Rapid Responses to:
|
|
Rapid Responses: Rapid Responses published:
-
![[Read Rapid Response]](/icons/misc/sectionDOWN.gif)
A view from both sides of the journalists' task
- Samantha A Harding (16 December 2003)
-
PRESS,MEDIA AND MEDICAL RESPONSABILITIES
- CELIO LEVYMAN,MD,MSc (18 December 2003)
-
Re: A view from both sides of the journalists' task
- Tony A Plant (4 January 2004)
|
|
|||
|
Samantha A Harding, SHO in Ophthalmology Royal United Hospital, Bath
Send response to journal:
|
As a former journalist now re-trained and working as a doctor I found last week's letters regarding risk naive (as well as this letter I would also like to respond to "Journalists have responsibility to report risks in context" Griffiths D BMJ 2003:327:1404 December 13). It is quite true many journalists given the task of turning a dour journal article into a front page lead often do not understand what they are writing. They come from the same scientifically illiterate population they serve, and if they don't, must communicate succinctly and entertainingly with this group. That is why, in the process of turning a medical or scientific article into a story, a reporter might telephone two or three medical contacts, including the author, for advice and comment. Those are the good journalists. Even this breed have only 250-500 words to create a readable, attractive story from, let's face it, nothing, to a tight deadline. Place that in the hands of a sub editor, with an editor at his shoulder desperate to "sex-up" the story, and rambling, complex analyses of risk are, literally, meaningless. Sub editors face even more pressure as they have only five or six words of headline with which to summarise the story, get the facts right and attract sales all in one go. My journalist 'hat' applauds the skill of my former colleagues, while my doctor 'hat' tut tuts at the errors and tinge of panic often created. Maybe journal articles should include a box with "advice to journalists", in particular a straightforward summary of what the statistics show and why 99% of the time they have no meaning if taken out of context. Then perhaps most journalists would be prompted to ask "What does this mean?" rather than having to wade through the mire of statistics, blinded by the science of it all while groping for a readable angle. Journalists have only two real responsibilities: their readers and their consciences. The organisations that employ them have two overriding responsibilities: to themselves and their profits and one hopes that is a function of responsible reporting. Perhaps we as a profession need to change the way we put our scientific findings across to the press so that the public can judge for themselves rather than relying on journalists to do it for us. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
CELIO LEVYMAN,MD,MSc, Neurologist Headache and Neurology Clinic,Rua Jose Janarelli,199,cj. 22,Sao Paulo,Brazil,CEP 0156-010
Send response to journal:
|
The communication of medical and related science news by the media, and the professional information given by doctors and other health area people, is always a matter of discussion. Few months ago, the Federal Council of Medicine of Brazil launched a resolution that force the physician interviewed by a newspaper, for example, to read first the text of the journalist before the publication. If the press professional don’t agree or the verified text published shows differences in regard to the original, the physician must to write to the paper calling for a correction and make another one, with the original version, to the Federal Council. This resolution, when come to the public, caused a tremendous effect: the associations and syndicates of journalism and related activities protested and even let to press people to make riots and other kinds of protests, because the interpretation of the resolution was taken as a previous censorship. I am a physician and I must be at the other side, but I think like journalists and give my opinion and severe points of criticism to the Federal Council. The reasons behind the resolution even now are not clear, but some physicians could have past problems with the press and make some kind of influence at the Council. The strong reaction of the media and some doctors let to a review of the resolution by the Federal Council, and it has been erased… A situation like that is a perfect example of the lack of professionalism of some doctors when they give information to the media, and wants some protection by the representative and normative organisms, like the Federal Council, but also shows the pressure of the media for medical information – the censorship of doctors is a non-democratic and even an anti-medical professional ethic way. The correct thing to do is give the information in the most didactic way, with patience and, if possible, avoid medical terms than can be misunderstanding by the press, to the population could have the correct and intelligible information. Things like that, such a war between doctors and journalists, let the actors to nowhere: statistical and refined information is bad like generalizations. The frequent interface press/medical should be performed by correct and comprehensive data, but in a way that the general citizen could be informed – this is an ethical and practical way to prevent errors, and to maintain a good relationship by doctors and press. The recent resolution of such kind of censorship by the Federal Council, the reactions for that and the cancelled proposition of that means that in a democratic country, as Brazil is for two decades now, don’t support autocratic measures by one side – the medical one – and a simple normatization let to noise in every newspaper, TV news, radio interviews and protest in public streets: an honest communication road between press and physician people is the solution. PS: I was a member of the Sao Paulo State Medical Council between 1993-1996, and I am a member of the Brain Death Criteria Permanent Comission of the Federal Medical Council. Competing interests: None declared |
|||
|
|
|||
|
Tony A Plant, Facilitator and trainer Self-employed
Send response to journal:
|
The Royal Society has joined the Social Issues Research Council and the Royal Institution to produce an excellent single set of guidelines on the reporting of science and health issues in the media. There are comprehensive and useful checklists for medics, scientists, journalists and editors (both for print and television). The published document - Guidelines on science and health communication - represents the strong consensus of the science and health communities in the United Kingdom. They have also been formally endorsed by the Press Complaints Commission and fully debated in the House of Lords. I find these guidelines to be very helpful; I do not know whether or not they are part of the core curriculum for journalism courses, but there is a strong argument for making it compulsory if it is not! http://www.sirc.org/news/guidelines.shtml Tony Plant Competing interests: None declared |
|||