Deconstructing cancer: What makes a good-quality news story?

Amanda J. Wilson, Billie Bonevski, Alison L. Jones, David A. Henry

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

4 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Objective: To describe an in-depth analysis of the content and quality of stories about new cancer interventions in Australian media. Design and setting: Search of the Media Doctor Australia media-monitoring website for stories about newly reported cancer interventions, including drugs, diagnostic tests, surgery and complementary therapies, that had been collected from June 2004 to June 2009 and rated for quality using a validated rating instrument. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyse data and story content. Data from the website on stories about other new health interventions and procedures were compared. Main outcome measures: Differences in quality scores between cancer-related news stories ("cancer stories") and other stories, and between types of media outlet; differences in how cancer was reported in terms of cancer type, morbidity, mortality, and in the use of hyperbole and emotive language. Results: 272 unique cancer stories were critically reviewed by Media Doctor Australia. Cancer stories had significantly higher scores for quality than other stories (F = 7.1; df= 1; P = 0.008). Most cancer stories concerned disease affecting the breast or prostate gland, with breast cancer appearing to be over-represented as a topic relative to its incidence. Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant superiority for broadsheet newspaper stories over online stories (F = 12.7; df= 1; P < 0.001) and television stories (F = 10.7; df= 1; P = 0.001). Descriptions of morbidity and mortality were variable and often confusing in terms of numbers, time periods and locations. Literary devices including hyperbole and emotive language were used extensively, mostly by the researchers. Conclusions: While reporting of cancer in the general media is of low quality, many of the poorer aspects of content are directly attributable to the researchers. Researchers and journals need to do more to ensure that a higher standard of information about cancer is presented to the media.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)702-706
Number of pages5
JournalMedical Journal of Australia
Volume193
Issue number11/12
Publication statusPublished - 6 Dec 2010
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Neoplasms
Research Personnel
Language
Morbidity
Breast Diseases
Newspapers
Mortality
Television
Complementary Therapies
Routine Diagnostic Tests
Prostate
Outcome Assessment (Health Care)
Breast Neoplasms
Equipment and Supplies
Incidence
Health
Pharmaceutical Preparations

Cite this

Wilson, A. J., Bonevski, B., Jones, A. L., & Henry, D. A. (2010). Deconstructing cancer: What makes a good-quality news story? Medical Journal of Australia, 193(11/12), 702-706.
Wilson, Amanda J. ; Bonevski, Billie ; Jones, Alison L. ; Henry, David A. / Deconstructing cancer : What makes a good-quality news story?. In: Medical Journal of Australia. 2010 ; Vol. 193, No. 11/12. pp. 702-706.
@article{c0b992e02bcd484fbbfa3c98d56176ef,
title = "Deconstructing cancer: What makes a good-quality news story?",
abstract = "Objective: To describe an in-depth analysis of the content and quality of stories about new cancer interventions in Australian media. Design and setting: Search of the Media Doctor Australia media-monitoring website for stories about newly reported cancer interventions, including drugs, diagnostic tests, surgery and complementary therapies, that had been collected from June 2004 to June 2009 and rated for quality using a validated rating instrument. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyse data and story content. Data from the website on stories about other new health interventions and procedures were compared. Main outcome measures: Differences in quality scores between cancer-related news stories ({"}cancer stories{"}) and other stories, and between types of media outlet; differences in how cancer was reported in terms of cancer type, morbidity, mortality, and in the use of hyperbole and emotive language. Results: 272 unique cancer stories were critically reviewed by Media Doctor Australia. Cancer stories had significantly higher scores for quality than other stories (F = 7.1; df= 1; P = 0.008). Most cancer stories concerned disease affecting the breast or prostate gland, with breast cancer appearing to be over-represented as a topic relative to its incidence. Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant superiority for broadsheet newspaper stories over online stories (F = 12.7; df= 1; P < 0.001) and television stories (F = 10.7; df= 1; P = 0.001). Descriptions of morbidity and mortality were variable and often confusing in terms of numbers, time periods and locations. Literary devices including hyperbole and emotive language were used extensively, mostly by the researchers. Conclusions: While reporting of cancer in the general media is of low quality, many of the poorer aspects of content are directly attributable to the researchers. Researchers and journals need to do more to ensure that a higher standard of information about cancer is presented to the media.",
author = "Wilson, {Amanda J.} and Billie Bonevski and Jones, {Alison L.} and Henry, {David A.}",
year = "2010",
month = "12",
day = "6",
language = "English",
volume = "193",
pages = "702--706",
journal = "Medical Journal of Australia",
issn = "0025-729X",
publisher = "AUSTRALASIAN MED PUBL CO LTD",
number = "11/12",

}

Wilson, AJ, Bonevski, B, Jones, AL & Henry, DA 2010, 'Deconstructing cancer: What makes a good-quality news story?' Medical Journal of Australia, vol. 193, no. 11/12, pp. 702-706.

