personal stories, and 18% cited a reference or statistic.

Interpretation

The perception of the influenza vaccine in the comment sections of online news sites is fairly poor. Public health agencies should consider including online forums, comment sections, and social media sites as part of their communication channels to correct misinformation regarding the benefits of HCW influenza immunization and the effectiveness of the vaccine.     

Smoking or My Job? US Media Coverage of Nonsmoker-Only Hiring Policies

Objectives

Media advocacy plays a critical role in tobacco control, shaping the content of news in ways that generate public support for tobacco control. We examined US media coverage of nonsmoker-only hiring policies, which have little US public support, exploring the extent to which tobacco control advocates and experts have engaged the media on this controversial issue.

Methods

We searched online media databases (Lexis Nexis, Access World News, and Proquest) for articles published from 1995–2013, coding retrieved items through a collaborative, iterative process. We analyzed the volume, type, provenance, prominence, content and slant of coverage.

Results

We found 1,159 media items on nonsmoker-only hiring policies, most published in local newspapers in regions where such policies were enacted. The most common reason given for implementing such policies was to reduce healthcare costs. Most news items offered reasons both to support and oppose such policies; thus, the slant of the majority of news items was neutral or mixed. Tobacco control advocates or experts were infrequently cited or quoted in news items, and rarely authored opinion pieces. Those who expressed opinions were more likely to support than oppose nonsmoker-only hiring policies, for economic and health reasons. Ethical concerns about the policies were seldom raised.

Conclusions

As presented in the media, nonsmoker-only hiring policies were primarily framed in terms of business cost savings and had little connection to health initiatives. Tobacco control advocates were rarely quoted and their positions were not consistent. Given their intrusiveness and the lack of strong evidence that such business policies actually do improve worker health, tobacco control advocates may feel that the status quo is preferable to engaging on a policy that the majority of Americans dislike.     

