Mills 1

Joshuah Mills
Professor Fran Voltz
UWRT 1102-30
9 November 2014
Medical Media: How We Allow the Media to Impact Our Health
We live in a society where media is constantly present. We use it to communicate, stay
connected and up to date with current events, but most importantly we use it to share and gather
knowledge and information. Today, much of what is presented in media is assumed to be
factual, with little consideration for legitimacy of the claim or accreditation of the information
behind it. This is a dangerous fact for all that we turn to media for, but it is especially hazardous
in the case of medical information. In some cases we lack control of medias influence on our
health, but still in others we blindly allow it to influence us. In these cases we must be
exceedingly cautious, as by choosing to trust medical information in media we are putting our
health at serious risk.
Hypothetically, media is the perfect medium through which to convey medical
knowledge. Being the main source of current information for much of our society, media could
be used to spread awareness of rising medical issues and promote a general increase in public
health. In fact many medical professionals attempt to use media for this purpose currently. For
example, several daytime television programs exist in attempt educate the public on medical
topic matters and oftentimes promote alternative medicine practices that can be done at home.
However, in combination with the ever-present possibility of misrepresentation or intentional
falsification of medical knowledge, the sources that should be deemed trustworthy cannot be

Mills 2
easily distinguished. This forces the unknowing public to attempt to determine which aspects of
this medical knowledge is factual and which is false.
The outlying danger that media presents to medicine is whenever the information
portrayed in the media is misleading or misrepresented. In our current era we are able to turn to
media to gather information, and it is from these sources that much of our medical knowledge is
gained. Not only is this information easily accessible, but it is also exists in countless areas of
media making the amount of these resources so large they are almost immeasurable. Fishman
and Casarett point out that, several studies have shown that adults obtain much of their health
information from mass media," and because many turn to these sources first for medical
knowledge rather than seeking out help from medical professionals, they are subjecting
themselves to potential factual errors and inconsistencies in what is being reported. In a study
published in Mayo Clinic Proceedings several popular US newspapers were investigated on their
presentation of a certain neurological disease and it was found that medical errors or
exaggerations were present in 20% of the sample [and] stigmatizing language was found in
21% of articles (Fishman and Casarett). An inconsistency rate of nearly one-fifth is
astounding, and should be more than enough reason for us to view medical information in media
skeptically.
Yet another example of misrepresentation can be found in a 2009 study involving the
analysis of media reports on research records for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of new
drugs that have not yet reached clinical distribution (Yavchitz et al). Defining "spin" as an
attempt by media to report more heavily on the beneficial aspects of these trials, the researchers
found that in a sample of 41 separate RCTs, "spin" was evident in 41% of abstracts, 46% of press
releases, and 51% of news items reporting on these trials (Yavchitz et al, 5). This form of

Mills 3
misrepresentation may greatly damages drug recipients such as cancer patients who often look to
experimental drugs as alternative treatment options. In these cases, patients may choose to
participate in these trials without any real opportunities to outweigh the costs and benefits of
doing so because of a lack of reliable information.
Shuchman and Wilkes present that one of the leading causes for miscommunication
between media and medicine is sensationalism and state that in an effort to convey the
information rapidly without context, the journalist overstates a scientific find and, as a result,
the public is misled about the implications of that finding (1). The reason sensationalism is so
prevalent in medical journalism may be because of a lack of in-depth knowledge or
accountability possessed by the journalist. Shuchman and Wilkes also suggest that journalists
often use sensationalism intentionally by exaggerating information or by generating far-fetched
conclusions solely for the sake of selling the story. In this case, journalists are abandoning
objectivity for the sake of appealing to their readers. Unfortunately, these stories, despite being
falsified and sensationalized, are more likely to be viewed because of their appeal. This creates a
disconnect between the medical facts gathered by the media and what is actually interpreted by
the public.
Despite the chance of incorrect medical information in media being somewhat high,
many still turn to media for health knowledge. In a survey of randomly selected patients from
one primary care practice, 54 percent of patients reported that they had used the internet to get
medical information, primarily for information about nutrition or diet, drug side effects,
complications of treatment, or complementary and alternative medicine, and in addition, 60%
of the internet users believed the information they found was the same as, or better than,
information they got from their doctors (Friedman 374). More than half of these patients