Deconstructing cancer : What makes a good-quality news story? / Wilson, Amanda J.; Bonevski, Billie; Jones, Alison L.; Henry, David A.

In: Medical Journal of Australia, Vol. 193, No. 11/12, 06.12.2010, p. 702-706.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Deconstructing cancer

T2 - What makes a good-quality news story?

AU - Wilson, Amanda J.

AU - Bonevski, Billie

AU - Jones, Alison L.

AU - Henry, David A.

PY - 2010/12/6

Y1 - 2010/12/6

N2 - Objective: To describe an in-depth analysis of the content and quality of stories about new cancer interventions in Australian media. Design and setting: Search of the Media Doctor Australia media-monitoring website for stories about newly reported cancer interventions, including drugs, diagnostic tests, surgery and complementary therapies, that had been collected from June 2004 to June 2009 and rated for quality using a validated rating instrument. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyse data and story content. Data from the website on stories about other new health interventions and procedures were compared. Main outcome measures: Differences in quality scores between cancer-related news stories ("cancer stories") and other stories, and between types of media outlet; differences in how cancer was reported in terms of cancer type, morbidity, mortality, and in the use of hyperbole and emotive language. Results: 272 unique cancer stories were critically reviewed by Media Doctor Australia. Cancer stories had significantly higher scores for quality than other stories (F = 7.1; df= 1; P = 0.008). Most cancer stories concerned disease affecting the breast or prostate gland, with breast cancer appearing to be over-represented as a topic relative to its incidence. Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant superiority for broadsheet newspaper stories over online stories (F = 12.7; df= 1; P < 0.001) and television stories (F = 10.7; df= 1; P = 0.001). Descriptions of morbidity and mortality were variable and often confusing in terms of numbers, time periods and locations. Literary devices including hyperbole and emotive language were used extensively, mostly by the researchers. Conclusions: While reporting of cancer in the general media is of low quality, many of the poorer aspects of content are directly attributable to the researchers. Researchers and journals need to do more to ensure that a higher standard of information about cancer is presented to the media.

AB - Objective: To describe an in-depth analysis of the content and quality of stories about new cancer interventions in Australian media. Design and setting: Search of the Media Doctor Australia media-monitoring website for stories about newly reported cancer interventions, including drugs, diagnostic tests, surgery and complementary therapies, that had been collected from June 2004 to June 2009 and rated for quality using a validated rating instrument. A mixed-methods approach was used to analyse data and story content. Data from the website on stories about other new health interventions and procedures were compared. Main outcome measures: Differences in quality scores between cancer-related news stories ("cancer stories") and other stories, and between types of media outlet; differences in how cancer was reported in terms of cancer type, morbidity, mortality, and in the use of hyperbole and emotive language. Results: 272 unique cancer stories were critically reviewed by Media Doctor Australia. Cancer stories had significantly higher scores for quality than other stories (F = 7.1; df= 1; P = 0.008). Most cancer stories concerned disease affecting the breast or prostate gland, with breast cancer appearing to be over-represented as a topic relative to its incidence. Pairwise comparisons showed statistically significant superiority for broadsheet newspaper stories over online stories (F = 12.7; df= 1; P < 0.001) and television stories (F = 10.7; df= 1; P = 0.001). Descriptions of morbidity and mortality were variable and often confusing in terms of numbers, time periods and locations. Literary devices including hyperbole and emotive language were used extensively, mostly by the researchers. Conclusions: While reporting of cancer in the general media is of low quality, many of the poorer aspects of content are directly attributable to the researchers. Researchers and journals need to do more to ensure that a higher standard of information about cancer is presented to the media.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=78650204028&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Article

VL - 193

SP - 702

EP - 706

JO - Medical Journal of Australia

JF - Medical Journal of Australia

SN - 0025-729X

IS - 11/12

ER -

Wilson AJ, Bonevski B, Jones AL, Henry DA. Deconstructing cancer: What makes a good-quality news story? Medical Journal of Australia. 2010 Dec 6;193(11/12):702-706.