Nothing but the truth

Many scientists blame the media for sensationalising scientific findings, but new research suggests that things can go awry at all levels, from the scientific report to the press officer to the journalist.Everything gives you cancer, at least if you believe what you read in the news or see on TV. Fortunately, everything also cures cancer, from red wine to silver nanoparticles. Of course the truth lies somewhere in between, and scientists might point out that these claims are at worst dangerous sensationalism and at best misjudged journalism. These kinds of media story, which inflate the risks and benefits of research, have led to a mistrust of the press among some scientists. But are journalists solely at fault when science reporting goes wrong, as many scientists believe [1]? New research suggests it is time to lay to rest the myth that the press alone is to blame. The truth is far more nuanced and science reporting can go wrong at many stages, from the researchers to the press officers to the diverse producers of news.Many science communication researchers suggest that science in the media is not as distorted as scientists believe, although they do admit that science reporting tends to under-represent risks and over-emphasize benefits [2]. “I think there is a lot less of this [misreported science] than some scientists presume. I actually think that there is a bit of laziness in the narrative around science and the media,” said Fiona Fox, Director of the UK Science Media Centre (London, UK), an independent press office that serves as a liaison between scientists and journalists. “My bottom line is that, certainly in the UK, a vast majority of journalists report science accurately in a measured way, and it''s certainly not a terrible story. Having said that, lots of things do go wrong for a number of reasons.”Fox said that the centre sees everything from fantastic press releases to those that completely misrepresent and sensationalize scientific findings. They have applauded news stories that beautifully reported the caveats and limitations of a particular scientific study, but they have also cringed as a radio talk show pitted a massive and influential body of research against a single non-scientist sceptic.“You ask, is it the press releases, is it the universities, is it the journalists? The truth is that it''s all three,” Fox said. “But even admitting that is admitting more complexity. So anyone who says that scientists and university press officers deliver perfectly accurate science and the media misrepresent it […] that really is not the whole story.”Scientists and scientific institutions today invest more time and effort into communicating with the media than they did a decade ago, especially given the modern emphasis on communicating scientific results to the public [3]. Today, there are considerable pressures on scientists to reach out and even ‘sell their work'' to public relations officers and journalists. “For every story that a journalist has hyped and sensationalized, there will be another example of that coming directly from a press release that we [scientists] hyped and sensationalized,” Fox said. “And for every time that that was a science press officer, there will also be a science press officer who will tell you, ‘I did a much more nuanced press release, but the academic wanted me to over claim for it''.”Although science public relations has helped to put scientific issues on the public agenda, there are also dangers inherent in the process of translation from original research to press release to media story. Previous research in the area of science communication has focused on conflicting scientific and media values, and the effects of science media on audiences. However, studies have raised awareness of the role of press releases in distorting information from the lab bench to published news [4].In a 2011 study of genetic research claims made in press releases and mainstream print media, science communication researcher Jean Brechman, who works at the US advertising and marketing research firm Gallup & Robinson, found evidence that scientific knowledge gets distorted as it is “filtered and translated for mass communication” with “slippages and inconsistencies” occurring along the way, such that the end message does not accurately represent the original science [4]. Although Brechman and colleagues found a concerning point of distortion in the transition between press release and news article, they also observed a misrepresentation of the original science in a significant portion of the press releases themselves.In a previous study, Brechman and his colleagues had also concluded that “errors commonly attributed to science journalists, such as lack of qualifying details and use of oversimplified language, originate in press releases.” Even more worrisome, as Fox told a Nature commentary author in 2009, public relations departments are increasingly filling the need of the media for quick content [5].Fox believes that a common characteristic of misrepresented science in press releases and the media is the over-claiming of preliminary studies. As such, the growing prevalence of rapid, short-format publications that publicize early results might be exacerbating the problem. Research has also revealed that over-emphasis on the beneficial effects of experimental medical treatments seen in press releases and news coverage, often called ‘spin'', can stem from bias in the abstract of the original scientific article itself [6]. Such findings warrant a closer examination of the language used in scientific articles and abstracts, as the wording and ‘spin'' of conclusions drawn by researchers in their peer-reviewed publications might have significant impacts on subsequent media coverage.Of course, some stories about scientific discoveries are just not easy to tell owing to their complexity. They are “messy, complicated, open to interpretation and ripe for misreporting,” as Fox wrote in a post on her blog On Science and the Media (fionafox.blogspot.com). They do not fit the single-page blog post or the short press release. Some scientific experiments and the peer-reviewed articles and media stories that flow from them are inherently full of caveats, contexts and conflicting results and cannot be communicated in a short format [7].In a 2012 issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, Marco Bertamini at the University of Liverpool (UK) and Marcus R. Munafo at the University of Bristol (UK) suggested that a shift toward “bite-size” publications in areas of science such as psychology might be promoting more single-study models of research, fewer efforts to replicate initial findings, curtailed detailing of previous relevant work and bias toward “false alarm” or false-positive results [7]. The authors pointed out that larger, multi-experiment studies are typically published in longer papers with larger sample sizes and tend to be more accurate. They also suggested that this culture of brief, single-study reports based on small data sets will lead to the contamination of the scientific literature with false-positive findings. Unfortunately, false science far more easily enters the literature than leaves it [8].One famous example is that of Andrew Wakefield, whose 1998 publication in The Lancet claimed to link autism with the combined measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccination. It took years of work by many scientists, and the aid of an exposé by British investigative reporter Brian Deer, to finally force retraction of the paper. However, significant damage had already been done and many parents continue to avoid immunizing their children out of fear. Deer claims that scientific journals were a large part of the problem: “[D]uring the many years in which I investigated the MMR vaccine controversy, the worst and most inexcusable reporting on the subject, apart from the original Wakefield claims in the Lancet, was published in Nature and republished in Scientific American,” he said. “There is an enormous amount of hypocrisy among those who accuse the media of misreporting science.”What factors are promoting this shift to bite-size science? One is certainly the increasing pressure and competition to publish many papers in high-impact journals, which prefer short articles with new, ground-breaking findings.