Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users
to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response
is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual
response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the
browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published
online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed.
Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles.
The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being
wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our
attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not
including references and author details. We will no longer post responses
that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
A vital, if unspoken, factor driving the news media’s agenda in
picking up health stories is what is most likely to advance the careers of
the reporters, producers and editors, rather than the often dubious
justification of what the public has a right to know. The measure of
success is pure numbers - circulation figures, audience reach or hits on
the website. This means catching the public’s attention and explains why
worthy but dull stories are less likely to be taken up.
Instead the priority goes to horror stories, miracle cures and evil
villains (once the pharmaceutical industry, these days funding authorities
or even the medical profession itself). Whether the story is balanced,
factually correct, relevant to more than a handful of people or offers any
genuinely useful health information all take back seat to carving out your
name with some good yarns.
Cynical though this must seem, it’s criticism which can be applied
throughout the media, even at times to the more considered papers and
broadcast programmes – think flesh-eating bugs, flu “epidemics”, pill
scares or alternative explanations for HIV and you get the picture.
Perhaps it also explains why ex-page 3 models can be appointed as health
correspondents while political and sports correspondents need a background
in their chosen field.
So how will the BMJ’s stories fare with the news writers ? My guess
is that the landfill sites study could get publicity because it contains
the whiff of evil-doings by corporate bodies, the welfare of tiny babies,
and most of the country are affected (who cares that the study concluded
that the risk was small and there might be an alternative explanation ?)
Although the toll from tobacco in China could be millions it’s too
far away for most UK news editors to rate it (I once had a story about
thousands dying in India pulled in favour of a discussion about the
contents of the golf correspondent’s sandwich box).
Birth-order and diabetes is too complicated for most newspeople to
grasp within 10 seconds (the maximum concentration span as other ideas are
thrust under their noses) and will be rejected unless they are the 4th
child of an elderly diabetic mother who has just died from her disease.
Chest pain could score – sudden death by heart attack is every
stressed newsperson’s worst nightmare. But as decision makers in the
newsroom are predominantly men, menstruating 8 year olds won’t be popular
- women’s health issues rarely are.
Instead TV newshounds may pick up on the visual possibilities of the
camera-in-a-pill or flying vacuum cleaners news items, while the letter
about the dangers of high ear piercing could be a good chance to snap a
few celebrities.
In the end does it really matter ? Surely it must. There’s plenty of
research to demonstrate the immense influence that the media has on
health, from attitudes to smoking, healthy eating, whether we go for
screening etc. It shapes how we perceive health risks and in an instant
can spark the nation into abandoning their treatment and beating a hasty
path to their doctor’s door for reassurance. So the media surely has a
duty to disseminate important health information as it becomes evident and
to get the stories right. This means understanding, balance, overall
perspective on the world of medicine and perhaps a bit of effort and
imagination to make worthy stories grab attention.
Isn’t it time that evidence based reporting and media governance
became familiar words in the newsroom ?
A numbers game
A vital, if unspoken, factor driving the news media’s agenda in
picking up health stories is what is most likely to advance the careers of
the reporters, producers and editors, rather than the often dubious
justification of what the public has a right to know. The measure of
success is pure numbers - circulation figures, audience reach or hits on
the website. This means catching the public’s attention and explains why
worthy but dull stories are less likely to be taken up.
Instead the priority goes to horror stories, miracle cures and evil
villains (once the pharmaceutical industry, these days funding authorities
or even the medical profession itself). Whether the story is balanced,
factually correct, relevant to more than a handful of people or offers any
genuinely useful health information all take back seat to carving out your
name with some good yarns.
Cynical though this must seem, it’s criticism which can be applied
throughout the media, even at times to the more considered papers and
broadcast programmes – think flesh-eating bugs, flu “epidemics”, pill
scares or alternative explanations for HIV and you get the picture.
Perhaps it also explains why ex-page 3 models can be appointed as health
correspondents while political and sports correspondents need a background
in their chosen field.
So how will the BMJ’s stories fare with the news writers ? My guess
is that the landfill sites study could get publicity because it contains
the whiff of evil-doings by corporate bodies, the welfare of tiny babies,
and most of the country are affected (who cares that the study concluded
that the risk was small and there might be an alternative explanation ?)
Although the toll from tobacco in China could be millions it’s too
far away for most UK news editors to rate it (I once had a story about
thousands dying in India pulled in favour of a discussion about the
contents of the golf correspondent’s sandwich box).
Birth-order and diabetes is too complicated for most newspeople to
grasp within 10 seconds (the maximum concentration span as other ideas are
thrust under their noses) and will be rejected unless they are the 4th
child of an elderly diabetic mother who has just died from her disease.
Chest pain could score – sudden death by heart attack is every
stressed newsperson’s worst nightmare. But as decision makers in the
newsroom are predominantly men, menstruating 8 year olds won’t be popular
- women’s health issues rarely are.
Instead TV newshounds may pick up on the visual possibilities of the
camera-in-a-pill or flying vacuum cleaners news items, while the letter
about the dangers of high ear piercing could be a good chance to snap a
few celebrities.
In the end does it really matter ? Surely it must. There’s plenty of
research to demonstrate the immense influence that the media has on
health, from attitudes to smoking, healthy eating, whether we go for
screening etc. It shapes how we perceive health risks and in an instant
can spark the nation into abandoning their treatment and beating a hasty
path to their doctor’s door for reassurance. So the media surely has a
duty to disseminate important health information as it becomes evident and
to get the stories right. This means understanding, balance, overall
perspective on the world of medicine and perhaps a bit of effort and
imagination to make worthy stories grab attention.
Isn’t it time that evidence based reporting and media governance
became familiar words in the newsroom ?
Competing interests: No competing interests