Transcript Public Health in the Media

Public Health in the Media
Patterns of health reporting in the media
King’s Fund work
 Health in the News: Risk, Reporting
and Media influence (2003)
 Media and Public Health: a consultation
conducted on behalf of the Department
of Health (June 2004)
2
HEALTH IN THE NEWS:
RESEARCH FOCUS
 Exploring views of public health experts and
policy makers on media coverage of health
issues
 Analysis of news content in selected media
outlets on a range of health issues
 Reporters and editors asked for their views
on the research findings and why stories
make the news.
3
HEALTH IN THE NEWS: PUBLIC
HEALTH EXPERTS
 Mostly unhappy with way health covered in
the media
 Neglected issues important to public health
 Give undue prominence to scare stories and
NHS issues
 Don’t convey risk accurately
 Understand journalists priorities – but regret
news culture which is ‘Short-termist, simple,
politically driven’
4
HEALTH IN THE NEWS: Content
Analysis
 All health coverage for
 BBC News – Sept 2000-Sept 2001
– The Ten, Newsnight, 5 Live, 8am News
 Newspapers - Oct-Dec 2002
– Guardian, Mirror and Mail –
19 categories – Later recoded into 8.
5
HEALTH IN THE NEWS: IMBALANCE
Number of Stories - BBC and Newspapers
160
140
150
120
100
80
60
75
40
20
0
Public Health
Health Scares
6
HEALTH IN THE NEWS: DEATHS
PER STORY
Deaths per Story: Newspaper news
5000
4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
Newspaper news
Smoking
Alcohol
Obesity
vCJD
AIDS
Measles
Mental
Disorders
4444
846
2538
1.5
22.5
0.375
1375
7
Does it matter?
 Impacts on public behaviour – eg MMR
 Policy makers sometimes take cue
from the media
 Government priorities and spending
patterns influence media agendas and
public behaviour in ways that are
mutually reinforcing (e.g. waiting lists)
8
THE PROJECT
 Part of the Department of Health’s
“Choosing Health” consultation for the
White Paper
 Could we consult “the media” on their
attitudes?
 Could we do it in month?
9
THE QUESTIONS
 Did anyone in media feel it was their
responsibility to cover public health?
 Did anyone feel responsible towards
the health of their readers/viewers?
 Could the government do anything
differently to get their message across?
10
METHOD
 Round table seminar of journalists
(n=9)
 Telephone interviews (n=16)
 Quick survey of crude story numbers
on NEON
11
WHAT’S CHANGED?
Stories with "obesity" in headline:
National Papers
Stories
600
500
400
300
200
projected
to June 2004
100
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Year
12
WHAT’S CHANGED
"Obesity" compared to "NHS Crisis" headlines:
national papers
600
500
Number
400
NHS Crisis
300
Obesity
200
100
0
1999
2000
2001
2002
year
2003
2004
13
WHY THE INTEREST?




NHS: not so interesting anymore
Personal experience
Public finds it interesting
Because we’re on the road to financial
ruin if we don’t do something about it
 NOT because the government is
concerned about it
14
RESPONSIBILITY
 I have no intention of becoming the
purveyor of Government
propaganda, or of being used as a
mouthpiece for any organisation or
business concern. My first duty is to
defend the editorial independence of
this paper
15
RESPONSIBILITY
 No sense of responsibility to help the
government to get their message
across
 Some sense of responsibility to readers
or listeners’ health
 Overall responsibility to “the story”
16
REGIONAL CAMPAIGNS
 “Idle Eric”: Newcastle Evening
Chronicle
 “Lose More in 2004” (as above)
 ITV’s “Britain On The Move” campaign
 “A Chance To Live” campaign: Northern
Echo
17
REGIONAL ENTHUSIASM
 It’s one of the biggest issues facing
our country and the people in this
area- there’s a lot of eating pies and
chips, drinking and smoking tabs
here, and it’s got to be tackled
 I’m sure we’ve saved lives of people
in our area and improved health. I
think we are very proud of that
18
MISTRUST
 Anti government papers: suspicious of
everything
 BBC News: question everything
 “it makes you look like a brave and
honest journalist to say
government’s got it all wrong”, than
to say “hmmm, maybe they’ve got it
right”
19
RELATIONS WITH GOVERNMENT
 BSE, MMR: sense that Government is
not always being honest
 Civil servants: sometimes frightened to
talk
 Over controlling government: has the
reverse effect
 Regional experience: no better?
20
RELATIONS WITH MEDIA
 We banged our head against a brick
wall with one PCT who could not see
the benefits of joining forces with us
initially. They simply couldn’t see the
opportunity staring them in face,
thousands of pounds worth of free
publicity .. they were blind to it .
21
KEY POINTS
 Some media are very “engaged”
 Bandwagon is difficult to steer: impact
hard to measure
 Mistrust of government simmering
 Role for an independent purveyor of
fine quality public health information?
22