“Bibliometrics is playing a larger role in academia in deciding who gets a job and who gets promoted,” Bertamini said. “In general, if things are measured by citations, there is pressure to publish as much and as often as possible, and also to focus on what is surprising; thus, we can see how this may lead to an inflation in the number of papers but also an increase in publication bias.”Bertamini points to the real possibility that measured effects emerging from a group of small samples can be much larger than the real effect in the total population. “This variability is bad enough, but it is even worse when you consider that what is more likely to be written up and accepted for publication are exactly the larger differences,” he explained.Alongside the endless pressure to publish, the nature of the peer-reviewed publication process itself prioritizes exciting and statistically impressive results. Fluke scientific discoveries and surprising results are often considered newsworthy, even if they end up being false-positives. The bite-size article aggravates this problem in what Bertamini fears is a growing similarity between academic writing and media reporting: “The general media, including blogs and newspapers, will of course focus on what is curious, funny, controversial, and so on. Academic papers must not do the same, and the quality control system is there to prevent that.”The real danger is that, with more than one million scientific papers published every year, journalists can tend to rely on only a few influential journals such as Science and Nature for science news [3]. Although the influence and reliability of these prestigious journals is well established, the risk that journalists and other media producers might be propagating the exciting yet preliminary results published in their pages is undeniable.Fox has personal experience of the consequences of hype surrounding surprising but preliminary science. Her sister has chronic fatigue syndrome (CFS), a debilitating medical condition with no known test or cure. When Science published an article in 2009 linking CFS with a viral agent, Fox was naturally both curious and sceptical [9]. “I thought even if I knew that this was an incredibly significant finding, the fact that nobody had ever found a biological link before also meant that it would have to be replicated before patients could get excited,” Fox explained. “And of course what happened was all the UK journalists were desperate to splash it on the front page because it was so surprising and so significant and could completely revolutionize the approach to CFS, the treatment and potential cure.”Fox observed that while some journalists placed the caveats of the study deep within their stories, others left them out completely. “I gather in the USA it was massive, it was front page news and patients were going online to try and find a test for this particular virus. But in the end, nobody could replicate it, literally nobody. A Dutch group tried, Imperial College London, lots of groups, but nobody could replicate it. And in the end, the paper has been withdrawn from Science.”For Fox, the fact that the paper was withdrawn, incidentally due to a finding of contamination in the samples, was less interesting than the way that the paper was reported by journalists. “We would want any journal press officer to literally in the first paragraph be highlighting the fact that this was such a surprising result that it shouldn''t be splashed on the front page,” she said. Of course to the journalist, waiting for the study to be replicated is anathema in a culture that values exciting and new findings. “To the scientific community, the fact that it is surprising and new means that we should calm down and wait until it is proved,” Fox warned.So, the media must also take its share of the blame when it comes to distorting science news. Indeed, research analysing science coverage in the media has shown that stories tend to exaggerate preliminary findings, use sensationalist terms, avoid complex issues, fail to mention financial conflicts of interest, ignore statistical limitations and transform inherent uncertainties into controversy [3,10].One concerning development within journalism is the ‘balanced treatment'' of controversial science, also called ‘false balance'' by many science communicators. This balanced treatment has helped supporters of pseudoscientific notions gain equal ground with scientific experts in media stories on issues such as climate change and biotechnology [11].“Almost every time the issue of creationism or intelligent design comes up, many newspapers and other media feel that they need to present ‘both sides'', even though one is clearly nonsensical, and indeed harmful to public education,” commented Massimo Pigliucci, author of Nonsense on Stilts: How to Tell Science from Bunk [12].Fox also criticizes false balance on issues such as global climate change. “On that one you can''t blame the scientific community, you can''t blame science press officers,” she said. “That is a real clashing of values. One of the values that most journalists have bred into them is about balance and impartiality, balancing the views of one person with an opponent when it''s controversial. So on issues like climate change, where there is a big controversy, their instinct as a journalist will be to make sure that if they have a climate scientist on the radio or on TV or quoted in the newspaper, they pick up the phone and make sure that they have a climate skeptic.” However, balanced viewpoints should not threaten years of rigorous scientific research embodied in a peer-reviewed publication. “We are not saying generally that we [scientists] want special treatment from journalists,” Fox said, “but we are saying that this whole principle of balance, which applies quite well in politics, doesn''t cross over to science…”Bertamini believes the situation could be made worse if publication standards are relaxed in favour of promoting a more public and open review process. “If today you were to research the issue of human contribution to global warming you would find a consensus in the scientific literature. Yet you would find no such consensus in the general media. In part this is due to the existence of powerful and well-funded lobbies that fill the media with unfounded skepticism. Now imagine if these lobbies had more access to publish their views in the scientific literature, maybe in the form of post publication feedback. This would be a dangerous consequence of blurring the line that separates scientific writing and the broader media.”In an age in which the way science is presented in the news can have significant impacts for audiences, especially when it comes to health news, what can science communicators and journalists do to keep audiences reading without having to distort, hype, trivialize, dramatize or otherwise misrepresent science?Pigliucci believes that many different sources—press releases, blogs, newspapers and investigative science journalism pieces—can cross-check reported science and challenge its accuracy, if necessary. “There are examples of bloggers pointing out technical problems with published scientific papers,” Pigliucci said. “Unfortunately, as we all know, the game can be played the other way around too, with plenty of bloggers, ‘twitterers'' and others actually obfuscating and muddling things even more.” Pigliucci hopes to see a cultural change take place in science reporting, one that emphasizes “more reflective shouting, less shouting of talking points,” he said.Fox believes that journalists still need to cover scientific developments more responsibly, especially given that scientists are increasingly reaching out to press officers and the public. Journalists can inform, intrigue and entertain whilst maintaining accurate representations of the original science, but need to understand that preliminary results must be replicated and validated before being splashed on the front page. They should also strive to interview experts who do not have financial ties or competing interests in the research, and they should put scientific stories in the context of a broader process of nonlinear discovery. According to Pigliucci, journalists can and should be educating themselves on the research process and the science of logical conclusion-making, giving themselves the tools to provide critical and investigative coverage when needed. At the same time, scientists should undertake proper media training so that they are comfortable communicating their work to journalists or press officers.“I don''t think there is any fundamental flaw in how we communicate science, but there is a systemic flaw in the sense that we simply do not educate people about logical fallacies and cognitive biases,” Pigliucci said, advising that scientists and communicators alike should be intimately familiar with the subjects of philosophy and psychology. “As for bunk science, it has always been with us, and it probably always will be, because human beings are naturally prone to all sorts of biases and fallacious reasoning. As Carl Sagan once put it, science (and reason) is like a candle in the dark. It needs constant protection and a lot of thankless work to keep it alive.”     

