Rapid Responses to:

LETTERS: Lesley Fallowfield and Michael Baum What is newsworthy? BMJ 2002; 325: 774a [Full text]

Rapid Responses: Submit a response to this article

Rapid Responses published:

Easy Answer

John G Larkin   (6 October 2002)

On communication

Michael O'Donnell   (8 October 2002)

Engaging with the media

Petra M Boynton   (12 October 2002)

Easy Answer 6 October 2002
John G Larkin, Cons Physician Victoria Infirmary, Glasgow Send response to journal: Re: Easy Answer	When we speak to the Press, we are never in control of what they will ask, or which parts of our offerings they will choose to use. Despite this, we continue to speak to them. Why? Perhaps everyone has that wish to be taken seriously, to be given the chance to spread their views. Perhaps just a touch of vanity. The Press rely on this. L Fallowfield asks "but how can we as doctors refuse to give press briefings or talk to journalists?" This is a nonsensical question. Just say "no". JGL
On communication 8 October 2002
Michael O'Donnell, Writer and broadcaster Loxhill GU8 4BD Send response to journal: Re: On communication	It’s a tale so sad it’s difficult to suppress a smile. In only two of eight interviews was Leslie Fallowfield able to communicate what she wanted to say about,er, communication skills. I too am depressed by the standard of some - but certainly not all - of the medical reporting on news programmes but it’s a bit of a cop out to blame editors and reporters who, to coin a phrase, “work to a different agenda” from those who seek publicity. Doctors accused of having poor communication skills are not allowed to blame their patients. The fault, their teachers tell them, lies not in their audience but in themselves. Surely the same stricture applies to those who teach or promote "communication skills". The 21st Century media are difficult and dangerous channels to navigate by those who seek publicity for their work or for themselves. Yet people can win themselves a chance to say what they want if they acquire the necessary skills. Many of these are the skills that doctors need with patients: seeking to understand the world in which the patient, as opposed to the doctor, lives and works; considering the patient’s rather than the doctor’s reason for having a consultation, learning what went wrong by analysing bitter experiences … and so on. There are, however, many other skills, best learned from those who do this sort of thing for a living. One of the most useful is to follow Dr Larkin’s commendable advice to turn down the offer of an interview that is unlikely to be fruitful.
Engaging with the media 12 October 2002
Petra M Boynton, lecturer in health services research Open Learning Unit, Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences, University College London Send response to journal: Re: Engaging with the media	Editor Fallowfield rightly points out how academics and health practitioners are unhappy with the way in which the media currently represents both research and researchers1. Indeed, her comments are in line with debates in the social and medical sciences surrounding how knowledge is disseminated, and which ‘experts’ speak to the press2. However, I feel that the answer is not to “refuse to give press briefings or talk to journalists” as Fallowfield advocates, but to incorporate media training into medical degrees. Whilst most of us won’t chose to become ‘TV doctors’, we do have a duty to the public to pass on information gained through training or research; particularly as evidence suggests media reports of science do have a positive impact on society3. And there are a number of very simple ways in which this can be achieved4. Firstly, most hospitals or universities have a press office, that can advise how to deal with journalists, and assist with the way knowledge is disseminated (for example, helping to write press releases). Secondly, many professional bodies offer media training specific to your discipline; and thirdly, there are a number of excellent guides on dealing with the press5. However, this only goes part way to answer the question raised in Fallowfield’s response to Bartlett et al’s original thesis6, that the press mislead the public about health. In refusing to engage with the media, it is unlikely we will alter this problem. But if we chose to speak to journalists and take steps to ensure our work is represented fairly, we might get somewhere. We can do that by making the public aware that currently they aren’t getting to hear the full story about health - even if that means writing such stories ourselves. 1. Fallowfield,L. Bad news from research really is headline news BMJ 2002;325:774 2. Boynton,P.M. Sexperts gag at kebab korrelation. (First Person) New Scientist, (18/05/02), p.51. 3. Rensberger,B. Why scientists should cooperate with journalists. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2000, Vol.6 (4): 549-552. 4. Rogers,C.L. Making the audience a key participant in the science communication process. Science and Engineering Ethics. 2000, Vol.6 (4): 553-557. 5. White,S., Evans,P., Mihill,C. and Tysoe,M. Hitting the headlines: a practical guide to the media. BPS Books, Leicester. 6. Bartlett,C., Sterne,J. and Egger,M. What is newsworthy? Longditudinal study of the reporting of medical research in two British newspapers. BMJ 2002; 325: 81-84.