What is newsworthy?
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7367.774/a (Published 05 October 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:774
All rapid responses
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.
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests
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
Competing interests: No competing interests
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.
Competing interests: No competing interests