The Environmental Impact of Getting the News

The environmental impact associated with reading an on-line and a printed newspaper is analyzed and compared with respective parts of a television (TV) broadcast. Two reference units were chosen for comparison to account for differences between media in presentation and consumption (reading or watching a news item) and consumption of the daily news as a whole. The environmental impact is assessed using life-cycle assessment (LCA).
Key drivers of the environmental impact for both electronic delivery systems are energy consumption and power generation. Not only do the manufacturing of the products and their use have an environmental impact, but so does the use of the necessary infrastructure, that is, energy consumption of the telephone network or data transfer via Internet. Printing of on-line information also turned out to be important.
In the case of the printed newspapers, energy consumption is again important, here for the manufacturing of pulp and paper. Complete printed newspapers (the form in which they are typically purchased) have a very high environmental burden relative to watching the TV news or reading on-line news, even if the propensity to extend TV viewing is taken into consideration.     

Neglected diseases in the news: a content analysis of recent international media coverage focussing on leishmaniasis and trypanosomiasis

Background

Although the pharmaceutical industry''s “neglect” of neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) has been investigated, no study evaluating media coverage of NTDs has been published. Poor media coverage exacerbates the neglect. This study aimed to investigate, describe, and analyse international media coverage of “neglected diseases” in general and three specific NTDs—African trypanosomiasis, leishmaniasis, and Chagas disease—from 1 January 2003 to 1 June 2007.