Mills 4
placing the value of the information they gathered from the internet at or above the opinion of
their doctor. This implies that these patients were satisfied with information from potentially
unreviewed and potentially falsified sources as opposed to an accredited opinion from a trained
medical professional. These statistics are dangerously high. As we begin to recognize the media
as a trustworthy source for medical knowledge we are undermining the authority of medical
professionals. This takes our health out of the hands of our doctors and places into the hands of
whoever supplies medical information in media, regardless of whether or not they are healthcare
professionals.
A recent study was conducted at McMaster University where undergraduate psychology
students, first year medical school students, and graduate students of varying scientific fields
were asked to participate in three separate experiments to determine their knowledge of disease
prevalence (Young, Norman, and Humphreys 2-3). In the experiments the participants were
presented with a list of diseases, half of which were reported on heavily by the media and half of
which were not, and were asked to determine the severity and prevalence of each disease (2-3).
The results of all three experiments were strikingly similar in that all three groups reported that
the diseases reported heavily upon by media were far more severe and prevalent despite these
reports being false (3-4).
The results from this study provides a clear image of medias impact on perceptions of
medicine. While all participants that were subjected to this experiment can be expected to
possess at least some knowledge of the diseases in question, the medical school students and
graduate students can be assumed to be especially knowledgeable on these diseases. This study
implies that by not even misrepresentation, but by simple over-reporting, medias influence has
the capability of reaching and impacting those who have knowledge contrary to what the media

Mills 5
choses to present. If soon to be medical professionals perceptions can be skewed by the media,
then certainly too can the general publics. This is dangerous as it causes us to base our medical
concerns on what we gather from the media. Likewise, this means that should a significant
disease or any other medical concern arise, its potential danger may be underrated because of a
lack of sufficient media coverage.
As we become dependent media in our everyday lives we are becoming less concerned
for the implications of doing so. While some aspects of the influence media has on medicine,
such as our perception on and awareness of medical issues, may be unavoidable, we should still
approach the medical information present in media cautiously. With errors in factuality having
been shown to be surprisingly common, and even worse, gone wholly unchecked, we are
exposing ourselves to a potential health risk when we blindly accept information on medicine in
media. Despite the growing negative effects of medias impact on medicine, we can avoid these
potential dangers by returning to the original source for medical knowledge, doctors and medical
professionals, and turning away from media as our main source. While medias contribution to
medicine may not be entirely negative, we still need to be aware of the danger that is becoming a
reality, especially when it involves risking our health.

Mills 6
Works Cited
Fishman, Jessica M., David Casarett, and Leonard Davis. "Mass Media and Medicine: When the
Most Trusted Media Mislead." Mayo Clinic Proceedings 81.3 (2006): 291-293. Print.
Friedman, Lester D. Cultural Sutures: Medicine and Media. Durham, N.C: Duke University
Press, 2004. Print.
Shuchman, Miriam, and Michael S. Wilkes. "Medical Scientists and Health News Reporting: a
Case of Miscommunication." Annals of Internal Medicine. 126.12 (1997): 976-82. Print.
Yavchitz, A, I Boutron, A Bafeta, P Ravaud, I Marroun, P Charles, and J Mantz.
"Misrepresentation of Randomized Controlled Trials in Press Releases and News
Coverage: a Cohort Study." Plos Medicine. 9.9 (2012). Print.
Young, Meredith E, Geoffrey R. Norman, and Karin R. Humphreys. "Medicine in the Popular
Press: the Influence of the Media on Perceptions of Disease." Plos One. 3.10 (2008).
Print.