Methods

Archives of 11 leading international, English-language media were searched. A content analysis was done, coding for media organisation, date, author, type of report, slant, themes, and “frames”. Semi-structured interviews with journalists and key informants were conducted for further insight.

Principal Findings

Only 113 articles in a 53-month time period met the inclusion criteria, with no strong trends or increases in coverage. Overall, the BBC had the highest coverage with 20 results, followed by the Financial Times and Agence France Presse. CNN had the least coverage with one result. The term “neglected diseases” had good media currency and “sleeping sickness” was far more widely used than trypanosomiasis. The disease most covered was leishmaniasis and the least covered was Chagas. Academic researchers were most commonly quoted as a main source, while the World Health Organization (WHO) and pharmaceutical industry were the least quoted. Journalists generally agreed NTDs had not been adequately covered, but said a lack of real news development and the need to cater to domestic audiences were major obstacles for NTD reporting. All journalists said health agencies, particularly WHO, were not communicating adequately about the burden of NTDs.

Conclusions

Public health agencies need to raise priority for NTD advocacy. Innovative strategies, such as reporting grants or creating a network of voices, may be needed.     

The structure of the EU mediasphere

Background

A trend towards automation of scientific research has recently resulted in what has been termed “data-driven inquiry” in various disciplines, including physics and biology. The automation of many tasks has been identified as a possible future also for the humanities and the social sciences, particularly in those disciplines concerned with the analysis of text, due to the recent availability of millions of books and news articles in digital format. In the social sciences, the analysis of news media is done largely by hand and in a hypothesis-driven fashion: the scholar needs to formulate a very specific assumption about the patterns that might be in the data, and then set out to verify if they are present or not.

Methodology/Principal Findings

In this study, we report what we think is the first large scale content-analysis of cross-linguistic text in the social sciences, by using various artificial intelligence techniques. We analyse 1.3 M news articles in 22 languages detecting a clear structure in the choice of stories covered by the various outlets. This is significantly affected by objective national, geographic, economic and cultural relations among outlets and countries, e.g., outlets from countries sharing strong economic ties are more likely to cover the same stories. We also show that the deviation from average content is significantly correlated with membership to the eurozone, as well as with the year of accession to the EU.

Conclusions/Significance

While independently making a multitude of small editorial decisions, the leading media of the 27 EU countries, over a period of six months, shaped the contents of the EU mediasphere in a way that reflects its deep geographic, economic and cultural relations. Detecting these subtle signals in a statistically rigorous way would be out of the reach of traditional methods. This analysis demonstrates the power of the available methods for significant automation of media content analysis.     

Focus: Bioethics: Perspectives on Surrogacy in Chinese Social Media: A Content Analysis of Microblogs on Weibo

Background: This article explores the social media discourse on transnational surrogacy and the issue of surrogacy more broadly considering recent news about the Chinese celebrity Zheng Shuang, which revealed that she had hired a surrogate mother in the United States and had later abandoned the surrogate babies. It aims to provide insight on how Chinese citizenry uses social media to express opinions on ethical and legal issues concerning surrogacy. Methods: We conducted a content analysis of microblogs from the social media platform Weibo posted within a month after the event was reported on January 17, 2021. The entire data set included 37,895 posts, which were analyzed for topic exploration using word frequency and keyword co-occurrence techniques, and a smaller sample of 1,000 posts was selected for an in-depth content analysis. Results: We established that the words “Zheng Shuang,” “surrogacy,” “babies,” “abandoning babies,” and “Zhang Heng” were most frequently used, with “law,” “ethics,” “justification,” “legality,” and “illegal” sharing high connections with these keywords. The qualitative content analysis further established that 399 microblogs (39.9%) expressed value judgements towards Zheng Shuang’s surrogacy, and 61.9% (n=247) opposed her surrogacy, while only 7.0% (n=28) were supportive. The major reason (n=72) against the celebrity’s surrogacy was that it was unfair and risky to surrogate children in this case. One hundred twenty-eight posts made value judgements towards surrogacy in principle, with 115 opposing surrogacy, and only two supportive posts. We also established that users with legal background had very limited presence in surrogacy discussions on Weibo, while users from healthcare professions did not engage at all in the social media debate. Conclusion: Opposition to surrogacy in Chinese social media discourse is primarily based on ethical and moral objections. The protection of surrogate children and surrogate women’s rights was the major concerns expressed by social media users, suggesting that this issue would likely be at the center of a future public debate regarding the regulation of surrogacy. We found the lack of healthcare professionals’ perspectives in social media discussions on Zheng’s Surrogacy disconcerting and suggest their inclusion in public deliberations to ensure that the public is better educated, and substantive concerns are properly addressed.     

Interpretation of Results of Studies Evaluating an Intervention Highlighted in Google Health News: A Cross-Sectional Study of News

Background

Mass media through the Internet is a powerful means of disseminating medical research. We aimed to determine whether and how the interpretation of research results is misrepresented by the use of “spin” in the health section of Google News. Spin was defined as specific way of reporting, from whatever motive (intentional or unintentional), to emphasize that the beneficial effect of the intervention is greater than that shown by the results.

Methods

We conducted a cross-sectional study of news highlighted in the health section of US, UK and Canada editions of Google News between July 2013 and January 2014. We searched for news items for 3 days a week (i.e., Monday, Wednesday, and Friday) during 6 months and selected a sample of 130 news items reporting a scientific article evaluating the effect of an intervention on human health.

Results

In total, 78% of the news did not provide a full reference or electronic link to the scientific article. We found at least one spin in 114 (88%) news items and 18 different types of spin in news. These spin were mainly related to misleading reporting (59%) such as not reporting adverse events that were reported in the scientific article (25%), misleading interpretation (69%) such as claiming a causal effect despite non-randomized study design (49%) and overgeneralization/misleading extrapolation (41%) of the results such as extrapolating a beneficial effect from an animal study to humans (21%). We also identified some new types of spin such as highlighting a single patient experience for the success of a new treatment instead of focusing on the group results.

Conclusions

Interpretation of research results was frequently misrepresented in the health section of Google News. However, we do not know whether these spin were from the scientific articles themselves or added in the news.     

Sources and Coverage of Medical News on Front Pages of US Newspapers

Background

Medical news that appears on newspaper front pages is intended to reach a wide audience, but how this type of medical news is prepared and distributed has not been systematically researched. We thus quantified the level of visibility achieved by front-page medical stories in the United States and analyzed their news sources.

Methodology

Using the online resource Newseum, we investigated front-page newspaper coverage of four prominent medical stories, and a high-profile non-medical news story as a control, reported in the US in 2007. Two characteristics were quantified by two raters: which newspaper titles carried each target front-page story (interrater agreement, >96%; kappa, >0.92) and the news sources of each target story (interrater agreement, >94%; kappa, >0.91). National rankings of the top 200 US newspapers by audited circulation were used to quantify the extent of coverage as the proportion of the total circulation of ranked newspapers in Newseum.

Findings

In total, 1630 front pages were searched. Each medical story appeared on the front pages of 85 to 117 (67.5%–78.7%) ranked newspaper titles that had a cumulative daily circulation of 23.1 to 33.4 million, or 61.8% to 88.4% of all newspapers. In contrast, the non-medical story achieved front-page coverage in 152 (99.3%) newspaper titles with a total circulation of 41.0 million, or 99.8% of all newspapers. Front-page medical stories varied in their sources, but the Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, New York Times and the Associated Press together supplied 61.7% of the total coverage of target front-page medical stories.

Conclusion

Front-page coverage of medical news from different sources is more accurately revealed by analysis of circulation counts rather than of newspaper titles. Journals wishing to widen knowledge of research news and organizations with important health announcements should target at least the four dominant media organizations identified in this study.